Don't look now, but there's quite a lesson unfolding on the financing of public infrastructure.
Last week, the city announced it would contribute $7 million to an as-yet unidentified indoor water park. Led by the private sector, the water park is being touted as a destination attraction that will serve both tourists and citizens.
Trusted readers may have been so excited about tubes and funnels to notice, but later the same week, the venerable Winnipeg Foundation -- one of the largest private foundations in Canada -- announced a series of grants worth more than $3 million.
The WF's "Downtown Greenspaces Strategy" will establish a park around the Upper Fort Garry Gate at Broadway and Main Street, a new stage at Old Market Square and a pedestrian bridge across the Assiniboine River that will link two existing parks.
At first blush, it seemed like an old convergence of announcements: The city earmarking money for a private-sector water park, while a private foundation was spending its money to renovate or create what can be safely described as basic municipal infrastructure.
If credit goes where credit is due, then kudos to the WF for adding much-needed beauty and function to the downtown. Private philanthropists have long contributed to tax-supported amenities, a manifestation of the philosophy that while local government bakes the cakes, private citizens add the icing.
But the WF's generosity exposes an odd, even problematic question about the water park project.
Originally, the city had set aside $9 million on an outdoor water park, spray pad and pool upgrades inside Kildonan Park. However, last week Mayor Sam Katz said the $9 million was not enough to complete the project vision because of inflating construction costs. Thus, Katz proposed $7 million be put into a public-private partnership on an indoor water park.
Among the first questions that should be asked is whether the mayor has the mandate to move this money around? The water park funds come from a $43-million fund for recreational facilities, which was originally money destined for public transit. Katz killed the public transit project when he was first elected, on the theory Winnipeg needed recreation more than transit. And now, recreation has become a wave pool.
One can only wonder how voters would have reacted if Katz had campaigned to take money away from public transit to help build a water park.
The effortless shifting of money by the mayor reveals a policy vacuum at city hall. Simply put, somebody should really try to accurately define what constitutes a tax-supported public amenity.
In this debate, apparently, there is no difference between a public pool and a water park? One might extend that equation and ask whether there there is any difference beween a museum and an IMAX theatre, public garden space and shopping malls. All are centres of community activity, but only some deserve taxpayer support.
In many ways, this is also an extension of the debate about whether to spend large sums of taxpayer meoney on a football stadium. Proponents will argue that without public money, projects like this would never get off the ground. Across North America, that is almost universally true.
The new Central Library in Minneapolis, a spectacular glass and stone monument in the city's downtown, was financed with a combination of $15 million in private donations and a $110 municipal bond. This is the kind of public-private deal that has been employed over and over again to construct everything from hospitals to hockey arenas.
But no matter how you frame this debate, there is a fundamental difference between traditional public amenities -- hospitals, libraries, large sports or cultural facilities -- and a water park.
It's the difference between "attraction" and "amenity." Both can be high-profile and focal points of community activity. But one is a thing we want for our community, and the other is a thing that defines our community.
Many cities have water parks, and they are spectacularly fun, especially if you have children. but it is not the kind of facility that defines a community.
On the other side of the equation, only one city has an Upper Fort Garry Gate and an Old Market Square stage, amenities that many Winnipeggers who still dare to go downtown would be happy to include in a list of things that define this community.
The Winnipeg Foundation has shown remarkable talent in identifying, and supporting, the amenitities that define our coommunity. Perhaps council should look to the foundation for some guidance as it wades into the water park issue.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca