Following weeks of heated debates, marathon committee sessions and fiery public delegations, councillors gave the green light to the massive $418.8 million Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment project in a narrow vote.
A special session of council on Nov. 7 saw 15 councillors vote in favour of Lansdowne 2.0 with 10 opposed.
Those in support of the project included Couns. David Hill, Steve Desroches, Tim Tierney, Matthew Luloff, David Brown, Allan Hubley, Isabelle Skalski, Laura Dudas, Clarke Kelly, Stéphanie Plante, Marty Carr, Cathy Curry, Glen Gower, Catherine Kitts and Mayor Mark Sutcliffe.
Those opposed included Couns. Shawn Menard, Jeff Leiper, Laine Johnson, Sean Devine, Rawlson King, Jessica Bradley, Riley Brockington, Theresa Kavanagh, Ariel Troster and Wilson Lo.
Councillors opposed to Lansdowne 2.0 argued the lost “opportunity costs” associated with the project could instead be invested in other capital projects and facilities citywide.
Other opponents cited the threat of a looming economic crisis with massive cuts coming to the federal public service and the economic uncertainty that comes with a contract that extends to 2075.
Councillors in favour of Lansdowne 2.0 touted the economic benefits that come with redeveloping Lansdowne Park, with job creation during the five-year construction phase and more permanent jobs once the site becomes operational, along with the potential for attracting world-class events and talent to the newly renovated modern facilities.
Councillors on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns over how suitable the new arena would be for the highly popular Ottawa Charge of the Professional Women’s Hockey League and whether the deal could ensure the team remains as a long-term tenant.
Menard, whose Capital ward is home to Lansdowne Park, questioned staff on the “opportunity costs” that could have been spent on other capital projects and would be “foregone” once council moved forward with Lansdowne 2.0.
Coun. David Hill countered that notion by saying opportunity costs would not amount to “a surplus pot of gold” that could have gone to paying for other assets or projects in the city.
“Saying no to Lansdowne 2.0 does not simply translate to having an extra $419 bag of gold that we can spend on other projects,” Hill said. “It simply means that we lose that opportunity for the revenue that will be generated through that partnership (with OSEG).
“We put at risk a partnership that may well default or go insolvent within the next week or more. We don’t know, but that comes with the potential loss of teams. That comes with the potential loss of the Charge,” Hill said.
“We’ve heard people say we’re going to risk losing the Charge if we say yes to Lansdowne 2.0. We’re going to risk losing the Charge if we say no. Prove me wrong.”
Cyril Rogers, the city’s chief financial officer, said the opportunity costs associated with Lansdowne 2.0 would amount to the $130 million that would be contributed by taxpayers over a 40-year term and not the full $418.8 million price tag.
The remainder of that total cost would be generated by revenue that would not exist if Lansdowne 2.0 did not proceed.
“The value is there from all the revenue that we’re generating onsite,” Rogers explained, with 31 per cent of the total cost coming from the city and 69 per cent from onsite revenue sources.
“If we choose not to proceed with Lansdowne, it’s not an opportunity cost, it’s a significant cost,” Rogers said. If council did not proceed with Lansdowne 2.0, Rogers said, the price tag would be almost double.
“The asset will then translate into a $753-million investment, which I don’t have a funding strategy for,” he said.
Debbie Stewart, the city’s manager of strategic initiatives, cited a recent Deloitte study that concluded Lansdowne 2.0 presents a “significant strategic investment” for Ottawa’s future economic growth.
“From an economic development perspective, there is a significant and long-lasting economic benefit that would be derived from this redevelopment,” Stewart told councillors.
“That includes thousands of jobs, close to 5,000 jobs during the construction period and an increase in net new jobs for operations once we get to that stage.
“It stimulates GDP growth at a time when the economy is facing a lot of uncertainty,” Stewart said. “We know that investing in construction infrastructure projects does have a significant multiplier effect. So you’ll see direct, indirect and induced benefits throughout the economy.”
Stewart said the renovated Lansdowne Park facilities would also be key in attracting talent to the city to use the stadium and the arena.
According to the Deloitte report, Lansdowne 2.0 is projected to create 497 new jobs annually between 2026 and 2034. The opening of the new event facilities in 2030 is projected to create an additional 240 permanent jobs.
Once the residential and new retail facilities become operational in 2035, the increase in employment will reach a total of 427 jobs, with the creation of 187 additional new jobs, according to the report.
“This is the kind of asset that we want to use debt on,” Rogers said. “This is a 40-year asset that we get some great rates on, and it’s an asset that will be around for 40 years… So this is a core asset that we should be leveraging our investments on.”
OSEG president and CEO Mark Goudie said it’s not just the OSEG-owned Ottawa Redblacks and Ottawa 67’s — or the Charge — that benefit from renovated modern facilities.
Goudie said Lansdowne Park hosts 180 events per year, and staff have said the city has missed out on numerous other opportunities due to a lack of appropriate facilities.
Goudie said it was the 2017 Grey Cup hosted at TD Stadium when he and OSEG first realized “something needed to happen to ensure we didn’t start eroding at Lansdowne and we would ensure we’d be financially viable for the term of the agreement.”
He referenced a marathon two-day committee session where dozens of opponents and proponents of Lansdowne 2.0 lined up to speak in public delegations.
“All the material users of our facilities either sent a letter of support or came and delegated to support the project and to communicate that we are an awesome partner of theirs, and we help them run their businesses successfully,” Goudie said. “We are a good partner. We help them do better business, we help them become more successful.”
Coun. Ariel Troster questioned why the city “should be in the stadium business at all.”
“I fundamentally believe that public land should be used for public good, not to line the pockets of corporations and drive up the cost of tickets to events in a space that taxpayers are paying for,” Troster said. “What is the urgency here? The urgency is the financial pressure being placed on the city by OSEG.
“Should public land even turn a profit? I believe that’s a legitimate question we should be asking, and I believe we can imagine something better.”
Coun. Catherine Kitts countered by saying, “We have to do something. We can’t allow this city asset to continue to crumble and to decay.
“What’s in front of us took six years and cost $22 million in planning studies and due diligence to get us to this place.
“Lansdowne 2.0 isn’t perfect in my opinion. But expecting perfection in a project of this scale is a tall order. City building is never that simple. If it were, I think our jobs would be a lot easier,” Kitts said.
“And we have seen city building projects, major city building projects stall or die at this table, only to return years later with a much higher price tag.”
Our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark our homepage and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed.
