Suckered Once Again

You just have to know we are being played for fools again.

The proposed Capitol deal was so ridiculous that no one should ever have proposed it in the first place. Or was it?

There is a very simple solution that would end this mess yet no one in Administration nor our lawyer/Mayor, nor inside counsel or the City's outside counsel has offered it. They are so smart so why aren't they putting forward the proposal?

I am not going to offer it since I have already said what my terms are! Why should the Trustee and his lawyer and the City's lawyer be the only ones to get something out of this deal. My condition was quite modest I thought---name a significant public area in the Capitol after my parents if I helped save it! I won't hold my breath though waiting for the call from City Hall.

I liked the comments in the Star story and how the Councillors were so outraged. I wonder why the Mayor said nothing since he was reachable as he said on CKLW by means of the technology like cell phone or Blackberry. Of course the CAO made no Administrative recommendation although he expressed his opposition to the deal at Council. And yet he signed the Report too, the only one from Administration to do so. That makes me very suspicious.

Our Councillors are tough using language like absurd, a sham, "it gets even more ridiculous," "People who suggested this should be rather embarrassed," "The city would be obliged to run the theatre for that period [five years] and essentially be responsible for any operating losses."

Then the famous Columnist jumped and here is where the whole Plan was given away

• "Contrary to the city's interest? That's a lawyer's twisted way of saying that citizens who really care about this city and its finances would have gone through the roof once the ugly details of this ultimatum became public knowledge.
  
  Thankfully, it never came to that. The offer, and that's a polite description, was kicked into the public arena and unanimously spiked by outraged councillors who labelled it a sham.
  
  The disturbing thing is that those who spawned it surely understood it was a political non-starter and would be rejected out of hand."

Exactly. Since when does a confidential memo from a lawyer get published? And the deal was so bad that it should never have seen the light of day but it did.

Councillors were outraged as they were supposed to be. Someone was counting on their knee-jerk reaction opposition and they got it!

• "As Coun. Jo-Anne Gignac, who led the charge...put it: "This was nothing more than asking the citizens of Windsor to pay for an asset twice."

Actually that is NOT true since $1.1M of the funds were to flow back to the City through a five year lease. That fact was NOT disclosed by Gord but we read:

• "Coun. Fulvio Valentinis, an educator and lawyer who dealt with bankruptcy cases while in practice, described the offer as "mind-boggling" [Oh my, if an educator/lawyer said it was bad it must be]
  
• "The days of just cutting a blank cheque are done" [except for the East end arena and the Estrin/Schwartz fees]
  
• "Meanwhile, a much-loved community facility will be silent, forlorn and increasingly irrelevant" [he forgot to use the word "jewel']

So what is going on? Why doesn't this smell like the Cleary deal all over again?

We have an asset that would cost the City supposedly a fortune to operate. Why if we could get it off our hands and have someone reputable run it, then it would be a plus for the City and we would save the jewel of a theatre for the Community.

Now I have heard that the University is very interested in the Capitol (as is St. Clair) and we know that Eddie wants the Engineering Complex downtown. What about a nice deal involving the Capitol and the Complex. Why wouldn't that be a no-brainer!

Frankly we are being set up again. This deal was presented to be shot down. Various other alternatives will now be suggested to justify what was wanted to be done in the first place:

Alternative I

1. my idea will be used to end the bankruptcy of the Capitol and to allow the City to take it over
2. the Capitol will be "saved" and given to the University
3. we will justify the write-off of the $1.83M because of how much the Capitol would cost to run over 5 years (just like with the Cleary)
4. we will hear about the Engineering and drama and music students who will come downtown using the funky bus terminal and spending money
5. Eddie will make this whole idea his as the Councillors have served their purpose
6. And we will all live happily ever after

Alternative II

Another other possibility is that the deal really was supposed to go through with the City scooping the assets from under other potential purchasers (ie the $1.1M was mentioned in the Administration Report but not the lease-back so who would bid at that price). Then the whole thing would be transferred to the University who would own/run the Theatre at their expense, not the City's.

Alternative III

A variation of the above two deals is to enter into the promissory note/leaseback deal but instead of giving it to the University, it will go to St. Clair. St. Clair will get the note and the City will repay it, $220K per year and NOT charge St. Clair anything for rent. In this way the City puts money into the Capitol and effectively St. Clair gets it for free. It will be justified as saving the arts in Windsor but not putting taxpayers at risk since the amount to be put in will be capped and spread over 5 years. We will hear all about the synergies between the Capitol and the Cleary as well.

If one of these was the deal, it failed because Eddie was not there to enlighten Councillors about the way the transaction was supposed to work. Perhaps that is why Councillor Lewenza tried to put it on the Consent Agenda. Never fear, Eddie will salvage this when he comes back.

No matter what, the Casino loses another possible competitor, again like with the Cleary.

You know the real question to be asked: why can't the City just make transactions simple and not so complicated. They are not that hard to structure for anyone experienced in law and business. Our Mayor and Council should be open with citizens so we could go along with decisions that are made. We ought to be tired of being played as fools.