I withheld comment on this through my 2020 campaign bc I felt it had poisoned the elxn discourse.

But I'll say this now:

If a policy boils down to "Just let that rich man do what he wants", we should be very sceptical of it - and of the interests working to promote it. 1/ https://twitter.com/StJohnsTelegram/status/1347790858540748800
As much as anyone, I want to see Mile One thriving, and I've heard good arguments for public or private ownership.

But I've also seen a lot of discourse that basically just argued for capitulating to one specific rich man's demands because "he wants it, let him have it!" 2/
We don't live in an oligarchy.

The rich don't get to have their every whim granted just by demanding it.

We don't make public policy decisions by asking "which multi-millionaire is yelling loudly in front of a camera right now?"

There is a process to this for a reason. 3/
We haven't even seen the KPMG report on the feasibility of selling Mile One, let alone any competing offers that might be on the table should that report suggest doing so.

And yet I'm hearing some say the City is "dragging its heels" on this.

It is not. 4/
It's doing its due diligence on this to ensure whatever choice we make is fair to our citizens, our culture, and our economy. Shouldn't we want the City to do exactly that?

Or do we want to listen to voices who want a decision rammed through immediately?

And if so: why? 5/
Why are some voices with no stake in this so eager to make selling Mile One seem like the only thing that will save our city from being blown up or something?

Is this idea truly so monumental that it would transform everything about our city's finances and culture? 6/
And if so, why this offer?

And if so, why the rush?

Or is it more that we've made a news subgenre out of "Random Rich White Developer Says The City Is Fuckin' With His Business Hey B'y" and we're airing this because it fits a narrative our media eats up every single time? 7/
Again: I am not saying I am against selling the facility. If I'm elected this fall and the City opts to sell, I'm open to working with anyone, including MacDonald, who puts forward a realistic offer that benefits our citizens and our culture.

But we need to be realistic, too: 8/
Selling Mile One will not be (as I've heard some suggest) our golden ticket to cleared sidewalks and great public transit, because our problems there aren't purely economic. We likely already have the money to do those things; we just choose to prioritise other things instead. 9/
Selling Mile One will not necessarily "revitalise our downtown economy", as we often hear. The jury is very much still out on how much stadia benefit their areas. I'm certainly interested to hear whether the KPMG report says anything about Mile One's existing economic impact. 10/
Selling Mile One might revitalise the facility, which I want to see thrive the same way anyone does. Not being able to take a measured-risk approach in booking events has certainly limited its opportunities. But that's not a guarantee, and we shouldn't act like it is. 11/
Most of all, selling Mile One is an extremely complex process that requires serious diligence from our City. I'm glad they're giving it that, and I do not want us to rush into this just because folks with vested interests in us doing so have decided we should. 12/
Handing the rich the keys to the car isn't the only way to get where we're going.

It's often not the best way - or, sometimes, a good way at all.

And having the social and economic capital to get everyone to listen when you insist it is doesn't make it any more true.

Fin/
You can follow @voteophelia.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.