Large Venue Entertainment Center. If You Build it... what then?
All right. Let's get it out there.
Let's get real about the Large Venue Entertainment Center.
First, some facts. The proposed LVEC would:
- Seat 5,000 people
- Be located downtown in order to stimulate businesses located within a 10-minute walf of the facility
- Have no on-site parking
- Host events mostly in the fall and winter months
- Generate $20 million per year.
- Cost $37 million to build
- Use energy efficient technologies
- Rely on current infrastructure - sewer, water, roads, etc.
Now, some hopes: The proposed LVEC would:
- Be built on time
- Not see cost overruns
- Attract new business
- Attract and retain a skilled workforce
- Make money
And finally, some most likely scenarios: The LVEC will:
- Take far longer to build than originally thought because of the inevitable "we never thought of that" incidents
- Be more costly than originally planned because of previously unforseen circumstances
- Be used just as often in the summer as the winter, which may or may not be very often
- Increase traffic and create parking hassles for regular downtown shoppers/dwellers.
- Provide a handful of people with well-paid positions, and a larger number of people with service-industry wages and security.
- Not be large enough for big-name acts
- Be protested against by older downtown inhabitants, who have historically complained about every event the City hosts - often with much success.
There are many other variables, I am sure, that I haven't even thought of. One good point made by former mayor Helen Cooper, is that the facility will put a strain on our infrastructure while at the same time suckin up money from the reserve fund put in place for infrastructure emergencies. Cooper and another former mayor, Gary Bennet, have both voiced their concerns over the new council's willingness to raid our reserve fund for this project. Neither of them support such a move.
Council is excited about their new project, that is clear from the FAQ on the LVEC on the city's web site. "What types of exciting events will be hosted at the LVEC?" one supposedly 'frequently asked question' ponders. While the answer lists gardening and dog shows as well as concerts and arts events, the obvious mission of the LVEC is to bring more hockey to town. If you look at the FAQ What are the risks to the community if an LVEC is not built?" the answer is telling:
- "Kingston does not have an appropriate venue for large concerts, trade shows and
exhibitions. Kingston is competing with other communities on a daily basis to
maintain and attract a skilled workforce, new business and to maintain a high
quality of life for its residents.
Several of Kingston's municipal competitors in Ontario pride themselves on successful sports and entertainment facilities. These communities enjoy the economic benefits that an LVEC provides and they proudly showcase and promote their facilities to the world.
Without a modern sports and entertainment centre not only is Kingston missing out on the economic benefits of being home to a Major Junior A Ontario Hockey League franchise, a major source of entertainment and community pride. Kingston is also at risk of losing the francise because:
First, the League no longer allows a franchise to play in a building with less than 4,000 seats, as franchises in smaller facilities are no longer financially viable.
Second, Kingston needs a facility which will attract the best players and player personnel. The low attendance numbers and the outdated facility make Kingston an undesirable place to watch and play hockey. "
So the risks are that we wouldn't attract the best hockey players and player personnel? Is that really a "risk?" Is trying to avoid the apparent fallout of that risk worth $37 million dollars?
The last point I'm going to touch on today, before going off to nurse this flu, is this myth of job creation and the LVEC. Let's think about it rationally.
It is safe to assume that not many "quality jobs" will be found in the LVEC itself. A few managerial jobs (which are likely already promised to someone or will be hired from out of town) might be good. Perhaps there will be unionized cleaning staff, which is nothing to sneeze at. However, the rest of the jobs wil be non-secure, part-time and low wage. Counterpersons, snack servers, ticket sellers - the usual arena stuff. Obviously the job creation that is spoken of (but not on the City's FAQ page, you'll notice) must be in regards to new, quality employers that will come here after they see that there's a spanking new OHL venue - right downtown!!!
What employers might these be, and won't they need infrastructure, too? The FAQ page states that building the LVEC in the burbs or out by the 401 would be more costly since there aren't the necessary sewage, power and water lines there. So - any potential new employer would face the same conundrum. And what of our doctor shortage? Will the LVEC help recruit doctors or change the legislation that currently prevents Kingston from having any more on the provincial payroll? Healthcare is part of infrastructure - as is public transportation, which right now is costly and quite inconvenient. Snow removal and garbage disposal are also major considerations. Kingston doesn't do a good job of either of these - especially not for commercial properties. (They have just discontinued all garbage pick-up for non-residential properties outside of the downtown core.) In addition, there are no public beaches here, the campground is gone and the amusement park also packed up its bags and left. Our parks are mostly just lovely swathes of grass, not swim-friendly, family-friendly, dog-friendly, skating or skiing friendly, or fishing-friendly recreational destinations. All of these issues go directly to quality of life.
The previous paragraph names some of the many considerations that business owners would examine before locating here, and the ways in which Kingston falls short. It is doubtful that a new medium venue entertainment center would entice them to forget about the lack of doctors and the lack of natural gas pipe lines to the 401. The LVEC certainly wouldn't help us fix any of those problems. In fact, the price tag and scope of the project would likely rob money and attention from them leaving them to degrade further.
If I were mayor, I'd run the city like I run my household. I badly want a flat screen tv - the kind you hang right on the wall.. you know the kind? I love them, and I'm not into gadgets, normally, but they are so neat and tidy and tempting. Am I planning to buy one? No. Why not? Because I need windows, darn it, and money only goes so far. Kingston Council, buy the windows first.
posted by Someone at 7:08 PM
22 Comments:
You might find the site created by a group named "Kingstonians Concerned About the LVEC" at http://kcal.ca.
I might find it there? Or it is there? :) Thanks for the comment - I'd love it if you'd encourage others to visit this site - more will be forthcoming, and I will endeavour to keep the conversation going.
Dear Sherri - You complain about not having "well paying jobs" in Kingston, you say your taxes are always rising...you say you have read and understand the business plan, marketing studies and have hands on experience with such facilities? If you have done the latter you would not be so poo, poo on the LVEC. And KCAL needs to do the same. There pillars of knowledge from a retired traffic cop - is no basis to believe half of what they claim to know. They have some valid points to consider but they provide most of their misinformation on most issues. Their supposed expert traffic cop -does not even have the expertise to relate (his findings) to the kingston transporation master plan! Yikes - and the studies they post through Anne-Marie are based on 100,000 seat baseball stadiums in urban decayed US cities! What evidence is this? I think both sides must get real and infact start by visiting an LVEC in their lifetime.
Ex - just what is your area of expertise? I think it's only fair that you share it with us since you are intent on dissecting everyone else's opinions based on their professions.
I didn't really poo-poo the LVEC at all. I merely laid out the facts, and then the likely outcomes. Can you argue with me based on those?
hey exhibitionist...
You can't just complain about the comment 'lack of well paying jobs and rising taxes' and then walk away from it. How is the LVEC going to help these two issues? Like all LVEC supporters you probably have know answers!!
Anonymous - the answers or evidence are on my link comments @
http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/
I do not wish to rehash an already solid argument. Maybe you should at least read them and open your mind to one that actually has worked in these facilities. Then and only then comment on your expertise. I certainly do not know what your "anonymous profession" that allows such confidence in what you know about these facilities. In fact; the supposed expert at Queen's that submitted some old US reports to the KCAL - admits (in writing) she has no experience or substantial evidence the LVEC's like ours does not create wealth in the long term. So, frankly - who are you to say differently?
This is ludicrous. Any intelligent person, with any life knowledge at all, should be able to see the current city government is not objective enough to see what the city needs. They see what their egos tell them to see and nothing else. Their opinions have been tainted by an aura of arrogance,secrecy,greed,egomania,etc. Their comments and actions on Market Square, Memorial Centre, Lake Ontario Park,etc. has shown they have no problem with lying to get what they want. When going into a project such as LVEC, with the debt ramifications it holds, taxpayers have to know their mayor and council have integrity and morals and perspective. Council has to bring every with them--not shove it up their noses. Rosen, Foster, Smith and their 'yes' people have cared nothing about what the majority thinks. They are more interested in themselves and their very rich friends. There has been no place to put such an arena downtown so the mayor just bullied through a place he will 'make'. A few will benefit--many will pay. Almost a million already spent. Who got all that money? The first spot was glaringly ill-conceived, yet we went on for months fighting them on that. No money for beaches or parks or anything else that is already here--just LVEC and Market Square. No, having an LVEC will not change the economy of this city. At least not for the better. To know that I don't need a degree in urban planning--just common sense.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I too would rather see the money being spent on many smaller projects like beaches, Lake Ontario Park, youth centers (not just hockey rinks that are *called* youth centers), better public transit, more pedestrian friendly downtown spaces, community events, etc.
I m not at all opposed to an LVEC, I just believe that the scope and timing are wrong.
Dear disgusted...
I appreciate you opinion and your perception with regards to (your needs) in this community. Unfortunately; you have not done your research. And if you have you would know that the City is not interested anymore in the running and maintence (and insurance liabilities) they have had to endure from the (past). Belle Park is only one example of the society at that time - that had little regard for enviromental issues. We are now paying for this. The free for all society we have had in the past is over! Thank goodness. insurance (and common sense) true common sense has provailed. Your common sense comes from conspiracy theories and lack of "the overall picture" on the realities of running a City in the 21st Century. (not the 19th) The City is under pressue by its citizens (you and me) to reduce costs, liability issues and deliver services at a affordable cost. The recent plant closings in Kingston has also reduced our tax base significantly and has put alot of pressure on residential tax increases and will continue to.
Let us not think for a moment the LVEC will not help with economic growth over the long term. I am not interested to lay around on new beaches and have the City plant trees - when we have more important long term needs that need addressing - like a good paying job!
YOu may not be interested in lying around on beaches - but that isn't the point. You want jobs to result from this investment, right?
Yes, I get that.
Jobs can result from employers seeing that Kingston has a lot to offer - things that INCLUDE beachfronts and a vibrant downtown, doctors, festivals, arts, entertainment, training opportunities, well-priced real estate, proximity to major centers, nice roads, good public transit, open spaces, bike trails, boating, fishing, golf, libraries, a ready workforce..
the LVEC would be like a big giant yellow pages ad for the city - but with nothing to back it up.
If we did all the small things right THEN we can advertise.
Jobs are clearly not going to result from the LVEC, as discussed.
I should add, too, that tax incentives and impost fees, etc are of major concern. I haven't mentioned them thus far, but these are a contributor (obviously) to who does and doesn't do business in Kingston.
It is my opinion that the downtown merchants pay a heck of a lot for the 'privilege' of that location.
I believe Kingston (in fact I know) Kingston has a high quality of life now! Employers know this. But, we are in the 21st century. Businesses will locate here for two main reasons. Tax incentives, proximity to markets, industrial infastructure and non union based/skilled emploees. Not new beaches and tree planting. Thats just out of touch. The LVEC would bring in potential businesses through trade shows, assocaition annual meetings, etc. The LVEC (at Anglin Bay) would be a beacon and economic engine platform in THE "regional centre" (Kingston).
Leave the tree planting and beaches to association fundraising and recreational departments.
We are in a competetive world - jobs 2000 + good paying ones have left - Norcom, Bombardier, Bell, Celenese, etc. Do you think for a moment they left because of our beachs? I think you are out of touch - of what is going on here!
Look, I haven't said anything about trees, and I resent the whole implication. "Tree-hugger" I am not.
The jobs left because there is cheaper labour elsewhere, period, end of story. Cheap labour will not be attracted by the LVEC. Tax incentives won't flow from the LVEC. Our geogrpahic location won't change, it'll be as central as ever.. and yet that hasn't brought us "good jobs."
This town in known to be anti-everything. There is a divide between the haves and the have-nots that is simply unreal here and I can't help but believe that that is a large part of the problem. the 'haves' have it too good to want anything to change.. and the 'have-nots' are kept completely out of the loop in terms of making contributions to the welfare of the city.
The few of us in the middle would benefit immensely from more public facilites for leisure - it would contribute to a contented and healthier population which might decrease on the job demands and make our labour pool more attractive. In addition, recreational spaces are meeting places for the two halves of the city to intermingle and share ideas.
You will certainly think me daft for saying all of this, but Kinston has woulnds that need to be healed and spending our money advertising a city (via the LVEC) as a great place to live will be wasted if, in fact, this is NOT a great place to live.
Sherri - I was not referring to you whats so ever.
"Anoymous" & disgusted said... seemed to suggest beachs and trees are the priorities here.
"Anonymous said...
hey exhibitionist...
You can't just complain about the comment 'lack of well paying jobs and rising taxes' and then walk away from it. How is the LVEC going to help these two issues? Like all LVEC supporters you probably have know answers!!"
And I differ. For valid reasons.
I disagree there is an disportinate amount of haves and have nots here. Yes, there are a large number of seniors, Queens/St. Lawerence students.
There is a middle class - and alot of single mothers on welfare - because of the corrections "industry" here along with the cost of living in a large city.
I am not referring (whats so ever) to :tree huggers". The McBurney Park Association (a citizens group) has raised several thousand dollars to replant McBurney Park.
We do not need "City Funding" necessarily to accomplish what the neighbourhood wishes to spend time and money on.
Beaches well - sure that would be nice - start fundraising! Nothing is free nor should our residential taxes go to support 100% funding of beaches.
In my mind Canadians have to get real. Its actually time to work. Not play. More than ever. The 21st Century holds many challenges more than North Americans are use to in there sheltered background. Emerging Markets, transporation methods, e -commerce and information technology are completely changing the economic map. Also - an education! Yes, an education - not just a B.A - thats nothing these days. And frankly; our parents have been telling us this for how long? The days of leaving highschool with your sweetheart and sailing off to the sunset in your white picket fence -is gone! Thank goodness!
Its time to invest in ourselves and in the future of our community. The LVEC is one (1) way to do this. In fact it is needed on Anglin Bay site. NOT North Block. Self indulged "have and have nots" - moved it.
I am sorry if you disagree with the realities of the day - but beaches? Come on..and remember there only good for 2 months (maybe out of the year!) Go t Sandbanks and or Gould Lake if you need a beach!
But, no pets, no motor boats, radios or garbage on the beach please.
But, I do completely disagree that the quality of life for most residence here is worse than Toronto or other urban centres. I have travelled across the country, Europe etc. And Kingston is one of the best overall cities for afforable housing, traffic issues, recreation and a sense of community I have ever come across.
And believe me (you are daft) is you do not know what you have here.
Kingston's o.k, I agree. But it is lacking in culture, recreation and jobs. No quality museums (steam??? I mean come on.), no concerts, no cultural diversity, etc. It's also lacking in jobs and doctors. Traffic is pretty grim near the causeway and out bath road. I'm very thankful I live in the center, where it's never very bad.
Beaches... let's just forget I ever said anything, o.k, it's distracting from the real issue.
What we really could use the LVEC or Multiplex money for (one or the other) is a business incubator.
That's my baby. I'd love to see one of those!
business incubator.? That's my baby?
Sorry - don't get ya? Explain..
LVEC would be a way to have trade shows business showcase and allow opportunity for business connections, increase chances for work here and cultural events etc.
Unfortynately; Kingston is a union /Government city. Businesses shy away from that culture more than ever. The 21st century like it or not - is moving to non union labour costs with highly skilled people. Thats maybe not so good for our middle class culture - that was formed by previous generation. But, we are competing for business investment, jobs and a level of life style other countries want. Distribution of income to 2nd, 3rd world countries i my mind is a good thing. (Except enviromentally)
Kingston is NOT a cultural centre. Its not Toronto or Ottawa etc.
If you need to get some culture go there or to Europe. I certainly do think for the WASPY Kingston it does have a pretty good selection of Asian Type resturants etc.
Queen's does certainly help the liberal arts, food and vibrancy alive. But, this is NOT a place for the ROM. Nor should it be.
Sir John "A" - is certainly overdone here. But, it keeps th old folks happy.
I still say - we need a beacon of business and cultural means. The LVEC does this. Multiplex - well sure - adult hockey could use the ice time - and to keep healthy. Hopefully they will not stick a McDonalds right beside it - but they probably will! Have a good weekend!
Good information. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Cowan
taylorsville real estate
http://www.etowahrealty.com
Local News - The process that led to last night’s crucial vote on a new arena for the city actually began on Sept. 23, 2003.
That was the day mayoral candidate Harvey Rosen pledged to have construction of a new Memorial Centre under way before the next term of council ended if Kingstonians made him their mayor.
The voters did.
And within a month of being elected to replace Isabel Turner, who was frequently criticized for a go-slow style that seemed to accomplish little in the way of civic projects, Rosen began the process to get a Large Venue Entertainment Centre built in Kingston.
In mid-December, now-mayor Rosen appointed a five-member mayor’s task force that was led by Councillor Leonore Foster. Its job was to make recommendations to council about what sort of facility should be built, what it might cost and as it turned out most crucially where in the city the arena and entertainment centre should go.
The task force reported back in April 2004, recommending an 80,000-sq.-ft. sports and entertainment centre on Anglin Bay, at a cost of $28.5 million.
The site was unexpected. And the recommendation was for not simply a hockey barn by the highway, but a building that would be both a waterfront architectural showpiece for the city and would begin the revitalizing of Kingston’s underused Inner Harbour.
On June 15 of 2004, city council voted to move ahead on the project based on a review committee affirming the conclusions of the previous task force report.
However, opposition to the choice of Anglin Bay surfaced immediately.
Many of the most vocal opponents lived in King’s Town District that surrounded the proposed site.
Within days of the task force report, they raised their fears about increased traffic and parked cars clogging their streets, and noise from construction and events. They were also concerned about the loss of both the waterfront park in the area and the fate of Metalcraft Marine, a boat-building business that the city would have had to expropriate.
The citizens took many of their concerns to their district councillor, Rick Downes, who gradually became one of the most outspoken critics of the arena among the politicians around the council horseshoe.
By September, task force members were already warning that their initial $28.5-million estimate for the cost of the building might have been too low. That was the month the city hired Don Gedge as the project manager for the proposed arena.
In January 2005, Gedge unveiled a concept plan showing the number of seats reduced to 5,000 from 6,000, then four months later confirmed the task force’s warning about costs. At that time, he said an arena could be built for $37.3 million, of which $16 million would be covered through city borrowing.
Jittery councillors vote 8-5 to tentatively approve the project the following month, but added a motion to conduct a market study to prove that the concept was viable.
By this time, not only was the Anglin Bay location drawing fire from council and citizens, but the Memorial Centre had been dragged into the fray.
The original concept was to sell the site for development and use the money to offset the cost of the new arena, but that plan was opposed by Williamsville residents, veterans and others who wanted to keep the site in public hands in perpetuity.
There were also those who urged that the new arena be built on that site, a suggestion rejected by the task force which said it was too distant from downtown to provide the necessary economic spinoffs.
There would also have been a legal battle with the board that runs the Kingston Fall Fair. It has a longstanding agreement with the city that allows the fair board to use the grounds for its annual exhibition, and it would have to be compensated either with money or comparable land if the city tried to literally sell the ground out from under it.
The fate of the Memorial Centre was kicked over to another committee that was studying the future of the city’s smaller ice pads. Council did eventually pass a motion guaranteeing the survival of the Memorial Centre grounds as a public asset, although in what form is yet to be decided.
While a consultant hired by the city endorsed the business plan for the arena, doubts about the inner harbour location kept growing. Eventually, they developed to the point where a majority of councillors seemed ready to vote down the entire project based on those concerns. Petitions bearing thousands of names of citizens opposed to the Anglin Bay site flowed into City Hall. Outraged letters filled the letters pages of The Whig-Standard.
The North Block site was offered last September in a last-minute attempt to placate critics and get enough councillors on side to continue studying the project which council voted to do by a razor-thin margin.
Concerns about its effect on traffic and parking remain, as do fears of out-of-control costs and the downtown location. Downes argued unsuccessfully that the matter should be put to a referendum.
Last night’s vote was the second crucial one on the project in a week. Last week, council chose Olympia & York/SMG Canada, a management consortium, to become the private operator for the arena.
The vote last night was to choose Ellis Don to build the arena, whose costs have now risen to about $41.8 million as a result of changes to the proposal and additional costs, such as providing municipal services to the site.
If you believe the above which is a limited perception of the "circus of events" by a few nay sayers...
The fact remains the Anglan Bay site is the right site. (period) Kingston is a town. It is not a big City. They have no historical experience with these types of facilities. It is a multipurpose, entertainment facility. Not a hockey barn. Kingstonian's have never been in one let alone know what it is designed for. The change from the Anglan Bay site to the North Block site was a big mistake! For one The Anglan Bay site was much larger 180,000 sq ft. not 150,000 a 30% reduction in size, space. The loss of the multipurpose usage it is designed for. i.e Trade Show and conference facilities are now limited, and will affect bookings. There is little parking now, there are less loading docks and truck/logistic support facilities, less open space and no park to enhance the designage and usage. But, the cost of the facility has not changed for the reduced facility!
The disadvantages are obvious...
Again, I must sound like the "yes" side - but I have been critical and engaged in both views. I have attended both "sideds" meets, rallies etc. But, for sure the ones that cost the tax payers a million bucks to move the site - and now we have "a barn" ..are the very same that have never set foot in a LVEC. Downes, KCAL group and the retired condo owners are responsible for the costs and change. So, do not believe for a moment the latter bloger rap up.
But, believe me I am sure the majority of the nay sayers on this tiny project see it
exactly as the bloger has placed it.
Bruce Todd & Jamie Swift supporters of (Kingston Concerned about the LVEC) and their campaign against anything LVEC, Todd’s Whig letter (July 12 edition) (Whig missed big arena story) confirms a persistent myopic perspective when it comes to appraising Kingston’s LVEC.
Both author’s claim an extract from the U.S based “Economist”, concerning a billion dollar U.S baseball stadium in New York City “is a comparable” reference to appraise Kingston’s miniature “multipurpose” LVEC facility.
Todd & Swift gullibility negate the obvious facility differences. The LVEC model is a facility for indoor venues, and a four season operation for multiple purposes.
The LVEC is specifically engineered to produce intimate “multipurpose” space for different events. i.e. Disney on Ice, corporation conferences and community events, all presented simultaneously under one roof.
Swift’s & KCAL bombastic billion dollar baseball stadium comparison is ludicrous.
Regrettably like Swift, members of KCAL and many LVEC supporters have delegate themselves as “experts” on anything LVEC.
Embellishing either “super size me” conspiracy theories, or “state of the art” entertainment assertions, likely both groups are accomplishing the same thing.
Confusing and misinforming the general public with theories instead of the facts.
The myriad of street gossip editorials, (hallucinogenic on both sides of the issue) makes one think; when will Kingston please move on to less sexier topics such as traffic enforcement or residential tax reform?
Move on? More likely Swift’s KCAL will be long-winded, disingenuous and naively scrutinizing it to the bitter end.
Trickery from KCAL (Swift’s camp) after their LVEC defeat has already resurfaced.
With the interminably use of “supposed experts” from our neighborhood academia. KCAL, quoting Associate Professor Mary Lou-Adams of Queens Physical Education Department (that she has examined LVEC’s across North America and concludes the limited economic spin-off associated with them.)
But when contacted, Ms. Mary Lou-Adams verified, she has “no experience with LVEC’s and has never completed any studies”. The US based Economist article is completely dissimilar to Kingston’s LVEC, particularly in areas of facility funding models, facility function and its economic infrastructure environment.
Further trickery for their retirement agenda comes from the (“leave us alone” wealthy retired downtown posy of KCAL) laying claim “That LVEC's site selection was conducted in secret. Shoehorning it into a proximate but wildly suboptimal footprint trumps whether it intrinsically works there.”
Do I have to remind them that the LVEC report, business plan and all studies supporting the Anglan Bay site, including all experts hired- can be found on the City’s public website? And by the way, the move to the North Block site was only the naysayers and Rick Downes doing.
The hush-hush really is how supporters of KCAL and Rick Downe’s wasted hundreds of thousand of our tax dollars, and staff time having the site moved to the North Block! The facility is now 30% smaller for the same cost!
Way to go KCAL!!! We now get less for the same tax dollar spent. You call yourself finacially responsible?
Theres more.....
Swift’s “local economic research” is also typically pernicious and lacks any fact.
His 1 hour survey walk downtown is spent Lilac hugging and going on ad nauseum about our baby LVEC, with the usual baseless and conspiracy theory blathering he and Todd are know for.
“Kingston’s downtown, tourism and businesses are doing well”, Swift says
Unfortunately; the facts do not support his claim. Tourism numbers are down, dollar is up and jobs in Kingston of any meaningful persuasion are non existent.
What were you smoking in those Lilac bushes?
Fact:
Without well paying local jobs, a varied tax base, and continuous investment, your co-op store utopia for downtown will simply pack it in, swapped for dollar stores and month to month midnight movers.
“Not so”, (Swifts exhales) saying “call centers & logistics are our future” for thousands of unemployed Norcom, Bombardier, Bell Canada workers and local scholarly youth.
Swift’s bedroom electoral platform likely would unravel rather quickly.
Sooner or later Kingston’s call centre plug could easily and permanently be pulled, and the business unit is now found in the yellow pages in southern states or India.
Fact:
E.I, Keys and related private employment agencies have never been so busy in Kingston, unemployment cheques, self employment programs and social services agencies have seen their best decade ever.
Somehow I don’t believe “Mayor not to Swift” platform would have the backbone or the fortitude, to put his words into actions as a council candidate.
Jamie concludes that “Kingstonians do not seek a just or productive community.”
Kingstonians commit locally for social assistance each year, 120 million when all tallied. Donations, thousands of volunteer hours directly promoting local education, health and employment options to our most vulnerable citizens.
Todd and Swift’s apocalypse attitude, antidotal sources and hallucinogenic theories
on local economics, social justice or anything LVEC, undoubtedly lack any serious consideration.
Mr. Laflamme Publisher, Kingston Whig-Standard recently put it best. “Swift is entitled to his opinions, and often argues them persuasively. But it helps to base arguments on fact”, and I am grateful the Voice is permitting me to correct the record (in Swift’s, KCAL case) for their future inevitable “views” concerning Kingston’s LVEC.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home