Talk about post-game analysis. The ‘Riot Report’ – The Night the City Became a Stadium – provides fodder for everyone, as contradictory columns in the Sun and Globe make clear. But there’s general agreement on one thing: the riot should not discourage the City from holding major events in the future, including the lead-up to another Stanley Cup final. Just plan better.
But that begs another question. Who pays?
Recommends the report:
That the CoV working with multiple partners typically involved in helping to deliver major events of regional interest become cooperative joint sponsors of a new “Everyday Heroes” volunteer initiative to ensure that such a program is developed to meet some of the human and technical needs for staging these events. .. (And that) businesses that benefit financially from these events, and professional sports organizations such as the Canucks, be actively encouraged to sponsor this program.
Yeah, that’ll cover the costs. All we need is some ‘active encouragement’ of a volunteer initiative.
What about the serious bucks? One can anticipate how enthusiatically the City will be received when it goes to other municipalities in the region to help add to the pot the many millions required in order to cover off all the contigencies of any scenario imaginable that might lead to another riot.
But, as I asked in a previous BIV column, why should the taxpayers of the City of Vancouver have to carry the load – and the political and economic consequences of failure?
I think the City has to draw a line: If this is a regional event, the Region as a whole and the Province have to pay, not to mention the private-sector beneficiaries. If not, no event.
And to do that, we’ll have to overcome the accusation of “No Fun City” – which I believe was behind much of the risk acceptance and denialism that led to the riot.
I doubt those who are now criticizing the City and police for their failure to anticipate problems were previously suggesting that the City was assuming too much risk in hosting the street party – until a few hours after Game 7. (You’ll note as well that no one so far has indicted the bars for the massive overserving that occurred in the hours leading up to game time. Indeed, the report is almost complimentary to them. ‘Alcohol’ and those who consumed it get the blame, not those who served it.)
As the report itself says: “It is likely anyone opposing a Live Site would have been considered a worrywart and killjoy.” Even that understates the political damage that can be done with three words: No Fun City.
So if Fun City is still open for business, we have to have an answer to that critical question: Who pays?
I don’t have any skin in this game, but from your discussion of alcohol and bars it sounds like you think the rioters were over-excited and drunk fans. People who’d sat through the whole game drinking, and then spontaneously got out of control.
Most I’ve heard from people is that the chief instigators arrived midway through the game, with fairly clear intent to vandalise and loot. Maybe that’s just bridge-and-tunnel snobbery, but I’d be interested in what the facebook-tagging and arrest facts bear out.
I’d therefore interpret the cause as similar to London. Bored, frustrated and disenfranchised adolescents, with no useful energetic outlet. I’m sure there were sheep there too, but I’m less worried about managing them.
I have a crazy idea but why don’t we add a regional alcohol tax that would cover some of the cost of putting on the event. I think it would help in a way and since alcohol contributed to the riot it might as well pay to police and fix anything that comes out of such events.
I enjoyed the commentator on the nightly news the other day (mayehave been the segment Gordon was also on) who questioned why the current Council made the UFC jump through hoops and pay for policing around their event, yet the mayor was only too happy to spend public money on celebrating the Canucks and the NHL.