It comes off that way, because I see this for what it actually is, Opposition to P3 partnerships. Which in my mind as stated above, isnt realistic in the world we live in.With respect, what gives you the right to determine the moral views or preferences of others. A lot of what you say comes off as "This is what i want therefore you should want it to, and anything else is ridiculous because I say so"
You would get more positive interaction if you expressed your preference for what it is, a preference, your indifference for what it is, yours
For many people there is a key idea here, which is should a private company profit off of public property, at-scale. (one must recognize that there is always some profit/private involvement, in government, unavoidably so, irrespective of one's politics); but there is a difference between leasing some space to restaurant/concessions operators, and turning over a very large chunk of the actual property to a private interest.
Its fine that it doesn't bother you, that that is not a principle that concerns you, but it does concern others.
This was an 'attraction' built for the people; and if it made any profit (which usually it did not) that went back to the people. This will not be the case with Therme, whose proposal is not viable without some measure of public subsidy, the amount of which we do not know due to government secrecy.
I'm not sure I accept any of the above, as your stated views seem inconsistent with it. Let me try this....."We have to accept the government leasing public land to private schools that charge tuition, and even subsidizing their construction costs, even when they are for-profit operators; sure, I'm socialist and favour public schools and free tuition for them, but that's just not the world we live in" Are you signing on? If not, you understand why people have a problem with a view that advocates 'setting' for less than what we had in 1975.
Says Who? Again. This is not a venue or service that appeals to me; and I could actually afford to go. What of all the people who cannot?, but whose taxes will subsidize this operation?
Instead of coming out against the idea of P3's as a whole for some reason people are focusing specifically on this one project here.
With that said, There are a few groups here who all all saying different things.
1. There are those who want this to be a park and only a park
2. There are those who think a spa is inappropriate
3. There are those who think it's a bad idea to let the private company build on public land..
Those in the 1st group, I personally disagree with with reasons mentioned before.
Those in the 2nd group, I've yet to hear any ideas as to what they think should be there instead
Those in the 3rd group, I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the point in p3's
I say most, because some, like you correctly understand there there must be a small amount of partnership with private industry.
It seems to be, that alot of people are arguing for 0 private involvement whatsoever
for example, if this was a government-built, Government paid for then privately run facility with something akin to transit with operator companies taking a cut. I think the same arguments would crop up. "why are we spending 600 million for a parking lot for private profit". Remember, I said it would be awesome if Governments could do everything themselves, but again not realistic
Instead of going the school route debate, Which i do agree should never be privatized, Private schools should be banned, tuition should always be free even in college/university
Ill go a different route
Hypothetical question, What if...hear me out here please.
What if the 407's contract lease language from 1990 something actually HAD pricing enforcement or even terms that ontario drivers could agree with?
Was it always going to be hated even if the tolls were like $0.02 per km permanently?
In my opinion 407 just loves price gouging to make billions. Take away their insane profit by putting language in the contract and aside from increased traffic, Would People actually be okay with that sale in 1997
20/20 hindsight aside where it was rush sold during an election and those terms couldnt be ironed out....BUT what if?
The point is, 407 has always been the posterchild for selling of public assets right? But is there a right way?
And yea, I see where the school thing is coming from, id say sure, if that hypothetical was real, Id heavily oppose that. But thats not whats happening here, Theres similar ideas, But I dont think that comparison is fair. Schools should never be privatized EVER
The idea that ANY PUBLIC LAND should neither be sold nor leased is either naive or just not realistic in todays age. Metrolinx does it all the time, with TOD's and air rights. Some public agencies do it all the time for unused office space (you probably know more than me about this but it does happen doesnt it?)
to close off my essay, I too probably wont visit it, Hell i havent been to canadas wonderland in 10 years, but the walking trails and beaches, Id still be walking them years from now if im still in the fort york area. When I walk by it, im always reminded of my childhood where a (to 10-year old me) great place to be was.