Tag Archives: Sam Katz

The New Winnipeg Stadium – The Real Cost to Tax Payers

The Mayor is quoted as saying that for an investment of only 6% of the overall cost of $190 million, Winnipegers are getting a new stadium.

That 6% is made up of 10 million dollars in outright grants from the city, and 1.6 million dollars in new infrastructure requirements at the new stadium site.

That’s 11.6 million dollars.

A further 1.1 million dollars in the form of  ‘in kind’ services for building and development permit fees is thrown in as a freebie.

The Mayor is right.  If the $1.1 million in in-kind services is ignored, the $11.6 million works out to approximately 6 % of the overall 190 million dollar estimated cost of the new stadium.

Now if that were the real cost to Winnipeg tax-payer, that would be a good deal.

However, the Mayor (as he frequently does) is telling only a portion of the story.

The City is on the hook for a further  75- 85  million dollars (depending on which numbers you look at) which will be repaid using tax dollars generated through the Tax Increment Financing scheme once the site of the current Winnipeg Stadium is sold and redeveloped.

Because this is new money,  the mayor has conveniently chosen to ignore it.  If this additional money (cost) is factored into the City’s contribution to the stadium project, the total cost to Winnipeg tax payers is in the range of  87 million dollars.

That ups the City’s percentage contribution to the project from 6% to 46%.

In the words of Brian Kelcey,  a former advisor to Mayor Katz, the mayor and councilors need to remember that:

“Just because it’s new money, doesn’t mean it isn’t real money”

Taking into account the true cost to Winnipeg tax payers, is this still a great deal?

Stadium Funding Debate Sparks “Gun-play”

Who is really being childish here?

In a move described by Councillor Russ Wyatt as “having a gun stuck to your head”, the Mayor attempted to ‘walk’ stadium funding onto the city council agenda.  Such a move requires a suspension of the rules.  Wyatt and five other councillors decided not to simply roll over on the issue and notified the Speaker they would not support a suspension of the rules.

This left the Mayor with two options:  put the issue on the agenda for the next council meeting, or call a special meeting.

Councillor Justin Swandel has characterized the move by Councillor Wyatt and the other councillors as a childish stunt.

This prompts questions:

If the exercise of their rights by councillors is viewed as a stunt, then why not change the rules so that the Mayor and Councillor Swandel can walk anything onto the agenda at any time?

Why do the Mayor and Councillor Swandel view this attempt to promote transparency and accountability for public spending as a negative?

Has the obvious lack of due diligence, cost guesstimates and flawed decision-making not already created a large enough mess?  The big hole in the ground at the University of Manitoba says that it has.

Is it not time that someone actually sat down and gave this entire project some sober second thought without rushing it through?

Some of the techniques being employed by the Mayor are very similar to those used by  scam artists: create a sense of urgency, rush the decision, decide right now because time is of the essence, act right now or the price will go up.   Never mind providing the required information to allow proper study and evaluation – just trust me and you can’t tell anyone else about this.   Sound familiar?  It seems the public was already scammed once on the stadium deal.  Should we throw good money after bad money?

Exercising his rights, the Mayor called a special meeting of City Council (not to be confused with a childish stunt) and pushed stadium funding through.    The mayor and his buddies got their way, just a day late.

Due process must be such a downer – especially for politicians with dictatorial tendencies.

 

Stadiums, Marijuana and Photo radar.

Putting the power in the hands of the people who live with the consequences and pay the bills.

Americans are different from Canadians – we all know that.

Their system of government and governance is different as well.  Americans are more likely to demand a direct say in what their governments do at all levels but especially at the local and state levels.

Canada has a different form of democracy, less direct, less hands on. We have a parliamentary system of government; America is a republic.  Under both systems the representatives of the people, once elected, make decisions on our behalf; decisions that may or may not reflect the views and values of their constituents.

Referendums allow the people to have a direct say in what the law should be and which projects should be funded. What a novel idea.

In Canada referendums are rare.  In the United States, referendums are  common and used as tools to guide politicians in terms of what the people want.

The recent mid-term elections in the United States featured many local and State referendums.  The following are of some interest.

In California, Proposition 19, if it had passed, would have seen the elimination of all criminal penalties for adult Californians (21 years of age) who planted marijuana plots up to 25 square feet or possessed up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use.  The proposition did not pass (54 % opposed) but organizers are already planning to put the issue back on the ballot for 2012.

In South Dakota, Measure 13 would have allowed for the medical use of marijuana .  It was defeated with 60% of voters rejecting the measure.

In San Diego, Proposition D, which would have increased sales tax by one half a percent to fund municipal spending, was soundly defeated.  In a bid to gain support for the measure, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders had been threatening dramatic cuts to public safety spending if Proposition D failed.  It seems the people in San Diego voted against the measure because they did not trust officials to spend the money wisely.

And lastly, an issue that resonates in Winnipeg:  In Houston, where 800,000 offence notices had been issued since 2006, just over 53 per cent of the votes rejected the continued use of photo radar.  The revenue collected since its inception in Houston amounted to 44 million dollars.

Some Winnipegers might appreciate having a direct say on the issue of stadium funding. Again, what a novel idea, actually asking the people who will have to pay back the loan if they wish to borrow the money.  This, as opposed to allowing millionaire developers and city and provincial politicians (who seem to have difficulty recognizing the difference between an “estimate” and a “wild guess”) making decisions and sending us the bill once all the back room dealing is done.

I sometimes get the feeling we are in a high stakes card game with a number of card sharks.  The problem is the card sharks are playing with our money and we, the public, barely have a seat at the table .  In such a scenario we need to know when, in the words from a popular song, we should “hold’em,  fold’em, when to walk away and when to run”.

With the stadium funding issue, running might be a good option.  Clear the deck, get new players to the table and deal a new hand. Never mind that a hole has already been dug.  It would not be the first time governments have hired people to dig holes and then fill them in.

Perhaps politicians might be surprised with the results if they engaged in open and meaningful consultations with the public.  Given the right time, right location, and most importantly the right players, Winnipegers might just support a major investment of public money to build an appropriate stadium.

The Politics of Election Issues and Promises

I freely admit that it’s been some years since I took Political Science 101 but some things never change.

Politics is a positional activity.  The greater the difference in the positions taken by candidates, the greater the polarization of the vote at election time.

Politicians try as best they can to identify the key issues that the election will be fought on and given the opportunity they will choose issues that they see as being politically advantageous to them, specifically issues that they see as strengths in terms of their candidacy.

In some instances the issues are defined for them through public opinion polls and the media.

With Winnipeg having had the dubious distinction of leading the country in various crime categories for some years now, it was not a surprise that crime emerged as one of, if not the prime issue, in the recent civic election.

Once an issue such as crime gains prominence in the media, and is accepted by the public as a legitimate election issue, politicians are put in a position of having to respond to the issue in their election platform.

When this happens candidates attempt to establish distance between their position and the position taken by their opposition and argue the superiority of their position, while discounting the merits of the position being taken by their opposition.  They attempt to differentiate themselves and convince the public that their position is superior to that of other candidates.

In the recent civic election this scenario played itself out in the mayoralty election.

Both the incumbent mayor and the main challenger agreed early on that crime was a major issue in the election.

Same old, same old

The incumbent, not surprisingly, played the same card that proved successful in the past: i.e. pledging the hiring of more police officers without apparent concern about how those additional police salaries would be funded.  Being an astute non-politician the incumbent no doubt realized that the hiring of 58 additional police officers is a long and arduous process, so there will be no significant additional cost to the city for some time (perhaps not until mid to late 2011).  And guess what, there is a provincial election slated for October 4th 2011.

Do you think there is any possibility that the funding of these additional 58 police positions could result in a bidding war between the current governing party and the official opposition as to what percentage of the salary of those 58 positions (and perhaps even more positions) they would pay for if they were to form the next government?  Perhaps the incumbent was not too worried about the cost  and how the new positions would be funded.  He was confident he was playing with house money.

Root causes and prevention

The challenger for the mayoralty position very successfully differentiated herself from the incumbent in terms of her crime platform.  Her platform centered on programming designed to deal with root causes of crime, greater community involvement and a revitalization of community policing.  I think the issue from the electorate’s perspective (many of whom probably wanted to support this position) was that there was not enough meat on the bone.

From a political perspective, once the incumbent committed to creating new police positions there was no downside to the challenger making a similar pledge but dedicating the additional police resources to specific crime prevention and neighbourhood revitalization efforts in the highest crime areas in the north and west end.  Such a commitment might well have made her approach palatable to voters, many of whom were desperately looking for a viable alternate to ‘same old, same old’.

For the challenger and citizens of Winnipeg, particularly those living in crime-ridden areas, I believe this was truly an opportunity missed.

The Sam’s Plan and a Few Things The Sam Did Not Mention

Fighting Crime The Sam’s Way

In his full-page ad in the October 16th issue of the Winnipeg Free Press, the self-proclaimed “Tough on Crime”  Sam outlined his accomplishments during his six-year tenure as Winnipeg’s Mayor.  At least two (and perhaps more) of Sam’s accomplishments were not mentioned.

The first: Closed Circuit Television in the downtown area.  The Sam fails to mention this $450,000.00 vanity project.  Why not?  Normally when cities institute this type of program they flood the media with details about arrests that resulted from the project.  They outline how the initiative has reduced crime and made the area safer.  We have heard none of that which leads one to conclude that perhaps it has not had the positive impact it was meant to have in terms of preventing crime. Perhaps if you had just spent close to half a million dollars (enough money to put 5 police officers on Winnipeg streets for a year) on a failed project you would not mention it either.

The second accomplishment which has turned into an ‘unmentionable’ is truly puzzling as it was indeed a bona fide accomplishment.  The introduction of Crimestat in 2007 held great promise in terms of identifying crime trends and hot spots and more importantly, directing and guiding police action.  Crimestat is a tool that has proven successful in reducing crime in virtually every North American jurisdiction it has been used and yet seems to have lost favour within the Winnipeg Police Service.  As mentioned in a previous post on this topic, the Executive of the Winnipeg Police Service has turned its back on the one tool with a proven track record of producing results when it comes to crime reduction.  Is The Sam turning his back on it?  What other explanation for avoiding mention of it when he originally introduced it with such fanfare?

The really sad thing is that Crimestat, if used in conjunction with a true commitment to community policing and a problem solving approach, could be an immense asset to the Police Service and the community in terms of crime reduction and community revitalization.  However, not only does The Sam avoid mentioning it, the Police Service is not using it as it was originally intended: to reduce crime in crime-ridden communities.  Instead residents are told to stay in their houses until it is safe to come out.  That could be a long stay.

Now, on to what The Sam did mention.  The Sam, backed by the endorsement of the Winnipeg Police association, has pledged to increase the number of police officers by 58 officers.

There are several problems with this approach.  First, increasing the number of police officers has been The Sam’s perennial answer to crime.  It has become as predictable as the mayor saying either ‘I’ve done that; am doing that; or will be doing that’ anytime a valid suggestion is made to improve the delivery of police service in Winnipeg or any other civic issue for that matter.  The Sam keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result.  In a recent interview I made the observation that repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.  Perhaps what requires closer examination is not only the number of officers but rather the direction that officers are currently receiving from their executive in terms of goals, objectives, strategies and tactics.

Continually alternating between flooding the north end and the west end with large numbers of police officers every time a flare-up occurs is not the answer to long-term crime reduction and the creation of safe neighbourhoods.  That approach is a lot like flooding a combat zone with troops without an exit strategy and then just picking up and leaving without having put in place the needed infrastructure to ensure long-term stability in the neighbourhood.

On to The Sam’s actual promises:

Twenty new positions for a dedicated Gang Unit.  This could be positive if the unit can be convinced that its function is something else than gathering intelligence. Dedicated units with narrow mandates tend to fixate on intelligence gathering as opposed to operations.  A twenty persons unit could help make a difference if its mandate is clearly defined in terms of goals and strategies to achieve those goals.

Eighteen additional officers of staff one 2-officer unit 24 hours a day.  The Winnipeg Police Service has enough personnel assigned to uniform patrol to staff 27 two-officer units 24 hours a day 365 days a year.  Actually,  some Division Commanders question that.  It seems in some divisions the staffing ratio of 18 officers per unit is not quite there, but on paper it is.  The real question is where will this unit be assigned.  Will it simply be swallowed up in the vortex of calls for service?  If it is,  the addition of one unit will make little difference.  This could have been an opportunity to perhaps introduce additional 1-officer units with a very specific mandate centered on crime reduction activities.

Twenty new officers dedicated to foot patrol. The biggest question that has been left unanswered as it relates to this campaign promise is the establishment of beats in terms of location, and the mandate of the officers assigned.  Simply walking in circles in the downtown area will do little to create safer communities in the north end and west end of the city.  Simply assigning beat officers with a law enforcement mandate will do little to bring about community revitalization and the creation of safer communities.

The larger problem with specific political assignment of police personnel at election time is this:  it demonstrates that the police service itself has failed to address its failures.  If police fail to recognize the severity of the issues facing them and fail to develop a comprehensive strategic plan complete with goals, strategies to achieve those goals, and performance measures to gauge success (or failure) and personnel requirements to implement the plan,  then politicians step in at election time and make promises that are politically motivated and tie the hands of police in terms of deployment of personnel.  And the police cannot blame anyone but themselves.  If their inactivity or inability to develop a cohesive plan of action, or to use the tools at their disposal (such as Crimestat), creates a vacuum in terms of leadership and direction, the situation is ripe for political opportunism.  The Sam sensed the opportunity and ran with it.

The Sam’s Union Dues

In response to “Judy’s Union Dues”

The Sunday, October 17th edition of the Winnipeg Sun ran a piece titled “Judy’s Union Dues”, commenting on CUPE support for Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

It states in part:”It’s business, really. Unions are in the business of getting the most money for their members as possible and the best job security regardless of the taxpayers’ ability to pay”.  It goes on to say, “So obviously they’re going to work for Judy and any other city council candidate that pledges their allegiance to the brotherhood”.

What is conspicuously absent in the article is any reference to two other large civic unions, the Winnipeg Police Association and the United Firefighters of Winnipeg.  Both have come out and endorsed The Sam and are working to see him get re-elected.

Should we assume that their motives are different than those of CUPE?  Should we assume that their mandate is not to get the very best possible compensation package and job security for their members quite apart from the city’s ability to pay?  And should we assume that as they are endorsing and working for The Sam, that The Sam has pledged his allegiance to their ‘brotherhood’?

I think perhaps no to the first and yes to the second assumption would be the correct answer.

The Sam is the Man?

Based on the full-page ad that ‘The Sam’ purchased in the Saturday, October 16th edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, THE SAM must be quite the guy.

Apart from being mayor, it appears that sometime between 2004 and the present he also became the Chief of Police.   The Sam did not just support the efforts of the Winnipeg Police Service, MPI, Manitoba Justice and the other partners involved in initiation of the Auto Theft Suppression Strategy (which has been a local success story in terms of reducing auto theft in Winnipeg).  According to the advertisement, The Sam, all on his own, “Reduced auto theft by 74% since 2004”. Now that’s quite a feat.  Way to go Sam.

And it does not end there.  The Sam in the role as ‘Chief of Police’  “Purchased a police Helicopter to free up on-ground resources”. Actually The Sam didn’t purchase anything.  The Sam used Winnipeg taxpayers money (to the tune of 3.1 million dollars) and an additional 1.3 million dollars in annual operating cost (funded by the province) to pad his resume for this election.  Notice that the anticipated outcomes related to the helicopter are very limited and understated.  The advertisement claims only that a helicopter will “free up on-ground resources”.  It does not indicate the degree to which on-ground resources will be freed up.  More importantly it does not claim that a helicopter will reduce crime, probably because it can’t be proven that it indeed will.

The Sam’s crime fighting efforts don’t end there.  During lulls in criminal activity the Sam in his assumed role as the Chief of Police “Implemented the Mobile Street Crimes Unit and full time Tactical Unit to fight crime”.  (I’m assuming that if there is a mobile Street Crimes Unit then there must also be a stationary Street Crimes Unit which no doubt is being kept in reserve for ‘mobilization’ when crime really gets bad in Winnipeg.)

Don’t go away now.  There is more.  Just recently The Sam, according to his re-election advertisement, “Implemented the new police cadet program to free up police to arrest criminals”.

It seems that other than single handedly bringing auto theft to its knees between 2004 and the present, many of The Sam’s ‘accomplishments’ are recent and in several cases have not yet come to fruition.  The timing of the implementation of several of the ‘accomplishments’ was no doubt intended to coincide with the election; unfortunately for The Sam they are behind schedule so there will be not pictures of The Sam taking an expensive ride in a police helicopter at taxpayers’ expense and no pictures of The Sam going for a walk with police cadets.

Perhaps what is really interesting is not only what The Sam did or claims to have done but the list of things he (or the Police Service) did that he fails to mention.

The things he did not mention and The Sam’s Plan for the future will be the subject of another post.

Winnipeg Police Association Endorses Sam

Buying the Union Vote

I’m sure Sam is grinning from ear to ear – now that he (the conservative candidate and not Judy WL) has the endorsement of the Winnipeg Police Association (WPA) the union that represents Winnipeg police officers and staff members.  Unions traditionally support candidates with a labour background – but not the WPA.

The Winnipeg Police Association is a different sort of union.  With the vast majority of its members being police officers (the WPA also represents the staff sector), there is nothing left leaning or labour oriented about its membership.  Police officers tend to be conservative in their values and political orientation.  It comes with the job.  The WPA is largely a union in the same sense that the NHL Players Association is a union.  The ‘union’ is a vehicle that allows them to bargain collectively – no more and no less and that is where their unionism ends.

So how did Sam ‘buy’ the support of the union that isn’t really a union?  Largely by promising to increase their membership.   Do the math: unions are funded through union dues.  More members mean more money in union coffers.  In this case the addition of 77 members represents additional cash flow into the WPA coffers in the amount of approximately 30 to 40 thousand dollars a year.

The WPA is apparently prepared to enter into this unseemly arrangement in return for more money and more power.

Sounds cynical?

The fact is, Sam has got this one figured out at least in the short-term and right now I don’t think Sam is thinking much past October 27th 2010.   In the long-term, the more powerful a union becomes, the more potent  an adversary it will be  when it’s time for collective bargaining.

In the event Sam is re-elected the time will come when WPA will call in its chips and remind the mayor “We endorsed you”.   When that happens, the old adage of ‘pay me now or pay me later’ may well change to ‘pay me now and pay me later’.

At this point it is not known whether the mayor sought the political endorsement of the WPA and the union agreed, or whether the union proposed the endorsement and the mayor accepted it.   But it really doesn’t matter who courted whom because in an ethical sense, both sides in this questionable arrangement are on the precipice, if not the downside, of the proverbial slippery slope.

Answering 911 Calls – Not a New Issue

The recent administrative report submitted to Standing Committee on Protection and Community Services by the Winnipeg Police Service makes it sound as though the results of the recent review of the Winnipeg Police Communications Centre efficiency level came as a surprise to the Winnipeg Police Executive.

Who knew that 911 calls were not being answered in a timely manner? How did this issue progress to the point that, to quote from the report, the existing situation in the Communications Centre created a “risk that is not acceptable”.

I’m sure the call takers knew just as I’m sure their supervisors knew. I’m even quite sure that the Winnipeg Police Association knew. Unfortunately all the people that ‘knew’ were not in a position to effect change.

The issue of workload, outputs, outcomes, efficiency and cost effectives were addressed in the City of Winnipeg Audit Department report submitted in June of 2002 upon conclusion of their audit of the Communications Centre. Recommendation 32 of that reported stated:

The WPS Executive and Centre management should monitor the performance of the Centre on a regular basis. Periodic performance reports should cover the entire spectrum of the Centre’s activities and include measures of output, outcome, efficiency and cost effectiveness. Periodically, the actual results of the Centre should be compared to internal and external standards and benchmarks. As the objectives change, the performance targets and measures also need to be evaluated to determine if they require modification.

The Winnipeg Police Service Executive at that time committed to developing a report format that addressed the issues of performance and effectiveness, as well as to conducting periodic comparisons with internal and external standards and to benchmarking.

What is missing from the report to Standing Committee is any information about previous performance and benchmarking reports. One would be led to believe that this high risk situation developed suddenly. Do previous reports exist? If they exist, do they perhaps show a continuous trend of increased workload and a steady deterioration in the  level of service delivery over the past several years that was not addressed and  that the Police Service and the politicians don’t want to talk about now,  just before an election?

So why does this request now come before Standing Committee in September of 2010? And why does the request align so perfectly with the Mayor’s pre-election promises? Could it be that the Mayor instructed the police service to do this study (or other studies for that matter) so as to identify areas of police concern that he could incorporate into his election platform?

Back in the day when I was doing high school geometry we learned about a theorem called congruency. It basically says that if the 3 sides of a triangle are the same length and the angles match, the two triangles are congruent. We have here a scenario whereby the Mayor makes an election promise, the Police Service submits a report that asks for exactly what the Mayor has just promised, and on the day the announcement is made the Winnipeg Police Association endorses the Mayor. An argument could be made that we have congruence here, especially when each of these announcements falls perfectly one on top of the other like dominos – almost like it was planned.

Only during ‘silly season’, you say?

The complete City of Winnipeg Audit Report is available at: http://www.winnipeg.ca/audit/pdfs/reports/WPS_CC_Report.pdf

Radar Units With LED Displays

For the past several years Winnipeg’s photo radar program has received some bad publicity.  In the eyes of many it has morphed from a road safety program to a revenue generating program.  Some of you have actually started calling it a cash grab.  Others, including a Provincial Court Judge, have questioned whether the Police Service and the City in their zeal to raise photo radar revenue  complied with the law.

The Mayor has decided to take steps to address this issue.

In order to dispel the ‘cash grab’ image, the mayor has decided to ‘invest’ our tax dollars and has spent $100,000.00 to purchase a number of radar units with LED displays.  These units will tell motorists exactly what their speedometers currently do but using much larger numbers and in colour!  Winnipeggers are no doubt excited about this new initiative, just another example of the efficient and effective use of  their tax dollars.

Because the mayor is now also spending money on photo radar and not just generating revenue he wants us all to be reassured that photo radar is really all about safety, and not about the money.  The Chief of Police has described the project as a ‘worthwhile investment’ –  probably because the mayor told him it was.  And although the Chief of Police did not come up with this idea himself, he does support it and as with other initiatives proposed by the Mayor (such as the helicopter and CCTV),  the  Chief has clearly demonstrated a keen sense of  political savvy by falling in line with the mayor’s thinking.

Some members of the public view this  ‘investment’ as a red herring to distract attention away from the ‘money grab’.

And for those of you that, in your cynicism, thought this might be an election ploy – forget it.  The mayor actually thought about this idea last year and the timing of the implementation is strictly a co-incidence.

Much like former President Richard Nixon used to proclaim, “I am not a crook”, Winnipeg’s mayor has repeatedly proclaimed “I am not a politician”.   How could any of his actions, therefore, possibly be viewed as politically motivated if he is not a politician?

(Authors note:  Actually, it turned out that despite Richard Nixon’s repeated proclamations to the contrary, history showed that he was indeed a crook.)