Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
.
Execution: C
The execution of the presentation thus far has left much to be desired. I realize that this is very conceptual in nature, but perhaps the plan shouldn't have been brought to the public at this stage? The renderings were weak, the district plan doesn't make sense, and the PowerPoint looks like it was thrown together in an afternoon. They've created many questions by not presenting a polished product.
Conversely, if they had developed a comprehensive plan and presented it, they risk public criticism for making backroom deals and not doing proper public engagement. It's really a lose-lose scenario.
I think it was a mistake not to breakdown the funding into different sources for the arena, and stadium/fieldhouse. Also, by calling it a ticket "tax" rather then a surcharge, they've confused people into thinking that this is a public contribution.
I'd hope that they bring in some private sector partners or consultants with experience in development. This project is very important for the city and will require some skill to get it off the ground.
|
I didn't mind them bringing it out at such a raw stage. I also suspect they may have presented it as raw as they did intentionally (as in, a tad more detail likely exists). They would (or should) have done a tonne of work on stakeholder consultation with the last stakeholder being Joe Public. Rather, than inundate Joe with a tonne of details which will take a tremendous amount of time to clarify, provide the basic information. Feedback from this level of information will allow you to adjust the detailed information accordingly prior to releasing it.