If you do not want a building across from the St. Lawrence Basilica that will produce income for the city and its residents for years to come, but instead would like a park that would cost the city (planning, building, maintaining, securing and insuring), then take some of your time dedicated to the subject to coming up with — should I say it? — a compromise. No, I do not have the "one" answer on this subject. It's just the one side or the other attitude that I address.
While thinking about the fact that I, too, would prefer a park. I tried to imagine the costs associated with it, as well as how much the city would lose in revenue for the future.
Perhaps a park that would produce an income, at least to off set its expenses, would be best? Maybe something similar to what the Grove Arcade has outside? A place where locals could pay a fee and market their goods and services. Maybe not-for-profits could have fund raising events for a nominal fee? Maybe it could be rented for weddings? Maybe install solar panels and rain retention to offset utility expenses (perhaps one of the local solar companies would install at little or no cost)? Maybe form an organization the applies for grants and does private fundraising to pay for the project, giving all those a place to put their money where there mouths are? I doubt that all this would compare to the tax revenue produced by a building though.
Like I said, I don't have the "one" answer on this subject. I just would encourage all who are passionate about this to help come up with "all" the answers, not just "one.”
One more thing: Thank you to the City Council for your time and efforts. I'm sure it's got to be frustrating for you to always hear objections rather than solutions from one side then the other. My community elected you. I support your informed decision on this matter. I know none of you take this lightly.
— Kent Joines