Regarding the editorial in today's paper about the performing arts centre, I agree with the argument for a top-quality, multi-purpose building and with the ranking of priorities for taxpayer funds, but I do wish to clarify one statement and provide some arguments as to why not all public facilities should be based on the same model. The public has not "turn(ed) their backs on the Outdoor Ice Oval" as a result of removing hockey from the facility. Despite a short season due to late winter freeze-up and a very early spring thaw, the oval had 6300 visitors, up almost an order of magnitude from last year. We have a dedicated and growing group of volunteer ice-makers, and we hosted a number of highly successful events, such as the fund-raiser for Haiti. Even without hockey, the oval is a multi-use facility with high performance long-track skaters, recreational long-track skaters, marathon skaters, recreational skaters, families, power skaters, seniors, and daycare children all accessing the oval. I call that a "community of user-groups". The Aquatic Centre is given as an example of a multi-use facility - but you don't see children playing on floaties in the swim lanes, or people doing laps in the dive tank. Further, hours of operation while excellent, are still restricted. Keeping the public safe in such a multi-use facility requires paid staff, which requires higher user fees or subsidy from taxpayer dollars, or both. Last season, a person with a pair of second-hand skates could skate at the oval from 9am to 8:30 pm 7 days a week for $2 a visit. The addition of hockey would require, in the interest of public safety which the editorial ranked as the highest priority, construction of an underground tunnel to access the infield, netting to keep pucks on the hockey rink, and monitors to ensure that hockey was kept to the infield, and recreational skating to the oval. This costs money - so either the user fees have to go up and/or the City would have to subsidize it with taxpayer money. The oval is viable in its current state due to the dedication of volunteers, with minimal financial support but tremendous in-kind support from the City. It could become even more multi-purpose than it currently is, but the cost would be higher fees for users, reduced access, and increased taxpayer burden. Perhaps it is not in the community's best interest that all City facilities meet the standard of multi-purpose as defined in the editorial.
Kathy Lewis
Prince George
