It appears as if Winnipeg businessman David Asper is closing in on his dream of building a new stadium for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and with that new stadium, taking over the Football Club as it’s sole private owner.
Everything about Asper’s plan to put a new stadium at the University of Manitoba is brilliant and makes remarkable sense and yet there are still thousands of Winnipeggers who do not want to see a new stadium built.
When I run into those people — and believe me there are plenty of them — this is how I approach their arguments (to be fair, most of them are against everything, including clean water and sanitary toilets, but I digress). I will start with the cons — and how I argue those cons — and finish with a partial list of the pros…
CONS
1. The expense: It’s easy for individuals and groups to argue that a public investment of $35 million to $80 million for a new football stadium is not a priority. These are often the same people who will argue that $1 billion per year for the CBC is a valid expenditure (In 2008, the CBC paid $48 million in public money to win rights to the Olympics and another $65 million per season for Hockey Night in Canada. That’s $113 million for broadcast rights that would quickly be paid by one of the private sports networks). Those people are just plain goofy. Until some taxpayer federation stands up with its nuts in the right place and says “The CBC is a waste of public funds,” ANY other argument against spending public money is moot.
2. The anti-sports people: Canada is not like the United States, where sports rule. In Canada, we have groups and individuals who actually lobby government claiming that the arts are worthy of public funding but sports are not. I call these people – many of them Canadian politicians – the people who were beaten up in high school Phys. Ed. You can’t argue with them. You can’t even bring health and fitness into the argument. They’re just against sport and they will never change.
3. Public money should be spent on reducing child poverty or health care: That was the mantra of the anti-arena factions during the Jets arena debate. Of course, when money wasn’t spent on the arena and the Jets left, the money wasn’t spent on reducing child poverty or health care, either. In fact, in a story in 2002 in the Winnipeg Free Press, child poverty in Manitoba has never been worse and health care was a mess of lineups, waiting lists and a lack of rural doctors and facilities. We didn’t spend the money on the arena, but we didn’t spend it on anything else. We just didn’t get any extra federal money at all.
4. Refurbish the current stadium: Fine idea. It’s been refurbished half a dozen times. The last time, for the 1999 Pan Am Games, made it more uncomfortable for patrons – the seats are too small for anyone over 6-feet tall and nearly impossible to sit in for anyone over 190 pounds. It’s been refurbished to the point that another one would be silly. This is always being proposed by architecture forms that are looking for work. The biggest problem is that it would leave the stadium on the same site and just about everyone now agrees that with parking and traffic problems as they are, it should be moved out of a commercial area.
5. A football stadium is only used 10 times per year: This one drives me crazy and you hear it constantly from the media in Winnipeg. That’s because the media in Winnipeg doesn’t waste any time doing research. In Winnipeg, the football stadium is currently used about 100 times a year, mostly by community and amateur groups. With the bubble Asper proposes to build, it will be used 365 days a year and could be used for more than 2,000 different reasons.
PROS
1. It’s time: The football stadium is almost 55 years old. I took part in the walk-through with David and the CFL before the 2006 Grey Cup. The building is cracking. The upper decks will fall on the lower decks at some point, whether that’s next week or 10 years from now, it will happen. Do you want to be mayor or premier when it happens?
2. The Bombers: Say what you like, win or lose, there is nothing in Manitoba that is shown and promoted more often – or even on a regular basis — by our national media than the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. It is our No. 1 daily media export. It is the most important national entity we have in this province. Nothing, not the symphony, not MTC, not Miriam Toews, nothing, is more widely known or more emotionally regarded from coast-to-coast than the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and yet, the team plays in a dump that looks like a dump on national TV. In other words, we project Winnipeg as a “dump” to the rest of the nation.
3. Community building: No one will suggest that the construction of the ballpark and the MTS Centre was “bad” for Winnipeg. The ballpark didn’t suck up much public funding, but the MTS Centre certainly did and yet it’s the busiest meeting place in the community. It was Dr. Lloyd Axworthy who said back in the early 1990s, “We need a new arena in Winnipeg for many reasons, none less important than community building. The arena brings people together and that’s important for the mere building of a community.”
4. The cost: An $80 million commitment to a public-private business venture isn’t that much money, if indeed the government can recoup in taxes an amount that justifies the partnership. Will governments get their investment back? Probably. And consider this. Why does Winnipeg always argue against itself? The province of Ontario, with significant help from the federal government, has proposed a bid for the 2015 Pan Am Games. The budget is $1.77 billion (Winnipeg’s bid in 1999 was $130 million and there was NO facilities legacy) and would include new football stadiums in both Toronto and Hamilton. Manitobans don’t EVER argue against billions in spending on recreational faciilties in other parts of the country, but we sure do argue against anything that might be good for us. Why is that?
5. Job Creation: This one can’t be argued. Major public-private construction partnerships create hundreds (maybe thousands) of jobs. From skilled trades to the receptionist’s job after the building is finished, it is the one benefit that can’t be argued. The proof is both the airport project and the hydro building. The naysayers will say, “Well, build something else like a theatre or an art gallery or a hospital,” and the response should be, “Sure, let’s do that, too.” You can’t say there isn’t enough money to go around because we have enough money to fight a war in Afghanistan, to spend billions on an Olympic Games, to spend $1.77 billion on a Pan Am Games. Money is a renewable resource. You want more government money, build more casinos and get further into sports gambling. There are billions being spent by Canadians on sports gambling off-shore. Right now, with our archaic sports gambling rules, we’re shipping more money off-shore every month. Meanwhile, when the Canadian Taxpayers Federation yells, “End the funding of the CBC,” I’ll start listening to people who claim they’re fighting for more responsible public spending.
6. Helping the Bombers become fiscally sound: Last year, the Bombers lost $216,000 with five sellout crowds. This year, with a rise in the salary cap to $4.1 million combined with a poor season on the field, the Bombers could lose as much as $2 million. Those losses, whether large or small, will continue for many years to come without (a) a new stadium and (b) the retail portion of Asper’s proposal that helps offset costs to the club. Currently, the city and province pump about $3.6 million each into the club, on average, per season and have done so since 1998. You may have read that Lyle Bauer et al got the Bombers out of debt. That statement is only true if you count $5.8 million in bad debts to Manitobans that were stayed, not written off, by the city and province. As long as government – YOU – continue to pay the debts, the Bombers keep going. That will remain the case, until such time as the Asper plan – or one like it – is implemented.
