Just What Was The Ice Oval Built For?

Thursday, January 22, 2009 03:45 AM

The Prince George Ice Oval continues to be centered in controversy.

The long blade skaters used statistics this past year which included recreation skaters, and hockey players using the center of the oval, in order to come up with a figure of 20,000 users when they went to city hall to get the city to give them the gravel and cash to build a new oval. The total cost of the project in lost gravel and cash was never made available to the public even though it was the taxpayers who came up with the money and the gravel which had value to a host of users.

If you take out the recreation skaters and hockey player’s component, just how many people are using the facility?

On Saturday I had occasion to go to the oval to see who was using the facility. When I attended, there were six long blade skaters on the track (even though it was not their shifted time) and around twenty other skaters. In addition there were people informing the skaters what lane they had to use to skate. There was a person taking money for the skate. There is no flooded center for hockey, that's a thing of the past.

So just what is the purpose of the facility? If it is for the speed skaters of the city, the question we must ask is just how many long track speed skaters are there in Prince George? If the facility cost even as low as $400,000 dollars in cash and in-kind, then it cost the taxpayers about $8,000 dollars for each long track skater, plus whatever it will now cost to maintain the facility.

If that is the case, and there is a good argument to be made, then the taxpayers of the city would have been better off to send any budding long track speed skater to a major facility such as Calgary, because Richmond will turn its facility back into general skating when the facility is not longer in use for the speed skaters because they don’t see spending a lot of money subsidizing a few skaters.

Whoever was able to pilot the whole project through city hall without approval from city council, without telling the public what the final cost was, should be congratulated. The city taxpayers for the most part footed the bill without ever really knowing what it cost them. The proposed use of the Ice oval raises those same questions again.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Riverfront on January 22 2009 7:43 AM

Great points Ben...
We had some friends in from out of town and we talked in advance of an afternoon at the oval playing hockey and enjoying the terrific facility. I was a little disappointed on Saturday when we arrived to find:
1) we had to pay $24 for two families
2) we were very limited for time (1 hr)
3) we had to skate on the inside track
4) there were no hockey rinks

Sadly, the track had very few skaters, and there were few sounds of children and families having fun in the sun.
What a shame for such a great recreational facility.

Posted by: northman on January 22 2009 7:56 AM

Can the freedom of information act come into play here?

Posted by: lostfaith on January 22 2009 8:17 AM

Again the special interest groups rule the day.
Just as they will when they get their fancy PAC!

Posted by: Loki on January 22 2009 8:45 AM

Vote no to PAC!
Another stellar example of pissing our money away a frivolities.
Politicians seem to lose whatever intelligence they ever had once in office and become unwitting dupes to whoever cries loudest and longest with the old "Poor Me".

Meanwhile the only skate park in town down by the YMCA is overcrowded most days, except winter of course. It would be fantastic to build a skate park in the hart area. That would be effective community activity spending.

Posted by: Resident on January 22 2009 8:50 AM

A picture in the Citizen today depicts 7 of the 22 members of the speed skating club using the facility for practice. As Ben states 20 recreational skaters on Saturday afternoon.
The ice oval society has done a marvelous job of taking a facility that was used by hundreds per day to just a handful per day. I guess the good news is the society will not have to flood the ice as often as last year with ice oval attendance down by 90%.
Time for city council to investigate how a special interest group once again gets funds without council approval. I can only hope mayor Rodgers sticks by his election promise to give the citizens of PG a vote on the proposed PAC before the money is spent and once again the taxpayers pick up the tab for another special interest group.

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 9:32 AM

Special interest groups:

Don't forget the $9+ million for the special interest group that uses the Cameron Street Bridge.

How about the special interst group that has children and sends them to school?

Then there is the special interest group that rides bicycles and have all those wider roads with special lanes.

And soccer players.

And hockey players

And softball players.

And heritage river trail walkers.

and band shell users.

and museums ...

and book readers who cannot afford to buy their own .....

okay ... the list is starting to get ridiculously long.

What we really should be doing is creating a list of special interest groups, identifying the cost to the city of providing facilities to them after they pay any user fees, identifying any finacial benefits the city might gain from the facility and getting a net per user subsidy which the taxpayer is funding.

We then go to a referendum each election period and vote on which 5 of a list of say 50, will be dropped. In other words, no one is safe because they were there first. To develop a new project, its cost benefit analysis must be done and a risk assessment made. If the worst case scenario would put it at the bottom of the list, it does not get funded.

Let's drop emotional backing of projects and go to purely objective assessments.

Posted by: dan on January 22 2009 10:30 AM

Perhaps we need to look at banning the speed skaters from the oval. They seem to be the common link to every issue or problem at the location.
Let the rest of the population enjoy a great facility. If they cannot get along with everybody else, then maybe they should not be there.
They certainly should not be allowed to restrict access at a 'public' facility.

Posted by: BCRacer on January 22 2009 10:49 AM

lets just fill it full of the lost gravel and get the parking spots back...that solves all kinds of problems...

Posted by: thatsaboutthesizeofit on January 22 2009 11:08 AM

about $8,000 dollars for each long track skater, plus whatever it will now cost to maintain the facility.

what is the cost per a athlete for the olympic games? I'm figuring a little higher than $8000 per a person, so the cost doesn't seem that high of a cost for someone to skate around in circles. It will give the homeless and the laid off workers of this province something to watch.

What a stupid society we live in

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 11:28 AM

You know, the speed skating oval is not the only place in town built for a very specific purpose which gets very little use from those who it seems to have been built for - the running track at Masich Place. In fact, one could even look at the speed skating oval as the winter equivalent - an oval for one purpose and a centre field for another purpose which may not be compatible.

Imagine a football game being played in centre field at the same time as people are trying to practice racing and others are doing their low impact walking exercises and the little kid is playing fetch with fido on the end greens.

The track is an all weather track built with many dollars some decades ago. In addtion, there is a spectator stand which gets used less frequently than the softball field(s) I would assume.

So how many times does the track and field club actually use it? How many times do football clubs actually use it?

The place is open from 6am to 7pm during the week and other similar long times during the weekend. There is no time limit. There is no user fee for individual use.

How many in the PG Track and Field Club versus the PG Speed Skating Club? Is there any discrimination here?

http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/rec_culture/parks/masichplacestadium

Does anyone really know how many "special interest" facilities we have in this city?

BTW, I see puddles on the track after it rains in the summer. The track is probably due for some maintenance.

Posted by: lostfaith on January 22 2009 11:34 AM

Gus
It is reasoning like yours above that creates all the problems that surround really simple issues.
The same type of reasoning that politicians and corporations use.
Why are there those that insist upon making everything so frikken complicated?

Your samples are not what the term special interest group was intended for.

Ever hear about the KISS method?

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 12:43 PM

I realize completely that the term "special interest" actually means all those interests which are outside of the observer's interests.........

And therein lies the rub, as a famous playwright once wrote.

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 12:45 PM

Lostfaith.

So the trackclub having priority use over the running track and field is not a special interest, while the speed skaters having priority use of a speedskating oval is a special interest?

Please be specific.

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 1:04 PM

BTW, my post listing some of those groups one could call special interest was partially facitious. I think it is unfair to invoke the notion of "special interest groups" unless one defines it and we can agree to use that definition in any discussion. If we do not understand what is meant by "special interest groups" then we may as well not communicate about "special interest groups" issues.

Are churches, that do not have to pay some taxes, special interest groups, for instance, that taxpayers who are not churchgoers actually have to support?

Is the popularity of an activity the key indicator of whether one is dealing with a special interest group?

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 1:11 PM

Here is one definition:

"An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organized collection of people who seek to influence political decisions."

Chamber of Commerce; political parties; DBIA; Exploration Place; Library. Just about any organization that one would see sitting at the presentation table at City Council asking for some special dispensation, typically involving City time or money.

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 1:14 PM

Back to my partially facetious list. Which one can you say has never asked for money from the City, or make some other political decision about their needs?

Posted by: Loki on January 22 2009 2:22 PM

Gus,
you are nitpicking.
20 users of any facility barely qualifies as a group let alone a special interest group.
Our society has chosen to acknowledge various groups regardless of size or purpose.
You have to admit that allowing a group of 20 local athletes of which 6 are noted to be using the facility to spend $400,000 for their "exclusive use" is a bit much.
The other special interest groups you noted are sizable and some even greatly impact our local economy.

Posted by: caranmacil on January 22 2009 2:39 PM

I agree with gus, I think. I am not sure as i dont presume to know exactly what he is aiming at regarding the term 'special interest'. I dont think the term has any meaning in itself and is generally used to suggest a small number of people acting selfishly. Another overused term that should be set aside.
There IS a problem with conflicting interests on the ice oval. The problem (if it is one) WAS caused by speed skaters believing the oval was built for them. Certainly my experiences, and the fact that a speed skater assaulted a child (lets speak plainly here) suggest this. It should not be a surprise as the oval is designed for them.
The problem seems to lie in the fact that the oval sought funding as a multi-purpose facility and now seems destined to serve only one. I dont think it is kosher. However, I dont see how pleasure skating with kids can co-exist with speed skaters or hockey players for that matter on the same surface. Schedule times for speed skaters and let them know it is their responsibility to keep clear of recreational skaters at all other times (no speed skater designated lanes, thanks. I cant guarantee my little ones wont stray into your lane and get hurt by your obsession). Replace the center hockey area, as it was well used and i never saw a flying puck while i was there. Get rid of the user fee and most or all of the staff. One (hopefully volunteer) overseer would suffice i should say, given that they can call the cops if they need to). I would think that since there was only one serious incident in the last few years that a little supervision would go a long way.

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 3:38 PM

Loki

How many members in the Lawn Bowling club? The Track and Field Club, the horseshoe or bocce club, the speedskating club, the BMX group? and on and on we go.

If you have not read between the lines, I am against the use of the words "special interest groups" whenever someone is against something just because it is too costly or for too few people or people who are considered to have some weird fancies. To me it is another form of discrimination based on emotion rather than any objective thinking.

So, get rid of the term, or start moving the term out of the emotional realm and into the obhective realm in order to ensure as equitable a decision process as possible.

Posted by: gus on January 22 2009 3:48 PM

I do not use the skating track. I do, on occassion, use the swim lanes at the pool.

While designated swim lanes work other than an occasional disturbance, I can see where that would not work in the fast moving and more dangerous speed skating lanes versus 3 year olds with parents enjoying the experience of learning how to skate from mom and dad in another few lanes dedicated for that in the same time period.

The question I have to ask myself is how could anyone think there would not be a conflict and that that would not increase the more people are on the ice.

This is not a matter of yelling "track" when overtaking someone on a ski trail or "fore" when a golf shot is off course.

Posted by: Palopu on January 23 2009 7:48 PM

All the aforementioned special interest groups, or organizations, etc; etc;, that are funded by the City costs taxpayers of Prince George (After deducting whatever income they generate for the year) approx $12 million per year. These are primarily recreational facilities.

This is a huge cost and will only rise now that we have added the Charles Jago Sports Centre which will come no where near generating the money is was supposed to. Once the PAC is built (if it ever is) the cost will rise again.

Some of these facilities such as lawn bowling, horseshoes, Masich Place, etc; are hardly utilized at all. It is a rare sight indeed to see any action at the lacrosse facility. The quarter mile track behind Lakewood School on Ospika is never used since Masich was built, and they have allowed it to deterioate, and grass is growing over it. (Total waste of a once good cinder track)

CN Centre costs taxpayers in excess of $600,000.00 per year, and a large portion of that cost is because all the city can generate from the Cougers is 12% of gross ticket sales, and with a major drop in attendence this is not very much money. If you increased the cost of the Couger tickets to more accurately reflect what other venues charge, you would lose more fans, and the Cougers would leave town. (They should anyway)

In the final analysis Prince George has to many facilities, used by too few people, at a huge cost to taxpayers, and it is a direct result of voting in Mayors and Councillors who have little or no concern about spending tax dollars. Mainly because the mindset is that there is always more money available.

An in depth study would indicate very quickly that the numbers of users of the Ice Oval were bloated.

I suspect that they count the same people every day for a period of time and then suggest a large number. Ie; 100 people use the Oval 5 times per week, therefore it was utilized by 500 people, when in fact it was utilized by 100 people 5 times. This kind of BS always comes up with big numbers but does not really reflect what is really happening.

Have a nice day.