Friends of Soccer issues invitation to All Mayoral Candidates

[FriendsofSoccer]

Earlier today, Friends of Soccer invited the major Vancouver mayoral candidates to use our website to address the stadium issue. We'll be publishing their responses as soon as they arrive, unedited and without commentary.

The letter below has been sent to Mayor Sullivan, Peter Ladner, Allan DeGenova, Raymond Louie and Gregor Robertson. Although he has not formally declared his intention to run, we have also extended the invite to David Cadman.

As you know, Gregor Robertson has responded. Others have indicated that they will respond.
___


My name is Bill Currie, and I represent the grassroots citizens movement Friends of Soccer. Since October, 2005, thousands of citizens have used the Friends of Soccer movement to voice their support for the proposed Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium. Thousands more consult the Friends of Soccer website (Support The Vancouver Whitecaps Stadium!) every month for information on current developments regarding the stadium project. Many of these people pass this information on to their associations, teammates and others. We operate independently of the Whitecaps and our supporters span all ages, cultures and political beliefs.

While the upcoming election will encompass many major issues, it has become obvious that the Whitecaps stadium will be one of them. Many of our supporters want to know the candidates' positions regarding the stadium, and one major mayoral candidate has actively sought out our support. While we have no intention of endorsing any particular mayoral candidate, we believe it would be fair and transparent to provide all candidates with an opportunity to address our supporters regarding the stadium.

I am pleased to invite you to use the Friends of Soccer website to express your detailed position on the Whitecaps Stadium. You have my personal assurance that, regardless of your position, your words will appear in their entirety, unedited, and without commentary by our website. You are also free to use this as an opportunity to inform our supporters on where they can find more information on your campaign, and how they can join. I highly encourage you to take this opportunity.

While you are free, of course, to take any stance on the stadium, you should be aware that our supporters are most interested in your answers to these three questions:

1.Do you support the Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium Proposal? Why or why not?
2.If you support it, what plan of action do you have to make it a reality?
3.What makes you uniquely qualified to succeed on this issue?

I will publish your position soon after we receive it. Should you choose to decline, we will simply print that you chose to do so, without further commentary. We ask that you reply no later than Wednesday, May 21.

Regardless of your position on this issue, I believe it's fair to say that the stadium has engaged average citizens in the political process in a unique way. It is my hope that you will accept this invitation to continue the dialogue.

Sincerely,
Bill Currie
Friends of Soccer
Support The Vancouver Whitecaps Stadium!

 

[Dial 9-1-1]

Quick question...

What's wrong with the PNE grounds?
-Nice, unobstructed view of the mountains
-Plenty of empty space
-plenty of parking
-close to the highway and easily accessible to people who live east and north of Vancouver.
-if I am not mistaken, Lord Hastings donated this land on the condition that it be used for recreation only

The Whitecaps cater to a much different audience than Canucks and Lions fans.

I can't imagine Whitecaps fans paying $20 for parking in downtown Vancouver or soccer mom and dad bringing Junior and half his soccer team on the Skytrain starting at the Scott Road Station.

Call me a nutbar, but I am not a fan of the downtown stadium and that is primarily because we already have a crap load of land between McGill and Hastings and Renfrew and Cassiar which is PERFECT for a FREE stadium.

Or is it only free if it is built downtown? If that is the case, then my next question would be...WHY is that?

Yes, there will still be a lot of NIMBY protesters for Hastings Park, but that will happen regardless of where a stadium is built. The difference is that these people do not have a leg to stand on considering that Hastings Park IS zoned for such stadiums and events.

Quick Poll: Who would rather go to the PNE versus downtown Vancouver to watch a game?

 

[kjohnsob]

Amen - I dont know what the deal is with downtown. It makes most of the population travel the furthest. If "downtown" was the center of Metro Vancouver then great, but alas.

Seriously who cares if there are mountains in the backdrop while you are watching a soccer game?

Vivre les Whalley Whitecaps Libre!

Regardless of the above the city of vancouver should not be turning its back on a privately funded stadium, that shite is unheardof elsewhere.

 

[Dude]

Quick question...

What's wrong with the PNE grounds?
-Nice, unobstructed view of the mountains
-Plenty of empty space
-plenty of parking
-close to the highway and easily accessible to people who live east and north of Vancouver.
-if I am not mistaken, Lord Hastings donated this land on the condition that it be used for recreation only

The Whitecaps cater to a much different audience than Canucks and Lions fans.

I can't imagine Whitecaps fans paying $20 for parking in downtown Vancouver or soccer mom and dad bringing Junior and half his soccer team on the Skytrain starting at the Scott Road Station.

Call me a nutbar, but I am not a fan of the downtown stadium and that is primarily because we already have a crap load of land between McGill and Hastings and Renfrew and Cassiar which is PERFECT for a FREE stadium.

Or is it only free if it is built downtown? If that is the case, then my next question would be...WHY is that?

Yes, there will still be a lot of NIMBY protesters for Hastings Park, but that will happen regardless of where a stadium is built. The difference is that these people do not have a leg to stand on considering that Hastings Park IS zoned for such stadiums and events.

Quick Poll: Who would rather go to the PNE versus downtown Vancouver to watch a game?

Simple answer: this is a private venture. He already owns the land, and frankly, as a private venture, he has the right to follow his own buisness plan. From an investment standpoint, the PNE doesn't have any appeal.

 

[Dial 9-1-1]

Simple answer: this is a private venture. He already owns the land, and frankly, as a private venture, he has the right to follow his own buisness plan. From an investment standpoint, the PNE doesn't have any appeal.

Fair enough, Dude. Then people need to recognize this for what it really is: a business investment and not a wonderful act of philanthropy.

If it is a business/development venture, then the city needs to scrutinize this as they would any new development.

 

[Dude]

Dial- get real. If that were truly the case, this thing would have been buit by now. Fact is it has been used as a political pincussion.

Tell me what the socialist view and objection to the private proposal is. This should be good.

 

[FriendsofSoccer]

FYI, the former Empire Stadium Site was one of the four previous sites considered prior to the Waterfront site. The City of Vancouver rejected it outright. It's not even on the radar screen, and never will be.

 

[Dial 9-1-1]

Tell me what the socialist view and objection to the private proposal is. This should be good.

It's funny how anyone who does not think that development is good just because it is development is somehow labelled a socialist. You would have made McCarther proud.

Friendsofsoccer, can you let us in on why the Hastings Park proposal was rejected? Was this a case of Kerfoot saying "I will build you a stadium for all to use and I will walk away" or was this a case of Kerfoot saying "I will build you a stadium on the land that was donated to the people of Vancouver, but here is what I want out of it"?

I cannot believe it was the former. It is were, then we all need to hear about it since election time is just around the corner.

If it was the latter, then it comes down to what I said before which earned me the socialist title: "People need to recognize this for what it really is: a business investment and not a wonderful act of philanthropy."

With that being said, I do recognize and thank Kerfoot for all he has donated to soccer in this city, province, and country.


Sincerely,

Dial the Socialist

 

[Reccos]

Simple answer: this is a private venture. He already owns the land, and frankly, as a private venture, he has the right to follow his own buisness plan. From an investment standpoint, the PNE doesn't have any appeal.

The PNE is not viable (Hastings Bowl) due to the City's long standing commitment to return that all to parkland for the fine local residents of the east end. However, there are the loud noisy ones who want this and all the rest who selling parking on busy nights and who actually like the Exhibition there vs out in the Valley.

 

[Dude]

If it was the latter, then it comes down to what I said before which earned me the socialist title: "People need to recognize this for what it really is: a business investment and not a wonderful act of philanthropy."

Nobody has disputed this, ever. Where have you been? Seriously...where have you been?

It has always been well known to be his private INVESTMENT. Just like the thousands of other businesses and condos going up in Vancouver. The difference is that this private INVESTMENT happens to have a sizable social benefit that the public does not have to pay for out of tax dollars.

I'm not up to speed on the PNE stuff, but Reccos- if it were your dough, where would you prefer to build?

 

[Dial 9-1-1]

. The difference is that this private INVESTMENT happens to have a sizable social benefit that the public does not have to pay for out of tax dollars.

The City/province may have to pay for a stadium with tax dollars, but then that stadium would also earn revenue through rentals, consessions, and leases of its own. Maybe the City has such plans for their own 20,000-30,000 seat stadium down the road and do not want to give up their piece of the pie.

Maybe the City would rather see that space downtown turn into more condos so that they can earn revenues through property taxes, building permits etc. as well as move more people into the downtown core.

Maybe the City does not like the costs of policing 30,000 people moving into the downtown core.

Maybe a privately owned stadium would mean one less tenant in BC Place when the Lions ask Kerfoot if they can play their games there.

Maybe a new stadium built with tax dollars would mean that BC Place would no longer be needed after the Olympics and that prime real estate could be sold for huge profits.

Just because the City/province does not have to pay for this stadium with tax dollars does not mean that they would not lose out in other ways by allowing the private sector to control such a finanically viable entity.

Kerfoot is a very generous individual, but he is no idiot when it comes to investments. Maybe after GM Place was built with private money and the Pacific Colloseum sat vacant for years, the City recognized that they would be losing out (again) if they gave up their investment in the sport entertainment sector.

The sheep in society just hear "free stadium!" and they do not think about all the negative financial spinoffs this could lead to for the City.

 

[Dude]

You’re grasping at straws.

This is a typical socialist argument. The irony is that IF this were a public project, the socialists would be all over it, claiming the money would be better spent for on medical facilities, education, helping poverty, and increasing the wages of garbage men and ditch diggers working for CUPE. Or stadium workers, making $25.00 / hour, working for CUPE. Part of that is me being facetious, the other part…

How many times does a government need to fail miserably at business for the socialist to learn they simply should not be involved? It’s laughable.

For every one of your arguments, you can come up w/ a counter, but the single biggest is that the government should not be attempting to run any business w/ our tax dollars when the Private Sector will COMPETE to do it.

 

[Dial 9-1-1]

You’re grasping at straws.

This is a typical socialist argument. The irony is that IF this were a public project, the socialists would be all over it, claiming the money would be better spent for on medical facilities, education, helping poverty, and increasing the wages of garbage men and ditch diggers working for CUPE. Or stadium workers, making $25.00 / hour, working for CUPE. Part of that is me being facetious, the other part…

How many times does a government need to fail miserably at business for the socialist to learn they simply should not be involved? It’s laughable.

For every one of your arguments, you can come up w/ a counter, but the single biggest is that the government should not be attempting to run any business w/ our tax dollars when the Private Sector will COMPETE to do it.

Wow. Grasping at straws. Just once I'd love to hear from you that I might be on to something, but according to you, the only thing I am ever on to is crack.

I have no problems with the CUPE worker making $25 per hour so that he can send his kids to the private school that you send your kids to. You do send your kids to a private school, don't you? Or are you some kind of socialist?

 

[FriendsofSoccer]

Just to answer some of the questions raised:

The City of Vancouver rejected the Empire Stadium site because city planners have already developed a complete planning policy for the area. They spent many years and millions of dollars developing this, and nearly a decade in the public consultation process. The site was briefly considered by the City, but quickly rejected before it could even get to the proposal stage.

As for the Stadium being a business venture or philanthropic question, consider this: Greg Kerfoot owns 60,000 square meters of developable land downtown. Stadiums are incredibly expensive to build, and contrary to popular belief, yield little return. In fact, most stadiums post operating losses. If this was purely a business venture, Mr.Kerfoot could build office towers or residences on all of the land; something that would be far more profitable and much easier to pass through council. So, if this is purely a business development venture, why build a $75-100 million stadium at all?

As for the City of Vancouver operating the stadium? Consider their history:

Callister Park was the home of soccer back as late as the 60's. It was privately built and then donated to the PNE and the City in the 1940s. They let it deteriorate, but it could have been saved in 1969 for $100,000. They tore it down without replacing it in 1970.

Empire Stadium was allowed to decay to the point that it was condemned in the 1990s. Despite calls from the soccer community to save it, it too was torn down.

In the late 1990s, the City was planning to permanently remove the ice making facilities from the Pacific Coliseum...equipment that would have cost millions to replace. Only the Giants and the Olympics stopped it from happening.

Two years ago, the City considered tearing down Nat Bailey Stadium. The new owners of the Vancouver Canadians had to move fast to strike a deal with the Parks Board to save it. In order to do it, the new Canadians owners had to pump millions in renovations to keep it going.

As for the current stadium site, it's worth remembering that it was the City of Vancouver, through Mayor Larry Campbell, who asked the Whitecaps if they would be willing to build a stadium. It was also the City of Vancouver, through Larry Beasley, who directed the Whitecaps to the current site.

 

[Dude]

You don't have a problem paying some guy $25.00 and hour to show you to your seat, and sweep up after you? You are on crack.

I'd love to Dial, and will when the familly budget allows it. Hopefully by the time my oldest is ready for the 8th grade. Tell you what- I'll be working a hell of a lot harder and taking way more risks than your pampered, spoiled CUPE guys in order to do so. Good effort though.

As for now, we have our kids in a very good public school that is quickly becomming overcrowded. Anyhow, another debate for another thread.

 

[suburbanator]

Quick Poll: Who would rather go to the PNE versus downtown Vancouver to watch a game?

I would much rather go DOWNTOWN. I don't like the PNE and area. Though we visit the PNE twice per year with the kids.

My 1st choice would be Surrey and liked the lions/whitecaps option...but thats wishfull thinking.

Parking is an issue in either vancouver location.

 

[Dude]

Quick Poll: Who would rather go to the PNE versus downtown Vancouver to watch a game?

I'd go anywhere inside a reasonable drive, including all three above. My 1st choice is Downtown.

 

[johnnybluenose]

My 1st choice would be Surrey and liked the lions/whitecaps option...but thats wishfull thinking.

Parking is an issue in either vancouver location.

1. Surrey is a piss poor idea. There are little to no options for rapid transit.
2. Any JV between the Lions and the Caps means the Caps lose out on Atmosphere and you the spectator being anywhere close to the pitch.

And on Parking...

I can't remember the exact figure, but I thought I'd read that there was something like 10-15k parking spots within a 5 minute walk from the proposed waterfront stadium location, and will be next door to the transit hub (Seabus, Skytrain, Canadline, Westcoast express)

 

[Dude]

There is the Conference centre. Lots of parking.

 

[Gurps]

I read somewhere that this has nothing do with the city.

Kerfoot wants to trade the Port of Vancouver the land he currently owns, for new land to build a stadium on. The port is saying no, because the land he would be getting in the swap is way more valuable than what he is giving up.

That is the sticking point, as he wishes to build condos as well as a stadium on the new land.

The Port won't swap land that is worth more than what they are getting back. The Port is federally controlled.

Just what I read.........