Dear Editor:
As a longtime youth soccer coach, and advocate for community amenities to support and encourage active sports in New Westminster, I find myself conflicted as I struggle to get real answers to the Queen's Park Stadium debate.
There are duelling petitions being promoted, and lawn signs are sprouting up touting each side of this discussion, but there is deafening lack of specific financial information during this whole process. Hopefully this debate doesn't become a debacle, as is often the case in New Westminster.
The questions for our Council, or for Dean Gibson - the director of parks, culture and recreation revolve around the capital expense to accommodate not only the Whitecaps, but also the capital expenditure required to meet baseball's needs in order to make this vision a reality.
1. What is the cost to complete the required significant renovations to QP Stadium? How much is being budgeted? Over what term will this money be spent?
2. Will the Whitecaps be contributing any funds to the cost of renovating QP Stadium?
3. Is reconfiguring and turfing the tennis courts, and works yard to the north of stadium part of the initial proposal? If so, what is the budgeted cost for this? If not, is there a firm date to start and complete this project and what would the expected budget be on this? Would this be a light facility? From what I can tell, this would be the only new active sport space amenity (other than grandstand and washrooms) that will directly benefit community users, particularly New Westminster youth so I see this as a dealbreaker.
4. What is the expected cost to reconfigure an existing field (Hume Park?) for baseball? When would this work commence?
5. As I understand it, the Whitecaps would be signing a lease to become a tenant of the newly reconfigured and renovated QP Stadium. What would be the assigned rent for the Whitecaps and what would be the length of the term?
6. How does the City of New Westminster parks, culture and recreation reconcile the fact that after significant community consultation (and expense), the Queen's Park Master Plan is now being, if not wholeheartedly at the very least, significantly and irrevocably derivated from?
7. Mercer Stadium synthetic turf field, which the Department of Parks, Culture and Recreation had gone on record as saying is past its servicable life expectancy, is slated to be resurfaced in 2015.
Will this project still go ahead in light of the possibility of the Queen's Park project?
I hope the City of New Westminster is able to focus on what is right for the community and for amenities that will improve the lives of City of New Westminster residents.
Shawn Cody, New Westminster
