And why do big stadiums trump front-line social services?

*

Our provincial Liberal government just dedicated $458 million to renovate Vancouver’s 60,000-seat BC Place.

I keep asking myself, “Why?!?”

Actually, I can hardly believe I’m writing about a sports and entertainment stadium, while we’re in a vast and deepening social and economic crisis. Daily, I see more reports about hundreds of thousands or even mere tens of thousands of dollars in cuts killing another important health care resource, non-profit service or arts organization. So why is our government nickle and diming community lifelines, while pouring half-a-billion dollars into a state-of-the-art retractable roof? Indeed, if you’re wondering what happened to public funding for arts organizations, consider: The amount going into BC Place next year will be five times the entire budget for the rest of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

When challenged about the decision, according to the Times-Colonist, Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts Kevin Krueger responded, “[T]he way we pay for our health care, education and social services is by having a robust economy with people working and paying taxes… [The BC Place renovation is a] wise use of our resources… that is going to more than pay for itself in the not-too-distant future.”

Firstly, where was this perspective when Krueger was claiming the government couldn’t afford to help arts organizations, even though they’re highly efficient at creating jobs and generating tax income?

Secondly, why is this perspective emerging now, in a context where it’s completely false? Stadiums of this size virtually never pay for themselves. Stadiums across North America routinely demand hundreds of millions in welfare. Toronto’s Skydome (originally vigorously promoted in the exact same way) became such an albatross for both government and corporations that, after just 18 years, Rogers Communications got the $570 million stadium for four cents on the dollar.

BC Place is no different, and the financial fall-out will be dramatically worse than we’re being told.

In their press conference, Krueger and chairman David Podmore of BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo, the crown agency responsible for BC Place) announced the government was giving PavCo a $458 million loan, payable over 40 years, to finance renovations under a “fixed-price” contract. What “fixed-price” means is anybody’s guess; financial details weren’t disclosed, while the government’s press release discreetly mentioned an additional “contingency fund” of an “appropriate” size.

In any case, our government is running a deficit, so it’s borrowing that money itself. Which means, even if rock-bottom interest rates continue, we’re really on the hook for 750 million to a billion dollars.

How will this “pay for itself”, exactly?

First, Krueger and Podmore point to positive “economic impacts” on businesses surrounding the stadium, and inscrutably declare that a 20% increase in available rental days will produce a miraculous near-doubling of economic impacts.

Of course, most people’s discretionary entertainment spending is limited; therefore, any positive impacts on nearby businesses will have negative impacts on businesses further away, just as big box stores bleed money from locally-based retailers.

Krueger and Podmore argue out-of-province visitors will flood to stadium events. Yet PavCo’s own surveys suggest out-of-province visitors to the stadium typically spend only $20-odd million annually in BC—hardly a financial bonanza when measured against those new loan payments which will run about, oh, $20-odd million annually.

As for PavCo actually making even one of those “loan” payments, it’s unclear how—BC Place has been losing millions for years.

That’s surely why Krueger and Podmore added that the project would also “pay for itself” through the selling or leasing of lands around BC Place to developers. Which is like claiming your new condo will “pay for itself” because you’ll be selling your car, couch and kidney to help buy it. Really, a more accurate account is that the public is getting dinged twice: We’re paying for stadium renovations and we’re losing $100 million worth of undeveloped land in downtown Vancouver.

In summary, this is a billion-dollar giveaway to those who least need it; namely, to entertainers and sports franchises who fill stadiums.

So what’s this decision really about?

It wasn’t made of necessity—BC Place functions, there are cheaper alternatives, and government already almost cancelled the project when costs leapt 25% in October.

There could be secret deals, bribes, corporate influence and cronyism. But if not, presumably there’s something about giant stadiums that our politicians simply like. In a personal sense. A lot. Something that makes them feel, on a gut level, that a state-of-the-art stadium roof is exponentially more urgent than helping the hundreds of arts organizations and front-line social services they’re fatally undermining to save about the same amount of money.

It’s disturbingly common: Ten years ago, but for dogged, publicized criticism, cash-strapped Victoria would’ve built a far-too-big, far-too-expensive arena, too. Ultimately, we just built a big, expensive one.

Do politicians yearn to support the highest profile projects for self-promotion?

Are celebrity-driven, corporate-level arts and sports the only kinds of cultural experience that inspire their hearts and minds? Or do they pander to those who feel that way?

Is this our politicians’ subconscious way of putting a caring, symbolic roof over all our heads?

Either way, PavCo says we shouldn’t worry. Their service plan states the “largest risk” to this can’t-miss investment would be a “prolonged economic downturn”; however, they’re confidently forecasting a rapid upturn. If that turnaround stumbles? PavCo observes, “A side-benefit of these enhancements to BC Place is that the City will now have a fully functional emergency shelter.”

That’s good news, because the rest of us may soon need one.

*

Originally published in Focus, December 2009.