Water-park decision will show world who we are

Enlarge Image

Coun. Devi Sharma (RUTH BONNEVILLE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS) Photo Store

Related Items

1. Articles

   • Water-park vote delayed
   • Many unanswered questions on water-park proposal
   • Water-park vote makes waves
   • Coun. Devi Sharma will decide fate of water-park proposal

2. Polls

   • How would you vote on a plan to sell a city-owned surface lot for $6 million to Alberta hotel chain Canalta to build a hotel, water park and parkade?

My home phone rang last week, like an alarm going off.

The caller -- a small-business friend who normally has a small-c political tilt to his talk -- immediately launched into a plea.

"Tell me it isn't true," he said.

He was referring to a city hall issue that seems to have riled, and united Winnipeggers of every political leaning in a rarest kind of consensus.

Where common sense and public pride have superseded political persuasion.

The issue, of course, is the sale of a piece of public land at The Forks -- and the gift of $7 million in public funds -- for the construction of a 250-room hotel, a 450-stall parkade and free-standing water park of middling size.

A venture of which Mayor Sam Katz is openly in favour, but has stepped away from voting on because of its across-the street proximity to the baseball park where his Winnipeg Goldeyes play, and the conflict therein.

That leaves the rest of city council to vote on it Wednesday.

"We've got to stop it," my conservative caller continued, before he knew the decision is likely to come down to one vote, either way.

"This is crazy," he said, intoning frustration and anger.

Indeed, the idea of an Alberta company that specializes in rural Prairie motels plunking one of its progeny next to the symbolically significant and architecturally striking Canadian Museum for Human Rights does sound a bit off.

Crazy? Call it what you will.

That's what my small-business friend thinks of the idea of a water park and hotel beside Winnipeg's nationally, perhaps internationally, iconic building. But, as I was suggesting, my friend isn't the only one from the right who thinks this is all wrong.

Coun. Grant Nordman, an avowed Progressive Conservative who normally votes in line with Mayor Sam Katz, has become the most surprising voice of opposition to the deal. And for most, if not all, the obvious reasons.

Foremost of which is he listened to the outcry from his constituents.

"They're telling me, 'Don't do this,' " Nordman wrote on his Facebook page. "We're not against a water park in principle, but it's the wrong site and the wrong size."

From the sounds of it, what made it easier for Nordman to side with his constituents is he agreed with them.

But there are other reasons why this water-park deal needs to be stopped Wednesday when Old Kildonan's Devi Sharma is likely to cast that deciding vote.

Sharma wasn't discussing what she was thinking on Monday, but I can tell her -- as I assume her constituents have -- the reasons beyond what Nordman posted on his Facebook page why this water-park deal needs to be deep-sixed.

Like the $7-million grant that was originally intended for rapid transit, and should go back there or anyplace other than to a private company.

And as much as I care for helping economically underprivileged kids enjoy what other kids do, I'm not for this sub-deal that promises to make free admission available on a limited basis over a 25-year period.

Who's going to police that for the first year, never mind the 25th?

It smacks of the disingenuous; a way of making the $7-million public gift more publicly palatable.

And that's all.

There are other elements to the water-park deal that make me shudder, beyond the missing detail, the apparent lack of due diligence and general lack of transparency. Including the mayor's stated reason for not voting.

Katz specifically stated he was recusing himself because of the potential detrimental impact losing the gravel parking lot across from the Goldeyes' ballpark could have on his business and the conflict that could suggest.

Yet he's also said he's in favour of it. More craziness?

Perhaps.

But here's what really drives me nuts. If city council were to approve a first-class hotel in a first-class setting next to the museum, I and many others probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

But not a water park, and certainly not a small-town water park.

A century ago, Winnipeg saw itself as a big player in North America and built majestic structures and grand parks that reflected how our civic leaders saw themselves and the future of the city.

Izzy Asper's vision for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights reflects that attitude and his own view of Winnipeg and our future.

And now we want to put a water park next door so when the world drops by they'll know who we really are.

Small thinkers with a small-town view of who we are and where we're going.

Say it isn't true, Coun. Sharma.

gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 24, 2012 B1