Editor’s Note: This is addressed to the mayor and council.
Sir: Regarding the Chatham-Kent arena issue, I do not claim to be an expert on these issues, but I am only speaking on what I have seen, read and heard about on these proposals to close existing arenas and build a new sports complex, including a twin pad arena in Chatham.
The only changes or proposals I am interested in regarding the proposed arena and recreation plans in Chatham are that there are renovations made to save both Chatham Memorial Arena and Erickson (North Side) Arena that do not involve tearing down either one of these arenas.
These various proposals and presentations have been going on for decades now and should be finally finished, one way or the other.
The last time someone was quoted for renovations to these arenas at a municipal council meeting the costs were around $6 million for Memorial and $1 to $2 million for Erickson arena. These seem to be a considerable savings to our municipality, and maintain the historical integrity of Memorial Arena.
I only have to point out what we have got after part of downtown Chatham was demolished to be replaced by the Downtown Chatham Centre. It has had many problems over the years for our downtown core to say the least.
Also, the long and costly renovation of The Capitol Theatre has had its share of problems. The Kiwanis Theatre at the Chatham Cultural Centre has for the most part been underutilized since the Capitol Theatre reopened. Do we want to have a similar and possibly long building process if we are to replace our existing arenas with a new one, that may lose more money than it makes once it opens?
Also consider that the Bradley Centre, built to replace the Kiwanis Auditorium, when it opened in recent years has been reported in the local press as having lost money.
The talk in the news media in recent years is that the municipality is having trouble getting its existing arenas used to capacity and that several of them might have to be closed, even ones newer than Memorial Arena. Considering this, does it make sense to build a new huge arena that would lose more money than the existing structures do now?
Bringing a Major A or Minor Pro hockey team to Chatham may sound like a good deal, but based on past history of similar projects of this sort being done, it’s probably an idea that should be retired and not perused further.
A new franchise may not necessarily be a winning team and it could be many years before a winning team arrives. With ticket prices probably jumping way up with a Major A or a pro team, there would many people, including myself, who would not be able to afford to go often if at all for such a team.
Many people who follow the Maroons now can usually only afford to go to a handful of games, and usually near the end of the regular season or playoffs.
The Navistar property, as I have stated previously, may not even be available to build a new arena, regardless of who owns the property as it may be unsuitable for many years because of chemicals and oils that were spilled into the ground while the factory was there.
There are also the costs to build a new facility, higher taxes, lack of federal and provincial government dollars for these projects.
Renovations to the existing arenas may, though, be affordable for all.
Spending money from our municipal profits and reserves on such a new athletic complex may sound like a good idea, but wait! If we use up these reserves and profits, what happens and who will pay for other expenses needed, such as buying new city transit vehicles to replace worn out ones, fixing municipal bridges and streets or have around in case of a natural disaster or just dealing with the removal of snow and ice in the winter months?
It’s nice to dream big and shoot for the stars, but we have to come down with a thud to reality that building a new massive arena and athletic complex such as proposed may be not a realistic or rational way of spending money or use of available property. Our community can exist and thrive with the facilities, parks and other recreation facilities that we currently have quite nicely.
Frank Doyle
Chatham-Kent
