Letters to editor: Business case for new Brantford arena?

Letters to editor: Business case for new Brantford arena?

Article content

Assets need to earn profit

Advertisement 2

Article content

When the city hired KPMG to deliver Premier Ford’s efficiency mandate, council acted on #9; sell Arrowdale Golf Course. It was one of 104 opportunities. I worked for KPMG. I was intrigued by #15, “Identify ways to leverage city space to generate revenue”.  KPMG told the city to be more entrepreneurial.

Article content

Most assets lose money.

The Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre lost millions over the years.  The city outsourced the café area, which is rarely open. This highlights the need for #14; “Improve the vendor performance… and hold vendors accountable.”  Vendors must deliver value. The lobby should be filled with users, seniors, and others buying coffee and treats each morning.

Some assets underperform.

Could the “concession” at Mohawk Park become Mohawk Café selling coffee, muffins, and bagels and be open much of the year?  I wondered why the café at WGSC was not used year-round for seniors to meet for coffee, breakfast, and muffins.  Assets like the museum and market need innovation.

Advertisement 3

Article content

Council now wants a big arena to sit next to a money-losing smaller arena.  After spending $140 million, the new one will lose $700,000 yearly.

If the city lacks the creativity to explore revenue sources, perhaps it could engage the community to brainstorm new revenue sources and marketing strategies.

These assets should earn a profit, not be subsidized by citizens.  So far, the lack of information sends a signal that taxpayers will pay to build the arena and then pay to cover its losses.

Ed Bernacki

Brantford

Tone down rhetoric for kids’ sake

In response to Hayley Juhl’s column “Talk with your children about climate change.”

First, let’s talk about the fear and anxiety children are expressing about the climate and the health of the environment. I, for one, am sick and tired of the messages coming from the likes of Greta Thunberg, John Kerry and our very own federal environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, spewing hypocritical rhetoric about the negative impact of Co2 emissions increasing GHG’s.

Advertisement 4

Article content

It is no wonder impressionable children are confused and terrified for the future of our planet. Such statements as “we have only a few years to stop global warming or the world will be inhabitable” or “the world is on fire” only serve to breed fear in our society.

We need to teach our kids the basics of chemistry as it applies to our environment. Co2, comprises .04 per cent of the atmosphere. It is an essential component of life on earth, not a poisonous gas. Humans have flourished during levels of Co2 far greater than what we are currently experiencing.

Now let’s talk about the positive effects of increased Co2. A warmer planet not necessarily around the equatorial regions, but in the frigid regions further from the equator would be a good thing especially for those who are living in Canada.  As we have been told, the planet is warming. That is a fact but not solely due to carbon emissions from the use of oil and gas. Our climate is “controlled” by forces far greater than man’s contribution of Co2 through the burning of fossil fuels.

If we intend to stop the anxiety and fear experienced by our youth, we need to tone down the rhetoric and educate our kids so they may make informed decisions regarding their future.

The author mentions admirable actions such as recycling, tree planting and dietary changes to advance a healthy lifestyle. Those are the kinds of changes that should be embraced and taught to our youth.

Garry Goold

Brantford

Article content