Public discussion about the Lansdowne Live redevelopment project has councillors backpeddling on the plans to satisfy the community’s demands.
But changing the plans could mean Mayor Larry O’Brien would have to break his pledge for the redevelopment to be revenue neutral.
Many community members spoke out at the corporate services and economic development committee meeting on Oct. 6. They argued the plan is financially unwise and harmful to local businesses.
“Dumping retail into the market will cannibalize sales from nearby businesses and on all surrounding major streets,” says Ian Lee, director of the MBA program at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business. He says Elgin Street, Gladstone Avenue and Bank Street will all be affected.
The $250-million redevelopment plan made with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group will span a 37-acre area with 200,000 square feet of stores, a theatre, restaurants, market stalls and offices.
The scale of the retail development worries business owners who say they have been treated unfairly.
The city partnership with the OSEG supports the subsidization of Lansdowne Live businesses that gives them an unfair advantage over local businesses, says economist Michael Tiger.
He also says the plan to use property taxes to repay construction debt is a “slippery slope” that developers of other projects could demand.
“We’re subsidizing every store that goes in there and they’re not going to be local stores, they’re going to be giants . . . we’re behaving unfairly to all the businesses in Ottawa that we are not subsidizing,” says Capital Ward Coun. Clive Doucet.
Lee says it would be a better idea to sell Lansdowne’s 10 acres at an auction that could sell for $50 to $70 million. The city could then use the money to revamp buildings on the Lansdowne property, he says.
However, changing the existing plan in order to reduce commercial projects could mean tax dollars will be needed to redevelop Lansdowne Park, says city manager Kent Kirkpatrick.
“To the extent that council wants to talk about deleting or changing the scope of the proposals will have an impact on whether it will be revenue neutral,” he says.
Kirkpatrick says the plan requires a large number of commercial developments to generate revenue that will be reinvested into the project. This is how council plans to keep its promise to avoid using tax dollars.
Graham Bird, the consultant hired for the project, says he agrees. He says councillors need to make decisions for the entire project before developments begin to ensure enough revenue can be generated.
But many changes to the plan, which is only in its first phase, have already been suggested by councillors.
Bird says the order of the development phases could be changed. For instance, a hotel could be built in the first phase instead of the second phase, he says.
He adds there is no set time frame for when the second phase of construction will begin.
Deciding against the project would also cost the city a lot of money, Kirkpatrick says. Demolishing the buildings could cost $30 million. But maintaining them over the next decade would cost about $3.8 million per year.
Council is planning the project backwards, say long-time Glebe resident Teena Hendelman. She says community support for the project should have been determined before council shut out competition by making the deal with the OSEG.
“I would rather we all just get back to the drawing board.”