Should cities fund and build sporting facilities for residents? If so, which ones? And to what degree?
The question is simple but important and yet there appears to be a massive void when it comes to a formal process to answer these questions.
The lack of guidelines to evaluate what sports services to provide allows various city officials to make arbitrary - and often costly and inexplicable - decisions that often end up in tears.
The latest of these is the St. Michel soccer complex, which will now cost at least $40 million, far higher than the original estimate when the project was approved by Mayor Tremblay. (No big surprise if you see how many well-paid experts they have talking in that video above - Chimples)
Consider that the ambitious double-underground rink/outdoor pool project in Westmount cost the same.
In the case of Westmount, voters were invited to oppose the scheme but failed to do so in adequate numbers, even though many argued that an indoor pool would be used by far more people than a second rink.
Indeed the question is legit: should a city fund a facility that only a tiny fraction of its residents will ever use? If so, what's the numerical formula, 3 percent, 11 percent?
The cost paid by taxpayers for sports facilities is also often more than financial. City parks are often carved up and sacrificed for various sports associations whose players mostly don't live anywhere near the area, at the expense of local residents who do.
But to what extend should nearby residents have a say in the nature of the park? In Cote St. Paul recently a group of citizens blocked a new artificial turf field even though it would have had several advantages over the grass.
That may or may not have been a good decision but the process that led to the decision was – as always – haphazard and unguided by any sports zoning code.
Psychology dictates that people go along with a crowd and a councillor – when ambushed by a demand from what seems like a significant group – will simply give in without thinking that the vast majority of those who aren't present or being consulted might vigorously oppose the project.
So while it might look democratic, public consultations are often not because the silent majority doesn't get consulted.
That's why it's absolutely essential to create sports-funding guidelines.
Another example of the disaster that can occur in the absence of such guidelines: in Oxford Park 14,000 square feet of green space were paved over and fenced off with provincial government funds and the local councillor's approval, simply because some obscure group showed up to a council meeting and asked for it.
Had any real discussion or research been put in prior that, better solutions could be have been found, for example the creation of courts on an already-paved city site further west, without cost to any of the all-to-rare green space in the area.
Later in NDG a popular gymnastics club called Flex Arts was closed by the borough, which declined to renovate the building, at the very time that they were pouring vast sums into sprucing up a hockey area a few blocks.
Why the mainly-male attendant ice rink was deemed worthy of funding while the mainly female gymnastics centre was not remains a mystery.
And while there are internationally-accepted rules of thumb for such urban planning issues as green space – where a rough acreage-to-population rule exists - there appears to e a void when it comes to questions about sports funding.
The current system will only lend itself to more improvisation and incoherency.
Mayor Coderre - who was once a federal Sports Minister – should appoint someone (I'll do it, if asked) to head a committee to create sports funding guidelines.
Over the years many myths have gone unchallenged concerning the nature of sports. In the States the Midnight Basketball program was funded based on the idea that black males would be getting into crime if they weren't played basketball.
But then again maybe if they weren't encouraged to play basketball those same people would have been at home studying how to repair motors or reading books to their children?
As for the way-too-expense soccer sports complex, another alternative could cost one tenths as much.
A few years ago Concordia paid just $4 million to install a removable roof over an artificial turf surface.
Indeed such roofs could be installed over countless tennis courts, soccer fields to make facilities usable year round but once again, neighbours might object to having a massive tempo in their local park for six months per year.
Guidelines are necessary to know how to deal with such questions when they arise.
Currently the only legal precedent that I can think of to deal with such questions was a residents' failed legal challenge to block the installation of fenced-off plastic field on Fletcher's field, which has left the door open for cities and boroughs to do whatever they wish.
The question is simple but important and yet there appears to be a massive void when it comes to a formal process to answer these questions.
The lack of guidelines to evaluate what sports services to provide allows various city officials to make arbitrary - and often costly and inexplicable - decisions that often end up in tears.
The latest of these is the St. Michel soccer complex, which will now cost at least $40 million, far higher than the original estimate when the project was approved by Mayor Tremblay. (No big surprise if you see how many well-paid experts they have talking in that video above - Chimples)
Consider that the ambitious double-underground rink/outdoor pool project in Westmount cost the same.
In the case of Westmount, voters were invited to oppose the scheme but failed to do so in adequate numbers, even though many argued that an indoor pool would be used by far more people than a second rink.
Indeed the question is legit: should a city fund a facility that only a tiny fraction of its residents will ever use? If so, what's the numerical formula, 3 percent, 11 percent?
The cost paid by taxpayers for sports facilities is also often more than financial. City parks are often carved up and sacrificed for various sports associations whose players mostly don't live anywhere near the area, at the expense of local residents who do.
But to what extend should nearby residents have a say in the nature of the park? In Cote St. Paul recently a group of citizens blocked a new artificial turf field even though it would have had several advantages over the grass.
That may or may not have been a good decision but the process that led to the decision was – as always – haphazard and unguided by any sports zoning code.
Psychology dictates that people go along with a crowd and a councillor – when ambushed by a demand from what seems like a significant group – will simply give in without thinking that the vast majority of those who aren't present or being consulted might vigorously oppose the project.
So while it might look democratic, public consultations are often not because the silent majority doesn't get consulted.
That's why it's absolutely essential to create sports-funding guidelines.
Another example of the disaster that can occur in the absence of such guidelines: in Oxford Park 14,000 square feet of green space were paved over and fenced off with provincial government funds and the local councillor's approval, simply because some obscure group showed up to a council meeting and asked for it.
Had any real discussion or research been put in prior that, better solutions could be have been found, for example the creation of courts on an already-paved city site further west, without cost to any of the all-to-rare green space in the area.
Later in NDG a popular gymnastics club called Flex Arts was closed by the borough, which declined to renovate the building, at the very time that they were pouring vast sums into sprucing up a hockey area a few blocks.
Why the mainly-male attendant ice rink was deemed worthy of funding while the mainly female gymnastics centre was not remains a mystery.
And while there are internationally-accepted rules of thumb for such urban planning issues as green space – where a rough acreage-to-population rule exists - there appears to e a void when it comes to questions about sports funding.
The current system will only lend itself to more improvisation and incoherency.
Mayor Coderre - who was once a federal Sports Minister – should appoint someone (I'll do it, if asked) to head a committee to create sports funding guidelines.
Over the years many myths have gone unchallenged concerning the nature of sports. In the States the Midnight Basketball program was funded based on the idea that black males would be getting into crime if they weren't played basketball.
But then again maybe if they weren't encouraged to play basketball those same people would have been at home studying how to repair motors or reading books to their children?
 |
| Con U's soccer roof cost only $4 million |
A few years ago Concordia paid just $4 million to install a removable roof over an artificial turf surface.
Indeed such roofs could be installed over countless tennis courts, soccer fields to make facilities usable year round but once again, neighbours might object to having a massive tempo in their local park for six months per year.
Guidelines are necessary to know how to deal with such questions when they arise.
Currently the only legal precedent that I can think of to deal with such questions was a residents' failed legal challenge to block the installation of fenced-off plastic field on Fletcher's field, which has left the door open for cities and boroughs to do whatever they wish.