Floor second opinion needs to be transparent
Lakers management should have full access to the process
The frustration and confusion lacrosse fans, management and players are feeling over the Memorial Centre floor issue is nothing new for Peterborough.
Problems with the way our elected officials and their staff have handled local arenas goes back to the late 1800s and continues to today.
Peterborough was one of the last communities of its size to have an arena. Back in the late 1800s local hockey teams had to play in the curling rink while city officials dawdled over building an arena. The Brock Street Rink finally opened in 1903, the city’s first indoor hockey rink.
During the Second World War, with our youth overseas fighting and not around to protect their only rink, the city sold the Brock Street Rink to a dance hall operator who tore out the boards and covered over the floor.
In 1947 the city built the Civic Arena, then the city’s only indoor rink, but decided not to put in an artificial ice plant, making it of little use for its first season.
It took nearly two decades of procrastination for the city to build the Memorial Centre, which opened in 1956.
The city’s sketchy record continued with the construction of the Evinrude Centre. It was built on a weird-shaped piece of free land resulting in poor sightlines for fans, limited parking and no room to expand.
Now we have the city planning to build a twin-pad at Trent University, miles from the growth areas of the city on land that has some serious environmental and traffic issues.
Then the $3.5-million floor problem at the Memorial Centre pops up.
When city staff was told the only solution for the apparent problem was to replace the floor, they were all over it like the last piece of pizza at the staff picnic.
Their inflexibility became more evident as the talks between the Lakers and staff progressed over the last 18 months. Staff seemed obsessed that a complete floor tear-out was the only course of action.
Unfortunately, council bought into this early on and drank the staff’s Kool-Aid without really analyzing the situation until last Monday.
What bothered those close to the problem was staff’s lack of a fair, balanced approach looking for less drastic solutions.
It took a presentation from the Lakers to have council finally look beyond what staff was telling them and listen to some logical reasoning.
Their vote to defer the tear-out of the floor on Monday showed the majority of council was listening to concerns of taxpaying, voting citizens. They also looked beyond the way staff was trivializing the fears of the lacrosse community.
Timing also worked in favour of the result. With thousands of voters caught up in the Century 21 Lakers’ run to the Mann Cup plus what campaigning candidates were hearing as they knocked on doors, pushed the deferment forward.
Staff’s replies to council’s questions also struck a sour note for many.
The suggestion that next season those of the 3,000 regular Lakers patrons who would be unable to get one of the 702 seats in the Evinrude Centre, could sit next door and watch the game on a screen was nothing but denigrating to Lakers fans.
Also, when city facilities manager Mac MacGillivray told council a second opinion would cost $6,000, he gave many the impression even that amount was too much to spend seeking a possible solution to save the Lakers 2019 season.
Whether or not that second opinion changes things, it is necessary. Also, because of the hesitancy staff has taken to a second opinion, council must insure the process of obtaining it is completely transparent and closely monitor and Lakers management, or their designate, have full access to the entire process.