Just how does one make a 10 X 20 foot electronic sign that is designed to be obtrusive and get your attention ‘aesthetically pleasing’?

And given that electronic signs have two sides would it not be more accurate to say Abbotsford is getting six signs? Or at least getting the visual pollution of six signs?

“stems the proliferation”?

To stem is ‘to stop, check or restrain’. I am not aware of the city being inundated with this type of visual pollution or of any proposals to visually pollute our cityscape with eye assaulting electronic billboards?

Council’s actions would seem to encourage others to consider the money to be made from this visual pollution; encouraging, not stemming the proliferation of visual pollution around our cityscape.

The attempt to use Amber alert as a justification is facetious since there are already signs on Highway One and around Abbotsford capable of giving an Amber alert.

No, what this is about is Council’s desperate search for sources of revenue so they can continue their spendthrift ways.

Business as usual for Council were it is all about Council’s wants and needs and ‘who cares about’ the wants or needs of Abbotsford’s citizens.

Council is suppose to focus on managing Abbotsford in the best interests of citizens, not on commercial business ventures.

The question that should have been asked is not how much money the city can make, but whether we want this type of visual pollution sprouting up like weeds around  Abbotsford.

While other cities in BC fight to protect their citizens from this type of visual pollution Abbotsford council, with dollar signs glowing in their eyes, happily sell Abbotsford’s citizens out; opening the door to visual pollution the extent of which only time will reveal.

Abbotsford, where the cityscape is littered with brightly glaring Signs of Council’s mismanagement and blatant disregard for the needs and best interests of Abbotsford citizens.

I see mayor Peary has changed the negative label he applies to any who dare disagree with him.

‘Naysayers’ have now become ‘critics’. Perhaps because the use of ‘naysayers’ reminds citizens that the predictions of the naysayers about the outcome and consequences of building the AESC have proven fairly accurate. Especially in contrast to the wildly inaccurate ‘everything will be wonderful’ predictions, claims and promises made by city staff and council.

When did critical review and evaluation of expenditures that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars become a bad thing?

Without the feedback provided by critical review and evaluation companies, countries, provinces and municipalities can easily end up wasting millions upon millions of dollars on projects that become white elephants and money pits. At least companies, countries, provinces and municipalities lacking papal infallibility.

Admittedly one needs solid self esteem to accept and examine the feedback provided by critical review, acknowledging oversights or mistakes and making changes as needed.

Personally, I must acknowledge that in my analysis and evaluation of the proposal to build the AESC I did not foresee that council would saddle taxpayers with a $75 million dollar liability for the Heat (of which $60 million remains for the 8 years the revenue guarantee has left).

Fortunately (or should that be unfortunately?) taxpayers are only out $5 – $6 – $7 million rather than the maximum possible $15 million for the first two years of the revenue guarantee.

I admit I failed entirely to anticipate that council would ignore the law – flout the law -break the law – and put taxpayers at risk for $75 million dollars by signing an illegal revenue guarantee with the Heat ownership.

As to Mayor Peary’s latest derogatory term for those who disagree with him:

Labelling me a critic or naysayer does not change what I am.

A person of common sense with an appreciation of financial reality and the need to act in a financially responsible manner.

A person who believes council should be acting in the best interest of and to address the needs of the city and its citizens and not council’s ego.

A person of ethics who believes that when subsidizing a hockey team is against the law council should respect the law rather than, as this council chose,  ignoring or finding ways to circumvent the law.

A person who feels that if the only benefit (or beneficiaries) of an economic impact report is the re-election campaign(s) of elected officials, payment for the report should come out of the pockets of those seeking re-election and not out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Not really surprising that with an election only a few months away the mayor and council felt the need for an economic impact study on the AESC.

After all, with the AESC’s appetite for consuming taxpayer dollars, its multi-million dollar subsidy to a professional hockey team, its multi-million dollars subsidy for well connected local citizens to buy themselves said professional hockey team and the consequences of council’s decisions driving property taxes, facility admission costs, field rentals and other city fees and charges into the stratosphere – mayor and council were desperate for something – anything – that would allow them to claim the AESC was in some way good for the community.

In exchange for pouring tens of thousands more taxpayer dollars into the AESC’s black hole, mayor and council got a report with numbers they could point to and claim the AESC was positive for the community.

Of course……given that the methodology used to calculate the economic impact made it impossible not to get numbers that could be claimed to be positive, while ensuring no negative impacts would be recognized……means the report is meaningless in terms of assessing the impact of the AESC on Abbotsford.

Not much of a surprise that paying big bucks for an impact report resulted in the use of methodology that served mayor and council’s need for numbers that obscure and/or ignore actual impacts.

Methodology that resulted in an increase in economic impact in this second impact report on the AESC, over the first report prepared before the AESC opened.

Despite the fact that none of the promises made by council as to the financial performance of the AESC has materialized economic impact increased. Which is what happens when you use ‘multipliers’ to calculate economic impact – the higher the expenditure you apply the multiplier to, the larger the economic impact becomes.

In other words – the bigger a disaster, the more of a money sucking black hole the AESC becomes, the higher the number for economic impact becomes.

As to the report’s claim of the creation of 305 FTE jobs, the report did include the information that FTE jobs meant full time equivalent jobs.

What the report did not include was information on how the number 305 was arrived at. From the information contained in the report the number 305 appears to have been plucked out of thin air.

Even if 305 could be supported, what full time equivalent jobs means if that a lot of different people got a few hours of work here and a few hours of work there. As anyone who is looking for work or trying to survive in Abbotsford can tell you what is needed in Abbotsford is not full time equivalent jobs but full time jobs paying wages sufficient to live on.

Another non-surprise concerning the report is that the City’s news release as well as Mayor Peary’s comments omitted to note or draw the attention of taxpayers to the $15,208,000 Abbotsford portion of total AESC expenditures.

Or that – since if you read the report on economic impact you would discover the methodology used, the lack of any support for the claimed 305 FTE jobs and the $15,208,000 Abbotsford portion of total AESC expenditures – if you wanted to read the report it was not easily available on the City’s web site but required on to request a copy of the report from city hall.

Finally concerning mayor Peary’s statement “The critics of the sports centre either don’t understand, or choose not to understand, that there are some benefits.”

The question is not whether there are some benefits to the centre, obviously the ownership group and their businesses derive substantial benefits from the centre and from the pocketbooks of Abbotsford’s beleaguered taxpayers.

The question is about a) the benefits that the taxpayers should receive for their $15,208,000 portion of total AESC expenditures and b) how anyone with common sense, an understanding of fiscal reality and who behaves in a fiscally responsible manner could or would be expected to place any value on the expensive drivel contained in this new report on the economic impact of the AESC.