Mooney's Bay Playground. Would you please save the children?

[Radster]

Exactly, those merry go rounds were awesome, it was probably children's first exposure to some sort of adrenaline rush, ahaha, sure kids would fly off, but I never saw anyone get hurt seriously. See-saws were fun too, also tested to the limit by kids, some would fly off, never seriously hurt. Even swings, you can fly off for fun. Monkey bars are quite tame in comparison, and usually not too high off the ground. There is such an exaggerated fetish with safety nowadays, its sad. How can children learn to gauge risk, and gauge their limits when everything at the playground is 100% safe? For example if you bruised or scraped yourself as a kid because you pushed the merry go round too fast and flew off, you will learn and not do it again. Parents are also there usually to supervise. Plus, back in my times, playgrounds were FULL of kids, now, almost always deserted. Partly because the playground features are boring, also partly because kids prefer to sit at home playing videogames. Here's a thought, build an exciting playground, and the kids will drop their videogames to go have fun at this innovative playground, and this is what this will be. Its just retarded that people are making an issue out of this due to the secrecy of the process, I mean come on, get a new hobby and see this for the good impact it can have on the city's children population!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

The city didn't follow it's own procurement rules. The negotiation details can be confidential but the city could at a minimum have stated they are planning to build something at Mooney's Bay. Announcing it as a fait accomplis just looks odd. I'm not against the park, just hate the fishy BS around the process.

I suppose that they could have stated that they were going to build something, but I'm not sure how an announcement that they were going to build something would be helpful information.

If you look at the City memo on the process, it clearly explains why this is not a procurement, and isn't subject to these rules. The City didn't just decide that it was going to flout rules - it did an analysis and determined that other rules apply.

In my professional life, I deal with and enforce process on a daily basis, and appreciate the importance of following process as a general rule. That said, I find that this city has an unhealthy obsession with process to the point that it hinders progress in many cases. The attention that this playground is getting is massively disproportionate to the expenditure and any negative impacts that it might have.

Some people in Ottawa seem to forget that process is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is there to protect the public interest. By demanding endless and comprehensive process for every expenditure the City makes, we divert resources from the actual projects. If you went to the Janette Sadik-Khan talk, she made the point that in many cases New York had to cut off debate in order to actually get things done - all objections are not made equal, and if the City was to entertain endless debate with dissenters on city-building projects, that ends up being to the public's detriment.

To the extent possible, the process needs to be proportionate to the value of the project and the impact on nearby residents. Spending a relatively small amount of money on a playground in an existing park is a circumstance where the City was right to have a mechanism in place to use a streamlined and expedited process.

[Richard Eade]

I wonder how many of the public had their say about the $8M expansion of Millenium Park in Orleans?
http://www.stephenblais.ca/en/news/i...illennium-park

(The pirate-themed splash pad opens this Saturday, June 4, 2016.)

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Radster

Exactly, those merry go rounds were awesome, it was probably children's first exposure to some sort of adrenaline rush, ahaha, sure kids would fly off, but I never saw anyone get hurt seriously. See-saws were fun too, also tested to the limit by kids, some would fly off, never seriously hurt. Even swings, you can fly off for fun. Monkey bars are quite tame in comparison, and usually not too high off the ground. There is such an exaggerated fetish with safety nowadays, its sad. How can children learn to gauge risk, and gauge their limits when everything at the playground is 100% safe? For example if you bruised or scraped yourself as a kid because you pushed the merry go round too fast and flew off, you will learn and not do it again. Parents are also there usually to supervise. Plus, back in my times, playgrounds were FULL of kids, now, almost always deserted. Partly because the playground features are boring, also partly because kids prefer to sit at home playing videogames. Here's a thought, build an exciting playground, and the kids will drop their videogames to go have fun at this innovative playground, and this is what this will be. Its just retarded that people are making an issue out of this due to the secrecy of the process, I mean come on, get a new hobby and see this for the good impact it can have on the city's children population!

Forget about fun, this is all being driven by liability. That is why school buses don't run when there is the least little threat of freezing rain. The safety audits and playground removals is also about liability.

All it takes is a few parents suing the city over Johnny spraining his ankle on some playground equipment and it has to go.

Just watch television or listen to the radio. The lawyers want you to sue so they get their cut of the settlement. Liability is high profit and is driving parts of the legal profession.

We are falling into the American trap of being litigious about everything and this is the consequence. Playgrounds have to be tamed down to the point that they look pretty to the passerby but they are no longer any fun for kids.

It is a wonder we weren't all killed as children given what we played on. And I am of the generation that had celebrated 'firecracker day', the second most fun day of the year after Christmas.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by phil235

I suppose that they could have stated that they were going to build something, but I'm not sure how an announcement that they were going to build something would be helpful information.

If you look at the City memo on the process, it clearly explains why this is not a procurement, and isn't subject to these rules. The City didn't just decide that it was going to flout rules - it did an analysis and determined that other rules apply.

In my professional life, I deal with and enforce process on a daily basis, and appreciate the importance of following process as a general rule. That said, I find that this city has an unhealthy obsession with process to the point that it hinders progress in many cases. The attention that this playground is getting is massively disproportionate to the expenditure and any negative impacts that it might have.

Some people in Ottawa seem to forget that process is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is there to protect the public interest. By demanding endless and comprehensive process for every expenditure the City makes, we divert resources from the actual projects. If you went to the Janette Sadik-Khan talk, she made the point that in many cases New York had to cut off debate in order to actually get things done - all objections are not made equal, and if the City was to entertain endless debate with dissenters on city-building projects, that ends up being to the public's detriment.

To the extent possible, the process needs to be proportionate to the value of the project and the impact on nearby residents. Spending a relatively small amount of money on a playground in an existing park is a circumstance where the City was right to have a mechanism in place to use a streamlined and expedited process.

How is spending $1M on a new park not a form of procurement? Does this get a free pass because the private sector is promising to pay a chunk of it? I just can't follow that logic...

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

How is spending $1M on a new park not a form of procurement? Does this get a free pass because the private sector is promising to pay a chunk of it? I just can't follow that logic...

Because the City isn't hiring the contractors, Sinking Ship is.

From the above-mentioned memo:
"The Supply Branch review confirmed that, given this was a funding agreement and not a purchase under the purchasing by-law.."

Full memo:

This memorandum provides Members of Council with information on the Giver playground project proposed for Mooney’s Bay Park, and responds to the directive for staff to provide written answers to questions raised at the May 19, 2016 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

Major revitalization of a section of this city-wide park will be made possible through the partnership with Sinking Ship Entertainment. This revitalized section of the park responds to the priorities identified in the redevelopment plan specifically enhanced play amenities for children. Sinking Ship Entertainment has worked successfully with a number of municipalities in Ontario to build parks that are designed with input from local children and support from local businesses and volunteers. Thirty-three parks have been built to date using this model.



The project also represents an important gift to residents with a uniquely Canadian theme respecting Ottawa’s role as the Nation’s Capital. The timing lines up well with the country’s sesquicentennial celebrations and City’s previously planned work to address lifecycle issues in the north section of the park.



The children’s playground will cover approximately 1 out of 70 acres, or approximately 1.3% of the total area of Mooney’s Bay Park.



1. How long had discussions been ongoing between the City and the television production company prior to the recent announcement?



The City received an unsolicited proposal from Sinking Ship Entertainment in early January 2016, to build a legacy park in the City of Ottawa. As the proposal was from a company with a demonstrated track record of success in other municipalities and would permit the development of a major play park for school age children with partnership funds, it was deemed to be of interest. Initially, the proposal was reviewed as a potential candidate for partnership funding under the City’s Community Partnership Major Capital program. After receiving the major capital application by the March 1, 2016 deadline, staff determined that the proposed timelines and requested value were not consistent with the Major Capital funding program.
The Chief Procurement Officer met with representatives of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRCS) and Infrastructure Services Department (ISD) on March 29, 2016 to discuss options regarding the Sinking Ship proposal. Given the unique aspects of the proposal, including the involvement of children as part of a television show, it was recommended that PRCS and ISD reach out to Finance staff regarding the funding options and consult with Legal Services on reviewing the associated legal agreement.



The Supply Branch review confirmed that, given this was a funding agreement and not a purchase under the purchasing by-law, the Ottawa Option was not applicable. Concurrently, PRCS staff consulted with the City Treasurer regarding the potential to fund the project using Cash-in-Lieu (CIL) of Parkland city-wide funds. Upon consultation with Planning and Growth Management, ISD and Finance staff, it was determined that this project would qualify for CIL funding support, which was approved on April 5, 2016 under the delegated authority of the General Manager of PRCS in accordance with the Council-approved “Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Funds Policy.”



All potential sites with a city-wide programming mandate were explored, with the additional criteria identified by Sinking Ship Entertainment of the site being centrally located in the urban area, a waterfront park, and a park with supporting amenities like parking and washrooms. Three potential candidate sites were identified – Mooney’s Bay Park, Britannia Park and Andrew Haydon Park. On February 4, 2016, Sinking Ship Entertainment visited Ottawa to view the sites and subsequently identified Mooney’s Bay Park as the preferred location for its project and investment. Staff concurred given the limitations at Britannia Park, related to land ownership, and the space constraints at Andrew Haydon Park.



Mooney’s Bay Park is one of the most significant parks in the City’s inventory, consisting of approximately 70 acres, and many city-wide amenities, including the Terry Fox Track and Field Centre, Mooney’s Bay beach, a festival site, cross-country ski centre, and premiere sports fields. It is separated from the nearest residential area by a four-lane road, has 242 parking spaces, and bus service from route 87. The preferred area for the children’s play structure requires less than 1 acre (or 1.3% of the overall park) located in the north end of Mooney’s Bay Park. This specific area was scheduled for lifecycle work in 2017, including the removal of the condemned pedestrian bridges and the replacement of the Sue Holloway fitness area, which is over 25 years old. These scheduled works presented an opportunity to coordinate the proposed new playground with the removal of existing amenities, thus permitting this redevelopment at an overall lower cost.



A meeting was held on February 17, 2016, with Councillor Brockington to update him on the identification of Mooney’s Bay as the preferred site and on the next steps, which included notifying groups that might be impacted. Councillor Brockington indicated his support for the project proceeding at Mooney’s Bay.



Both parties agreed with the Mooney’s Bay Park location and Sinking Ship Entertainment agreed to proceed with their investment in Ottawa. Subsequently, staff negotiated a detailed project agreement with Sinking Ship Entertainment, and initiated discussions with the National Capital Commission (NCC) and Parks Canada to secure the required approvals, as the City currently leases the lands for recreational purposes from the NCC and Parks Canada owns adjacent lands.
1. Will there be any public consultations as to the design of the proposed park?



Yes the City is hosting a number of information and consultation sessions on this project. The City’s Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services will be hosting a public consultation session on May 31st, where it will share details and receive feedback on the project from residents and community groups.



There will also be public consultation with the end users of the playground: children and families. The Giver model is based on involving children directly in the design of the park. Local children will be recruited to participate in the project and to team up with children flown in from across the country to work on each of the provincial and territorial sectors of the park. Their creative input is translated into physical design by Giver’s team. Recruitment of local participants starts at their casting and volunteer session on June 1.



As well, the Giver program is already in communication with Haida Gwaii regarding Indigenous Peoples contribution to the section dedicated to British Columba and are introducing themselves to Algonquins of Ontario (AOO), Anishnabeg, Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn and local Métis regarding their potential involvement.



Additionally, staff will be participating in a meeting on June 21, 2016 with the Walking in My Shoes group, a local parenting group for parents/guardians of children with disabilities, to discuss the accessibility features of the proposed playground.



While the proponent considered a number of potential sites – both those under City management and others under exclusive NCC management –the City could not discuss the concept or proprietary design proposed by Sinking Ship Entertainment, since at that time it had not been determined that the City would be the selected partner.



When Mooney’s Bay Park was chosen as the proponent’s first choice and once the City had reviewed alternate sites and concurred with the proposed site, negotiations followed to secure an agreement with the proponent. Negotiations are ongoing with the NCC as the landowner for permission to build on the site.



It is important to note that, as early as 1999 and 2000, when there were extensive consultations on the redevelopment of Mooney’s Bay Park, it was noted that there was a need to “ensure the equitable distribution of activities for all age groups” in the redevelopment of the park. Due to limited resources, the goal of the plan has not been achieved in this regard in the intervening years, and staff is of the opinion that the site remains deficient in terms of park amenities geared towards school age children, and that the amenities are not adequate for a park with a city-wide mandate.



This project will address the long-standing deficit in Mooney’s Bay Park in a cost-effective and inclusive manner.



2. What is the estimated total of the City’s financial commitment to the build of this project and how will it be funded? Will Council be advised of any potential increased costs?



City funding for the project will come from the city-wide Cash-In-Lieu (CIL) of Parkland fund. This fund is generated through the development process, and not from the tax base, to fund growth pressures on recreation services. As indicated above, Mooney’s Bay Park is one of the most significant parks in the City’s inventory in terms of size and city-wide amenities (Terry Fox Track and Field Centre, beach, festival site, cross-country ski centre, premiere sports fields) and is considered a city-wide destination. As well, the proposed playground is considered to be of a scale and uniqueness to qualify as a project of a city-wide nature. The City contribution will be spent on half of the cost to deliver the project. The City commitment is for 50 per cent of the project cost to a maximum contribution of $959,750. Mooney’s Bay Park is leased to the City for 50 years until 2044. Properties under long-term leases over 21 years are deemed to be City properties and qualify for funding from CIL sources. Sinking Ship Entertainment will be building the playground, hiring contractors and purchasing the required play structures. City funds will flow to Sinking Ship Entertainment based on agreed upon completion milestones.



Sinking Ship is responsible for mitigating any cost overruns, should they arise, by either contributing additional funding or reducing costs.



The City will assume ownership of the completed project and will be responsible for future maintenance and repairs. This is the same approach taken for all other Community Partnership Major Capital projects. Installation of the playground will reduce the amount of grass cutting at the site, but could replace it with increased attention to litter pickup in the area. Both tasks are completed by an existing on-site dedicated maintenance crew during the summer months and a roving maintenance crew at other times of the year. Park play structures generally do not require a lot of additional maintenance since they are made of robust materials. Vandalism and graffiti would be dealt with through existing resources that already address this in the park. Existing contingency budgets are in place for the repair of equipment. At the end of the structures’ lifespan in 20 to 25 years, the City would be responsible for replacing or removing the structures.



When construction is completed, the construction fencing will come down and the play area will be accessible to the public. During construction, access will be limited to workers and those participating in the project and safety equipment will be required. There is no need to keep the play area fenced off. The official opening next year will be ceremonial, but does not require access to be restricted until that time.



1. Will any aspect of this project come to Committee or Council for approval?



This project was approved under delegated authority stated within the CIL Policy.



This delegation of authority is provided under the 2011 Council approved CIL Policy, as amended in 2015, as follows:



Delegation for use of cash-in-lieu funds



Subject to policies 1-5 above the Council of the City of Ottawa hereby delegates authority to Staff and Councillors to establish budgets, access cash-in-lieu funds and approve expenditures of cash-in-lieu funds for ‘eligible projects’ subject to the following:



a. Delegates authority to the General Managers of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services and Infrastructure Services to access and use cash-in-lieu funds for any eligible project associated with an existing park or for the creation of a new park that is not associated with the development review process. This delegation is subject to the following:



i. the use of cash-in-lieu funds from a Ward account requires the concurrence of the Ward Councillor;

ii. the acquisition of land requires the concurrence of the Director, Real Estate Partnership and Development and the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management is to be advised;

iii. the General Manager shall confirm the availability of funds with the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management prior to committing funds to any project.



CIL Policy requirements for “monitoring and reporting” which will occur, include the following:



Monitoring and Reporting



The Treasurer will present a cash-in-lieu of parkland financial report to the Planning Committee and Council in the first quarter of each year. The report will contain a statement that summarizes the status of the various cash-in-lieu reserve funds, interest earned on each account and fees collected on a ward and city-wide basis. The statement will document land acquired using the funds, basic details of all works paid for by the funds, costs for each project, and information on where other funds that went to support these projects came from.



The Treasurer will inform Councillors of cash-in-lieu account balances quarterly via memorandum and the memorandum will be published as Information Previously Distributed on the next Planning Committee Agenda.



1. When will community consultation occur for the relocation of the Sue Holloway Fitness Park and what form will it take?



As indicated earlier, the Sue Holloway fitness park is at the end of its lifecycle and was scheduled to be replaced in 2017. The manufacturer of this installation has been out of business for more than a decade and it is no longer possible to purchase replacement parts or the instruction signage at each fitness station. The fitness components will be removed as part of the site preparation for the new playground and new, modern fitness stations will be installed in 2017.



Consultation sessions are planned for fall 2016. The City will consult with the Riverside Park Community and Recreation Association, Sue Holloway, user groups and residents about the location, layout and components of the new fitness park.



2. In light of the many existing parks in the City in need of repairs and upgrades, what considerations were taken into account prior to agreeing to this project?



Projects funded through the city-wide CIL must have a city-wide scope and the intent to meet the city-wide needs related to growth. This funding source cannot be applied to the redevelopment of
neighbourhood or community parks. The funding for improvements to smaller parks is derived from the City’s asset management lifecycle renewal program and from Ward CIL funding.



The City leases Mooney’s Bay Park from the NCC specifically to provide active recreation to residents on a city-wide basis with unique programming amenities. The intent of this playground project is to provide a unique, non-sport related amenity for school age children at the site. As such, the Giver 150 project is within the mandate of the city-wide CIL funding program.



1. What impacts will this have on the Dragon Boat Festival and on Hope Volleyball?



The impacts of 2016 construction would be primarily on the Dragon Boat Festival and HOPE Volleyball Summerfest. Both events were advised in February that the City was contemplating a project for the north area of the park, though no details were provided at that time in terms of concept or scope. Councillor Brockington advised HOPE Volleyball Summerfest organizers of the impacts at its Special Events Advisory Team (SEAT) meeting of February 18, 2016, the day after he was first briefed. Dragon Boat Festival was informed on February 18th as well. Both festivals were provided with more details on the construction plans in April and May, with options to accommodate their events.



Both events will be accommodated at the site and the 2016 events will be held as planned. The area of the playground development is less than one acre in size, in a park site that is approximately 70 acres. Construction will cease during the Dragon Boat Festival and fencing and construction equipment will be removed from the area so that the festival can make use of the impacted area. Construction will resume after the Festival. For the HOPE Volleyball Summerfest, construction will require relocation of their bike parking area to another location in the park and coordination of their setup with site construction activity. The City will work with all event organizers to establish new layouts for the 2017 events.





Please let me know if I can be of any assistance or if you have any additional questions on this issue.





Thank you,







Dan Chenier



c.c. Steve Kanellakos, City Manager

Aaron Burry, Acting Deputy City Manager, City Operations

Marc Desjardins, Committee Coordinator

Link: http://bulldogottawa.com/city-staff-...internal-memo/

[Radster]

Exactly, this is not procurement. I am a procurement specialist for a living, and I can attest to that. No contract is being signed here. The city is contributing to someone else's project. So the right term here would be, a grant, or contribution, but certainly not a contract and thus its not procurement. The Federal Government and its many departments, hand out billions of dollars of grants and contributions. Often these are not competed and can amount to millions of $ for just one grant, or contribution. Key is that there should be no profit involved. At least that's how it works with the feds. I am guessing its similar here, in that Sinking Ship is not profiting from this $1M. But that $ will help them fund the project and pay some overhead costs.

[watchfuleye]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

The city didn't follow it's own procurement rules. The negotiation details can be confidential but the city could at a minimum have stated they are planning to build something at Mooney's Bay. Announcing it as a fait accomplis just looks odd. I'm not against the park, just hate the fishy BS around the process.

I too am not against the playground. But I do have some serious issues as to how this came about. We are seeing this type of "democracy" at City Hall all to often now under Watsons watch.

[Capital Shaun]

To me that memo says "we found a loophole that lets us spend money to build a park without having to go though procurement", hence why it looks fishy. If I tried to do smething like that for a federal IT contract, I'd get crucified...

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by Radster

Exactly, this is not procurement. I am a procurement specialist for a living, and I can attest to that. No contract is being signed here. The city is contributing to someone else's project. So the right term here would be, a grant, or contribution, but certainly not a contract and thus its not procurement. The Federal Government and its many departments, hand out billions of dollars of grants and contributions. Often these are not competed and can amount to millions of $ for just one grant, or contribution. Key is that there should be no profit involved. At least that's how it works with the feds. I am guessing its similar here, in that Sinking Ship is not profiting from this $1M. But that $ will help them fund the project and pay some overhead costs.

The city hasn't really gone out of ts way in explaining it that way.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

To me that memo says "we found a loophole that lets us spend money to build a park without having to go though pcurement", hence why it looks fishy. If I tried to do smething like that for a federal IT contract, I'd get crucified...

I think the point being made is that this isn't an IT contract.

A grant program that is used regularly is hardly a "loophole". The program exists for a reason - so the City doesn't need to go through a ridiculous procurement process where it is contributing to something like this. Trust me, the Federal government gives out all sorts of grants and enters into partnerships that are not part of its procurement process.

By the way, even if a procurement process was used, that is separate and apart from the consultation that people seem to be demanding, so I'm not sure how it even addresses the issue that you are raising. Unless you think that the City could have gotten a better deal on the playground from one of the many other TV production companies looking to build a playground in one of its parks.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think the point being made is that this isn't an IT contract.

A grant program that is used regularly is hardly a "loophole". The program exists for a reason - so the City doesn't need to go through a ridiculous procurement process where it is contributing to something like this. Trust me, the Federal government gives out all sorts of grants and enters into partnerships that are not part of its procurement process.

By the way, even if a procurement process was used, that is separate and apart from the consultation that people seem to be demanding, so I'm not sure how it even addresses the issue that you are raising. Unless you think that the City could have gotten a better deal on the playground from one of the many other TV production companies looking to build a playground in one of its parks.

Well we gave a grant to a private outfit to build what is essentially public infrastructure. I can see why some people are unhappy about the lack of consultation. The city could have messaged it better.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Well we gave a grant to a private outfit to build what is essentially public infrastructure. I can see why some people are unhappy about the lack of consultation. The city could have messaged it better.

Why should people be unhappy when the grant is giving you much more than you could have purchased with the same money? I think this should produce the opposite reaction. The city is getting excellent value for their money.

Going through a procurement process with competitive bids would offer nothing and would likely result in the loss of this opportunity.

[waterloowarrior]

http://canadians.org/blog/ottawa-sou...e-rideau-river

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why should people be unhappy when the grant is giving you much more than you could have purchased with the same money? I think this should produce the opposite reaction. The city is getting excellent value for their money.

Going through a procurement process with competitive bids would offer nothing and would likely result in the loss of this opportunity.

1) Some people don't like surprises. And some NIMBYs will bitch no matter what the change is.

2) As stated previously, the city hasn't really bothered to sell it that way.

Enough on this from me. I hope the new park is success.

[TheGoods]

I cannot believe all of the complaints happening here, sorry to say but I feel disgusted and wondering what is happening to our society. Before you complaint, please research the company to see how they are benefiting the community. I heard the organization that is doing the TV show on CFRA this morning, incredible how they are making a difference to our children, for example, they engaged the children at the CHEO cancer ward for design input, they have donated play structures at multiple Children’s Aid Society centres, etc….

We voted for these individuals into office and I do not need to be consulted on every item, especially something like this that gives back so much to the community and helps children in need, this is so straight forward. We complaint that nothing gets done and when things happen, we complain that nbo one was consulted. Do we really need to spend tax payers money on consultation, the city is benefiting a $1M and also getting exposure on TV which has other benefits such as tourism.

I cannot wait for my children to enjoy the park!!!!!

[Adele Duguay]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yeah, you are right about the origin of that story. There is certainly some debate as to when kids can be left alone. For instance, my neighbours let their 7 year-old walk to school alone. That's a little young in my opinion, but certainly not child abuse. That said, it would be ridiculous to have a law stating that a 15-year old can't stay home alone, or even a 12-year old for that matter.

It is disappointing that this protest by what is surely a small minority is overshadowing the positive aspect of the story. I don't think any of the protesters have given much thought to the kids that would really benefit from this project. But it's their right to protest and get injunctions, so hey...

Rather than one mega playground, there should have been 10 spread across the city. These could have been in neighborhoods that don't have playgrounds as yet. That would have benefited kids. They would have been on TV and could have walked to their local playground. Everyone would have been happy. Now they have to be driven there. If their parents have a car and the time.

Hate to break it to you but I don't think it is the minority opposing this playground.

Giver missed the boat on that one.

[Adele Duguay]

Originally Posted by TheGoods

Come on, backroom shenanigans, seriously. I’m guessing the TV show producer does not have the time or patience, image before a decision is made and people to be consulted, it might have taken months and would have missed the timeline for filming. I’m also guessing that the other cities that got the same deal, they did not consult, just a guess unless someone can disprove me. Incredible, the city is getting half of the park paid for, $1M less for taxpayers and this will benefit the whole city and people are complaining, the park was at end of life, it would have been torn down. I would be interested to see the demographics on the individuals complaining.

You're right Halifax got the same deal - somewhat. Halifax City Hall staff were told by SSE that there was no time for consultation because of the tight TV deadline. So they are treating other cities the same way. Do not consult, move fast, or we're gone.

The HUGE difference is that there was no financial implications for the City of Halifax. Halifax was getting a FREE playground with SSE and SSE sponsors picking up the tab.

I could tell you more but I know you don't care for the other side of the story.

[Adele Duguay]

Originally Posted by phil235

You want to know the details of every $1 million expenditure in a $3 billion budget? That's ambitious.

The City regularly spends that amount of money and more without any of the attention that this playground is getting. Council delegates the authority to staff under various programs. This project actually got an extra level of approval, as Council voted on Brockington's motion to send it to Committee for further study. That vote confirmed staff authority to proceed. Your elected representative did have a say.

Incidentally, confidentiality does not equal secrecy. If we want our governments to leverage private sector expertise by entering into these types of public-private arrangements, the trade-off is that the negotiation process will be confidential. Even when the City goes through a public RFP, the negotiations that follow are confidential, and the politicians vote on the final deal. There really isn't any way to avoid some element confidentiality in the process, unless you want to pay a whole lot more for your goods and services.

You are very knowledgeable about city processes. Frankly, wish I knew as much.

In Season One, Giver/ SSE's had a budget of $10,000. They also received funding from sponsors. So for arguments sake, let's double that amount to $20,000 reflecting Ottawa's matching SSE budget. Season Two and Three, SSE's budget was still $10,000. In Season Four they have a budget totaling $2 million. How will SSE manage this huge budget?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Adele Duguay

Rather than one mega playground, there should have been 10 spread across the city. These could have been in neighborhoods that don't have playgrounds as yet. That would have benefited kids. They would have been on TV and could have walked to their local playground. Everyone would have been happy. Now they have to be driven there. If their parents have a car and the time.

Hate to break it to you but I don't think it is the minority opposing this playground.

Giver missed the boat on that one.

What is the big deal about building a playground in an underutilized portion of a major city park? It makes no sense to build the same old playground that we always build in 10 different locations. It simply will not sell.

It is quite apparent that the complainers want control over the project instead of the children so they can destroy it. And that is exactly what would have happened.

And just like the windmill project (a donation to the city by the Netherlands) that was planned for the same park that failed because of overzealous complainers, the city is poorer for it.

And now we are about the start the same merry go round about the Botanical Gardens yet again. I cannot figure out people who want to block everything that will make the city a better place in which to live.

But I guess there are two types of people, builders and blockers.

You have no idea the hoops I was put through in order to simply install a historic plaque. Never again.