Editor:
I am writing to express my disappointment with the editorial suggesting that the proposed community arts centre will be of interest to only a small sampling of the population or as reflecting the needs of a special interest group.
Anything paid for by tax dollars can be defined as being of “special interest” to a limited group: parking lots only serve those who drive, a climbing wall those who climb, tourism advertising those who depend upon the tourism industry, a swimming pool those who swim, and a highway underpass those who need access under the highway. Regardless of who benefits the most from any specific civic project, collectively they benefit the community as a whole.
I will probably never use the gym, swimming pool or climbing wall at Elevation Place and I rarely ride my bike under the TCH because I live downtown, yet I recognize these amenities as valuable components of a vibrant community.
I expect I will use the arts centre far more – it will be a central public venue in which to see artists in action and view displays of their work, attend live performances or listen to presentations from authors or adventurers, perhaps take a community course in pottery or painting or some other things I’ve never contemplated.
The facility will enhance the education of our children and youth, offering school art classes in a purpose-built facility. It will also provide a safe alcohol-free place for youth to congregate on weekends to watch a movie. Even this sampling of possibilities cuts across a broad section of the population. While the editorial team at the Outlook may not have an interest in the arts, a great many people in this community do, and an arts centre will give tourists yet another reason to visit our town. While I probably won’t see you there, I firmly believe the arts centre will be one of the most generally and widely used facilities in town.
Furthermore, as I understand the facts, the cost of developing the proposed arts centre is only about $950,000 – the bulk of the $2.3 million figure is required for repairs and maintenance of the worn out building structure and will be required regardless of its ultimate use.
The alternative to redevelopment is to incur the expense of tearing the building down and then what, build another parking lot in the heart of downtown? In whose special interest would that be? I find it disingenuous to blur the numbers together.
Stephen Bown,
Canmore
