We could provide a litany of financial deficiencies in Artscape's designs on the Wychwood Barns, but in this case we'll defer to City Staff who found that:
(recommended soundtrack: Dire Straits "Money for Nothing...")

"
Artscape proposes that the City assume significant financial responsibilities in connection with the project. Specifically, Artscape proposes a partnership agreement with the City that requires the City to commit to raising $2.3 million from a combination of sources including, but not limited to,Canada Infrastructure Program, Ontario Superbuild Fund, Green Municipal Finds and Toronto Atmospheric Funds.
There is some concern by staff as to the availability of funds from the sources identified.The City has identified other important initiatives that are currently in the process of seeking funding approval, including the capital funding through the Superbuild program for Casa Loma, and an application for funding for the Artscape proposal would be in competition with these initiatives. The likelihood of achieving the Artscape funding targets in the near to mid term (one to two years) may also be an issue, given the time required to prepare the applications,have the application reviewed by the funding authority, and be provided with a commitment of funding approval.

The Artscape proposal also
requires the City to remove all hazardous materials and undertake remediation of all environmental contaminants from the site. No estimate is provided as to the cost of site remediation and further environmental investigations would be required before the scope and cost of required remediation could be determined. Under the Artscape proposal,the City would also be required to provide security for the mortgage financing to be obtained by Artscape.This security would likely take the form of loan guarantees. Furthermore,the Artscape proposal requires the City to assume responsibility for zoning and site plan approvals and any impact studies required. This would require the City to obtain an Official Plan amendment and a rezoning. The RFP indicated that the proponents were to assume these costs and take on responsibility for all planning requirements. It is also proposed that the City would assume responsibility for site servicing, support an application by Artscape to the Let ’s Build program for funding for the live/work component of the project, lease the site to Artscape for 99 years at a rent of $1 per year, and provide a $500,000 cash contribution."

(Commissioner Economic Development,Culture and Tourism Staff Report June 30, 2003)

Q: Why didn't we think of that?
A: Theatre of the absurd, while entertaining, is rarely well received in the flinty world of real estate.

A fiscal comparison of PARK v ARTSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
100% Park with One Barn
4 Barn Development
Popular Support within the Immediate Area
239
72
Outdoor Features:

*Playing Field incorporating
Softball, Soccer, Frisbee etc.
*Basketball half-courts & Skatepark
*The usual complement of trees, bushes,
benches & a spash park,
conceivably converted for winter skating.
Outdoor Features:

Not part of the developer’s mandate,
paid by the City.




Indoor Features:

The usual Community Center / Recreational space,
Washrooms & Parks Dept Storage





Indoor Features:

*22 Housing/studio units
*11 studio Units
*10 Office spaces
*1 Theatre Anchor Tenant
*Café
*Greenhouse
*Indoor Garden
ESTIMATED COST $7.5 M +
Cost to City
Park portion ... $1.59 M
Barn Portion... $1.25 M







Park Portion... $1.3 M
Seed Capital... $1.4 M
Add on:
Infrastucture ......................$ ? M$
Foregone property tax........$ ? M$
Charitable tax receipts........$ ? M$
City portion of Lets Build
$1 M housing subsidy.......$ ? M$

TOTAL: $ 2.84 M TOTAL: $2.7 M + ( ? ) + ( ? ) + $7.5 M = $10>$20 M
The Bottom Line #1

A regular park available to the entire community, is a one time cost that requires nominal ongoing maintenance



.
$2.84 M
The Bottom Line #2

Any City investment in Artscape’s niche market project is sure to be only the beginning. Once infrastructure costs & housing subsidies are factored and considering that the Development, will pay $0 Development Costs, $0 Property Taxes & lease the site for 40 years @ 1$/year and that it will require further millions of CDN$ from leveraged government sources, this boondoggle promises to be....
....Priceless