A lesson to be learned about transparency

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/05/2012 (5214 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

That was one of the more expensive lessons the city will ever learn.

To almost no one’s surprise, Alberta hotelier Canalta withdrew its proposal to build a water park and hotel on prime city-owned land near The Forks market and park. The decision, relayed to the city via a letter last weekend, came after Winnipeggers rose up in great numbers and forced city council to delay a vote to approve Canalta’s vision for the land.

Coun. Justin Swandel, a supporter of the project who has seemed to be the only member of council who has had some contact with Canalta, confirmed the developer’s decision to withdraw at this time. The letter Canalta provided said they were pulling out because “city council is not interested in moving forward with a water park, hotel and parking structure at this time.”

That’s a pretty mopey way of describing what happened two weeks ago at city council. Even so, Canalta is arguably justified in feeling jerked around on this issue. They were encouraged to make this proposal and given the thumbs-up from the mayor’s office and from executive policy committee. Given recent history, that should have been enough. But it wasn’t.

Council voted to delay a final vote on the Canalta proposal so more information could be provided on the design of the development, the business model for the water park and more details on how a subsidized admission policy would work. Swandel said without a vote in favour from council, Canalta would not pay the costs associated with producing that information. Swandel has argued no developer should be required to spend its own money on a detailed design without a firm deal. And in most instances, he is correct. But this isn’t most instances.

This deal had two major features that distinguished it from other developments, and which prompted the majority of concern from city residents. First, Canalta was getting a $7-million subsidy from the city, a sum so substantial it effectively meant the city was giving the land away for nothing. In fact, with a price tag of $6 million, Winnipeggers were actually paying Canalta to take the land off our hands.

The second issue was the land itself. Referred to cryptically as Parcel Four, this land easily represents one of the most intriguing, most valuable empty lots the city owns. Located south of Shaw Park, home to Mayor Sam Katz’s Winnipeg Goldeyes baseball team, west of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and immediately north of The Forks market, it’s a lot currently full of little more than possibilities. And yet, only true political neophytes would think you could unleash an ambitious development of this sort on that piece of land without any prior warning and not provoke the proverbial firestorm of controversy.

Consider it took somewhere in the neighbourhood of six years to complete construction of the boutique Inn at The Forks. The Forks North Portage Partnership, the tripartite body that oversees The Forks, was very cautious and meticulous about introducing a development of this type into an area where opinions varied wildly about what should, or should not, be included. First, the FNPP consulted the public on a long-term plan for The Forks, and then announced in the late 1990s a hotel was one of several long-term developments it was pursuing. Then there was a public request for proposals, the announcement of a winning bid and then three more years of intense work to come up with a design that was appropriate for The Forks. Although the FNPP does not have the same transparency obligations as council, it certainly gave Winnipeggers ample opportunity to learn about, and react, to its plans.

So, while Swandel is correct in saying that in many instances, council would approve a development and then the fine details would be worked out later, he is wrong when he suggests the same process is appropriate for Parcel Four.

The city skipped over all of the public discussion and consultation, even keeping the museum and FNPP in the dark, and then put a surprising, ambitious project before council.

The clandestine manoeuvring on this project is particularly odd, because had the city announced it was motivated to do something with Parcel Four, as it appears was the case, there could have been competing bids that would have only driven up the price for the land.

The expensive lesson here is that transparency is not a burden. As we can see with the Inn at The Forks, transparency can be an effective tool for calming frayed nerves and quieting nitpickers. It’s just too bad the mayor and councillors who supported this project couldn’t see that sooner.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca