With apologies to Ms Gwynne Hunt I did not realize we had a Fringe Festival in Abbotsford. But then, when we did not have the Post to provide a forum for different voices within the twin communities, we ended up far to often without any reporting of out of the ordinary happenings and so you end up with “…the greatest kept theatre secret in Abbotsford”. For some reason the idea of a Fringe Festival has a great deal of interest to those of us whom inhabit the fringe. Even more appealing is the concept of participation in the Fringe by the fringe. I envision the homelessinabbotsford.com Players presenting a new and original one act play: our story opens on a council chamber where a council meeting is in progress…. With the current setting for the fringe there seems a certain synergy, not to mention justice and biting wit, in such a play presentation.
Our play opens. Standing at the supplicant’s podium before council a young woman laments “… the theatre arts have been set aside with vague promises. We were not asked…” Council members roar with laughter “ASK? You want us to ASK?” One councillor laughs so hard he falls out of his chair to the floor. “Why would we ask the actual users of facilities in the City what the City NEEDS? Next you would expect us to listen to the citizens. What then? Build the projects that are needed and would be well used by groups and people within the city? HA! Business as usual? Old boy’s network? Vested interests? You obviously do not understand, how we do things the Abbotsford Way and pay no attention to common sense. I suppose you think planning is a good idea. What then? Stop chasing the homeless around, show some leadership and address the problems associated with homelessness?”
“That young lady would start us down the slippery slope to rational action and abandoning our old unsuccessful, inadequate and feeble ways of thinking and running Abbotsford. Start doing that and people will come to expect you to act and solve challenges. We couldn’t have that.”
I have often wondered why the City does not ask the current users of facilities in the city, and any projected end users, what they think the City’s needs are vis-à-vis current and future facilities. I have concluded that if they do not ask they do not get answers they do not want. Thus the City can proceed willy-nilly in whatever manner they feel like, without being burdened by any common sense or planning.
With Ms Hunt having brought it to my attention I must admit that upon consideration I have a lot of questions about the decision to build a fancy museum slash art gallery as a single $10 million dissipation of money for the Arts in Abbotsford. If the City wishes to truly become the city it likes to believe it is then it needs to consider the importance of a lively performing arts scene to a city’s cultural life. I for one would really like to hear an explanation of why there was no public discussion or debate about building venues for live performances by a wide range of groups in Abbotsford?
Better yet, why was it that city staff and city council were the ones to get to decide, behind closed doors, without wide public input and discussion? Does it not seem sensible to ask those who use the facilities or to get ideas from the broadest possible spectrum of the various sub-communities such as the Arts? What was I thinking? We are speaking of Abbotsford, I should know better than to expect them to ask anything of those who pay the bills, much less make thoughtful, careful, rational and at least semi-intelligent decisions – about anything.
Upon hearing of the decision to waste $55 million on the (hopefully soon to be resoundingly NOed!) proposed boondoggle my first thought was I had not known the Canucks were moving out of Vancouver and relocating to Abbotsford. What else could explain building such an extravagant palace? Otherwise, ignoring the pie-in-the-sky maybes, you are building a white elephant with burdensome operating and upkeep costs that is at this time and in the foreseeable future not what is needed on the recreation front to serve the needs of the users of the facilities. I say “the needs of the users” because that is how we should be deciding what we need to design and build – NOT the egos or wishes of councillors and city staff.
What can be said about the arrogance of acquiring the land before the people even get a chance to express their opinion? This is typical behaviour for council and the City ignoring reality, not addressing pressing issues and needs, failing to consult and LISTEN to the people who use city facilities. Worse they fail to consult and listen to the citizens and groups within the city about what is needed to nurture arts, culture, sports, and recreation in OUR (not the council or city staff’s private kingdom) City.
By the way, is this being built for use by the citizens of Abbotsford or is it a ‘gift’ being built for the fairly exclusive use and benefit of UCFV? If it is for the city why build in that out of the way location? It seems to me that if UCFV is to be a major beneficiary of this structure they should be making a significant capital contribution – at the very least. If UCFV needs this type of facility to further its pursuit of University status and to benefit its sports programs and teams it should be building said structure itself. That way the funds could be directed to building structures to meet the current and future needs of the Citizens, the people paying for them.
The council and staff are touting illusionary uses and benefits. Here is a project, costing considerably less than $55 million, that would have many benefits for the city and citizens – add a 50 meter competition worthy pool to the ARC upgrade. We have two swim clubs in town, one of whom the City owes. The Whalers raised money to upgrade facilities at Centennial outdoor pool on the understanding of upgrades to the pool tank. The Whalers kept their potion of the understanding. A highly successful well established swim club, a new swim club based at MRC (which is OK only as a make-do location) and the city lacks a venue for them to hold swim meets. Did you enjoy the BC summer games a few years ago? Well, you will not be seeing any other competitions of that nature without an adequate swimming competition venue. So say goodbye to all the economic, press and tourist fallout from that or similar competitions. Oh, lest I forget, what about the high school swim teams? Not to mention the advantages for the regular length swimmers in particular and general public access in general of a well thought out, flexible and well designed pool facility. It also seems to me to be sensible to design and build both the pool and recreation additions together to allow you to plan in order to achieve the maximum benefit to other groups within the community, such as meeting rooms.
The original legacy plan was to total $83 million but was ambitious and proposed to meet a wide variety of the City’s capital needs and died in main part because the council and staff made it an all-or-nothing choice. Apparently it would have been to close to consulting the citizens for their opinion on the needs and wants of the community to have allowed the citizens to vote on all the proposed capital projects. The current $85 million dollar proposal continues their abysmal record of failing to ask the citizens and interested groups and parties what the City really NEEDS. We went from $83 million for a wide variety of capital projects to a $2 million more costly $85 million dollar plan for three projects – two unneeded palaces and the useful and user friendly ARC expansion (assuming proper thought and design). More money, less bang for our buck – which seems to be some kind of “law of the universe” about government project spending.
Want a radical but very beneficial idea? Turn the entire city into a WI-FI area network. The City, fire and police get marvellous communications and the citizens all gain access to the internet on a more affordable basis. Internet providers will scream, to the undoubted delight of frustrated customers, but who cares. The best side benefit is to those who cannot afford monthly internet charges in a world where access to the internet is becoming more and more required. We have programs to recycle older computers to those lacking the money because they are a needed tool. For a small capital upgrade we could, under this proposal provide them with access to the World Wide Web.
Finally: the increase in costs, before the large cost over runs one gets with these projects, raises questions of timing. We currently have an over-heated construction market which we know will be adjusting itself when the massive building associated with the Olympics ends. This should begin to occur before the Olympics as the numerous projects are completed, freeing up construction capacity that will be looking for something to build, even at reduced prices. It would seem that instead of wasting even more money on a referendum beating the dead horses of Palaces housing art gallery, museum and arena we could better use the funds to actually consult the Community as to its wants and needs. Depending on the effect this would have on the one good idea proposed in the expansion of ARC.
What is really needed is to get out and really consult the community, citizens and community groups to determine what their needs and wants are. We can then evaluate these wants and needs to determine demand and priorities. With the input of the people who will be using the facilities we could plan and design facilities that meet the end users needs as opposed to the current wing it, start building it and develop plans as you go along building practices of the City. This way Ms Gwynne Hunt and all the other often ignored and frustrated interested parties would have a chance to be heard and to provide input into the decision process. A process that needs to be conducted in an open and transparent manner rather than “business as usual” with decisions made by Staff and Council behind closed doors and the public’s backs. Yes this would cause some delay, which in this case is beneficial as it would move construction out of the stratosphere of the building boom into the bang for the buck region of the post-boom era. Now there is a new concept for council and staff, fiscal responsible behaviour.
Perhaps this time around we can get an open-minded examination of the proposals, contrasted with what would best serve the needs of citizens not the usual vested or hidden interests. I have hope of the possibility of this occurring since there now exists a forum for addressing these issues as opposes to the old “cheering sections” that always supported and avoided opposing views the time and again lame-brained practices and actions of the City. Viva the Post and revolutionary, thoughtful, responsible behaviour by and on behalf of the citizens of Abbotsford.