What Will Happen to the Rogers Centre formerly SkyDome in Toronto?

More than a month after the Rogers Centre turned 30, Mayor John Tory says the future of the multi-purpose stadium is uncertain.

“There’s now a decision to be made when it comes to the owners, of whether to reinvest in the building or build something new,” said Tory on Newstalk 1010 on Wednesday. “I think you’re going to see some action on it, because (Rogers Communications, the owners) have a decision to make.”

The domed stadium, once hailed as a beacon of modern technology for its fully retractable roof, has required extensive repairs over the past decade, leading some to question its sustainability and value as a sporting arena.

The question now is whether repairing the stadium is as cost-efficient as building an entirely new one for its primary inhabitants, the Toronto Blue Jays.

“I think the people at Rogers are aware of the fact that the notion that you’re going to get a lot of big cheques or any cheques written by government for the stadium is not likely to happen,” said Tory. “Therefore, they’re going to need to come up with a way to pay for it.”

Tory said it’s also unclear where a new stadium would be built, and who besides the Blue Jays would use it.

“Is it just a stadium for the Blue Jays? Is it something more than that? Do they still have ambitions for the NFL?” Tory asked. “So, stay tuned, I think you’re going to see some action on the stadium, because they have a big decision to make.”

The SkyDome, as it was originally called it was bought by Rogers Communications in 2004, opened in 1989 and seats about 50,000.

It’s the seventh oldest ballpark in Major League Baseball.

Significant changes to the iconic piece of Toronto skyline have invited controversy. In 2005, the decision to change the stadium’s name from the SkyDome to the Rogers Centre caused an uproar among some Torontonians who wanted it to keep its original name.

Although it might make financial sense for the team to move, the building has benefited the downtown core significantly, Tory said.

“I just think before you immediately say, ‘Gee, that land is more valuable for something else,’ you might want to consider the positive impact having that stadium downtown has had over many years in the downtown of the biggest city in Canada,” he said.

Numerous developments have emerged around the Rogers Centre, including a major proposal by Oxford Properties last week to build a $3.5-billion, multi-use development on a four-acre site, just north of the Rogers Centre. The development, called Union Park, would include office and retail space, residential units, and a two-acre park over the Union Station Rail Corridor.

Blue Jays president Mark Shapiro told BNN Bloomberg that the Rogers Centre requires improvements.

“You need to be able to provide a family the best family experience, or a young person who wants to come for a bar environment, the best bar in Toronto,” he said.

Tory, a former Rogers executive before he entered politics, is still involved in the business of the Rogers group of companies, which owns the Rogers Centre, and he has close ties to the Rogers family.

Tory has long been a trustee on the advisory committee of the Rogers Control Trust, which is largely comprised of Rogers family members.

The trust holds voting control of the Rogers group of companies, according to documents outlining the company’s corporate structure, “for the benefit of successive generations of the Rogers family and deals with (Rogers Communications Inc.) on the company’s long-term strategy and direction."

But Tory’s spokesperson Don Peat said in a statement Thursday that the future of the Rogers Centre hasn’t been discussed by the Trust and that “the mayor’s comments were based on common sense and what he has read in the news.”

Although Tory stepped down from the Rogers board of directors following his election in 2014, as he promised he would during his campaign, he refused to resign his post on the trust. He said he made a promise to long-time friend and former boss Ted Rogers (to stay involved).

In 2014, Tory's shares in the company were valued in at almost $5.5 million, according to that year's information circular.
Please share this

Canadians want fewer refugees, while Liberals want more

A slew of recent public opinion polls on Canadian attitudes toward immigrants and refugees — the latest one commissioned by the CBC — suggest our views toward immigrants and refugees are hardening.

The CBC poll by Public Square Research and Maru/Blue released Wednesday found 57% of the 4,500 adults participating in an online panel said Canada should not be accepting more refugees.

The survey also found 64% said illegal immigration is becoming a serious problem, 56% believe that accepting too many immigrants will change Canada and 24% say too many immigrants are visible minorities.

Recent polls by Ipsos, Ekos, Leger and Angus Reid have produced similar findings.

Reaction to these polls by Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, who wants to increase Canada’s intake of both immigrants and refugees, and by other immigration advocates, has been similar.

It’s that first, Canadians don’t understand that a steady flow of immigrants is necessary for our economic well-being, in order to provide present and future workers, given our low birth rates.

And second, that growing opposition to refugees is part of a rising global trend of intolerance prompted by the millions of displaced people fleeing wars in the Mideast over the past four years, with many ending up in Europe.

To be sure, not every poll has mirrored these findings, indicating, as if we didn’t already know, that the answers to any poll depend on what questions are asked.

For example, an Environics Institute poll of 2,000 Canadians released in April, found 59% disagreed with the statement, “overall there is too much immigration in Canada” while 77% agreed, “overall, immigration has a positive impact on the economy of Canada.”

Over half, 53%, agreed immigrants tend to work harder than people born in Canada, while 45% said immigration is making Canada a better place compared to only 15% who said it is making Canada worse, with 33% saying it has made no difference, while 7% have no opinion.

One problem with polling and reporting on these issues is that they tend to lump “immigrants” and “refugees” together, when they are separate issues to which different government policies apply.

But the most glaring thing about how these polls are perceived by those who are most often asked to comment on them by the media — government (Liberal) politicians, academics and immigration and refugee advocates — is how the public is consistently portrayed as at best ignorant and at worse racist in their views about immigration and refugee policy.

Seldom, if ever, is there any admission, for example, that if Canadian attitudes toward refugees have hardened, it’s the logical consequence of watching over 40,000 irregular/illegal (take your pick) border crossers entering Canada at so-called “unmanned” border crossing from the U.S. since 2017, with a rejection rate (so far) of 45%.

Or that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals — after more than two years of condemning any criticism of how they bungled this issue, starting with Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet in January 2017, as racist — suddenly reversed course and toughened the rules for asylum seekers in April, as their critics had demanded.

The irony is that if the recent polls suggesting toughening attitudes towards immigrants and refugees by Canadians are accurate, then leading up to the Oct. 21 election, Trudeau, Hussen and the rest of the Liberal chorus will be campaigning under the operating belief that the majority of Canadians are racists.

And that only they can save us from ourselves.

Please share this