The Freep’s Dan Lett had a well-considered blog post the other day, addressing some of the criticism leveled against the Friends of Upper Fort Garry and their media supporters. Since I think this was at least partially aimed at me (given my multiple posts on the topic), I wanted to address some of Dan’s major points.
1 – For me, this isn’t really an issue of public vs. private money. It’s about whether the last-minute UFG plan will get in the way of much-needed downtown residential development. To a lesser extent, it’s about whether the City will follow process, or allow its power to be usurped by a small cadre of wealthy citizens. It’s also about honouring history vs. making progress. Personally, the funding only matters to me in so much that if the Friends extort enough from the province and feds by March 31, that will kill the residential development. To my mind, that would be a big mistake.
2 – I appreciate the support that families like the Aspers and Richardsons have provided for many community organizations. But, to me, there’s a difference between supporting a community organization or grassroots cause versus championing your own pet project that no one asked for.
3 – Speaking of which…I don’t really care if the Aspers and Richardsons want to engage in a vanity project now and then. However, I do find it a bit galling when they insist on significant government subsidies to follow through on their much-publicized plans. If these families truly wanted to be remembered as great philanthropists, then they’d be well-advised to dig a little deeper into their own pockets, and stay out of mine. Seriously, $12.5 million to the Richardsons is like $625 to me (I did the math). If I thought I could make a lasting positive impact on my community for just $625, you can bet I’d be willing to pick up the tab.
4 – My beef about CJOB’s support for UFG has to do with the nature of the coverage. For example, while I think Sinclair is a twit, I respect his right to editorialize. The same holds true for CJOB’s Vic Grant, who is the editorial voice of his station. However, Cloutier’s show is the meatiest thing on ‘OB, and to tune in and hear him hosting a telethon for UFG was embarrassing. It was the equivalent of the Freep running A3 coverage with the headline “Save the Fort! Send Us Your Money Now!”
5 – As for the Free Press Insiders Panel, I was initially surprised to see the headline : “Readers panel backs fort plan.” But then I read the actual question, which was: “How do you feel about public funding by various levels of government for the Old Fort Garry historical site?”
For starters, this isn’t even the issue. As I mention above, the issue is whether the Friends plan will get in the way of new downtown residential development. The way the question was asked provides absolutely no context with which to provide an answer. Further, there’s no way of telling whether respondents have any knowledge of the issue in the first place.
These problems, combined with the Insiders Panel’s non-random, non-representative sample make me question Dan’s assertion that it’s “…a step up from the hot-button daily reader polls many newspapers use.” The Insiders Panel is a gimmick, plain and simple. While it might occasionally be interesting to see what these people think, I hope it doesn’t become an editorial crutch the Freep leans on whenever a controversial topic arises.
6 – Finally, speaking of the Freep, Dan correctly points out that his paper has been a consistent voice for the cause of downtown renewal for many years. This advocacy has included countless articles and editorials supporting the idea that getting more people living downtown is paramount to any successful redevelopment. That’s why I find it a bit odd the paper has had such a muted response to the UFG issue. Then again, as Black Rod points out, perhaps there’s a conflict of interest at work here.
Related:
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: friends of upper fort garry, upper fort garry, Winnipeg Free Press
