A Partial Answer

Elizabeth Bishenden said...

Hmmm...I've been thinking about the Jazz Festival and the park.Town facilities have user groups. The AMHA pays for its ice time. Folks who show up for a swim at the SARC or at the AFLC pay. Squash courts can be rented by the hour.The ACTC has use of the MacMahon Park tennis court almost exclusively, and presumably they pay for that privlege.So, I'd say I'm not too offended by the use of a park if an enterprise offering a fair service wanted to use it. My problem with the Jazz Fest is that the Town had a prior arrangement with the Farmers' Market for the same space, and cancelled that contract for that day. That doesn't sit well with me.The Aurora Cultural Centre has a binding agreement with the Town about who can decide who uses the facility and at what price.That does take control of the Cultural Centre away from Town and Council.If the Board of the ACC isn't honouring its contract in terms of either use of the space or financial agreements, then the Town should negotiate (not litigate) to ensure the original contract is for the benefit of all citizens.On the other hand, if the Board of the ACC is not responsible for setting up a museum space, then who is?

***************************

Thank you for the comment Elizabeth.

A new Council elected means all contracts should be reviewed. There are inconsistencies. Not all users are treated the same .User fees tend to be politically sensitive. Some users feel they should not have to pay feesbecause they paid for the facilities. They do not separate the cost of the facility from operating costs.People who pay to build the facility and don't use it, should not, in principle, subsidize usersThe lines get blurred when the facility has long since been paid for.

It's a rare one that doesn't need to be maintained and capital costs are a constant factor.I would contend ,in the principle of fairness, there should be a fee established for all use.At the same time, the town should manage facilities to keep fees affordable and within the reach of all . People paying the capital cost of providing facilities , should not be excluded from their use by lack of affordability. A principle applies. The more efficient the business, the lower the cost,the greater use.the better the price, the more successful the business.It keeps everybody happy.It's not easy. It's even more difficult when you have nine politicians making the decisions without agreement on the basic principles. But a couple of things are irrefutable.First people or organizations who are not town taxpayers are not entitled to equal considerationSecond, public facilities are not built for commercial enterprise to maximize profit at public expense.

When the town built the Community Centre with audience accommodation , we had inquiries for commercial concert promotionReserving the facility for such an event meant it would not be available for community use. The town had to have a guarantee of specific revenue before undertaking to provide what was needed .Promoters had to take the risk the concert would be a sell-out. No promoters was ever willing.A municipal corporation is not in the business of taking risks with public resources.


That this municipal corporation permitted a town park to be fenced off, for a commercial concert venture, on the basis of cultural promotion and added insult to injury by providing a sponsorship[ of $2,000 on the basis of encouraging tourist promotion, is as derelict of business acumen as any nonsensical notion I have ever had the misfortune to witness in our fair town.As a form of entertainment, jazz is not a rare commodity. The young are willing to travel distances and pay high prices for rock or steel or hip-hop artistry.

The not -so-young are surely just as willing to pay what it costs for spine-tingling jazz wherever it can be found. There is no obligation moral, cultural or for tourist promotion, for a municipality to lay it , at taxpayers expense ,on the home turf , so-to-speak.