HawthorneVillager.com

westender wrote : Please explain how the 38 million dollar facility that was previously planned would have less of an economic impact than a velodrome. Or is it your opinion that building any recreational building is a bad idea?

Isn't this statement something of a non seqitur? First how can you state with certainty that they WILL be future Milton residents? Freemantrail has already made the point about athletes wanting to train with the world's elite. Golf and winter sports are prime examples of sports where Canada has world class facilities and yet we hear of skiers training at Park City! Jessica Shepley, an Oakville native and one of Canada's most promising young lady golfers was a member of our own Trafalgar Golf Club but she went to the University of Tennessee to hone her skills! I would have thought that they go were the great coaches are and in sport the coaches are frequently not of the same nationality as the athletes.

Secondly I agree that there is a "possibility" of the Velodrome being turned into a facility that will attract the best of the best and help bring our Canadian cyclists home to train. However if that happens you then have to heed the words of the Sierra Business Plan that the more successful the velodrome becomes as a world class cycling facility the less successful it is as a community recreational facility!

Martin

Is everyone here out to lunch?

We don't need another playground for the Milton elite!

There are a few of us "average joes" out here trying to make a living in tough economic times. What we DON'T need is any more "white elephants" in Milton. Keep it to the basics. Keep our taxes at a reasonable level.

One point of confusion for most is the wording around the fact that the track will be world class and to be so will impact the usage of the entire building for the general population to use. While I do believe that may be true about the track itself, it's the infield area that will be dedicated to the multi-use and serves no purpose for the cyclists using the actual track.

More legitimate questions were brought forward publicly about the 2015 Pan Am Games this week in this newspaper and in view of the public-spending axes raised by Don Drummond, it would be nice to hear some real answers.

Charlie Smedmor did an op-ed piece this week crunching the only numbers that have been released to those paying for all this, namely taxpayers. This came after Milton’s Bruce Sharp presented a well-reasoned argument against the velodrome, a financial depth charge if ever there was one. Charlie certainly knows of what he speaks; he is one of Canada’s leading forensic accountants and takes a calm, reasoned approach to poking holes in accounting flim-flam. Nobody around here can locate the bottom line, or interpret it any better, than Smedmor.

It is strange that criticisms, including those printed here, are waved away with motherhood responses and pleas for blind trust.

Smedmor recommended, as have many others, that the ParaPan Games be run concurrently with the main Games, for reasons of both cost savings, by eliminating duplication of services, and reducing disruption. Better three weeks of fouled traffic than five, eh? The official response is that ParaPan organizers demand to be on their own.

Someone needs to stand up and say, “Tough. Let the disabled athletes share the big stage and maybe even big crowds, that they deserve. Besides, we can’t afford it. In case you haven’t heard lately, we’re so broke we’re going to be closing hospitals.”

The risk of increased taxes primarily lies with the Provincial Government and TO2015's handling of the Pan Am Games as a whole.

After 28 months, the admission that 60 per cent of the planned Pan Am venues will be changed is a red flag telling us that stormy seas lie ahead for both Games organizer TO2015 and taxpayers.

Can we afford the Games? The finances for the Games have been in deep trouble since Day 1. Simply put, the forecast is for minimal revenues, only $146 million, including just $39 million for tickets. Other revenue streams include $102 million for sponsorship and $6 million for broadcast and licencing.

In contrast, TO2015’s operating costs are budgeted at $720 million, meaning the Games will have a $574 million operating loss. Capital spending is currently budgeted as $708 million. Thus, every dollar of venue spending (presuming no white elephants are built) will have an 81-cent “operating loss surcharge.”

How can we avoid a wastefully extravagant Games? First, TO2015 must change its mindset. The Games cannot include every municipality, every sport and every frill. With a realistic mindset, other needed changes can then be implemented, including:

• Eliminate marginal events. ...

• Relocate the aquatics centre. ...

• Merge the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games. ...

• Shelve indoor velodrome plans. Milton is ready to commit to $45 million for a 250-metre indoor velodrome. However, an indoor velodrome operation is costly; North America has only one other of similar size. TO2015 needs to consider a cheaper outdoor composite-track velodrome at the CNE/Ontario Place.