Letter: Too many potential problems with Stampede funding to leave the public out of the decision

By Letter to the Editor on February 11, 2025.

Dear editor,

My concerns surrounding the Medicine Hat Stampede’s request for taxpayer funding are substantial and merit serious consideration.

With a projected cost exceeding $20 million, plus additional long-term financial implications, it becomes clear that the ask is not just significant, but potentially detrimental to the city’s financial health.

Taxpayer money should be allocated to projects that provide tangible benefits to the community at large. The lack of transparency regarding the MHES’s financial operations raises red flags; limited public access to their financials, unlike other organizations in Lethbridge, Calgary and Red Deer, makes it impossible for the public to assess the true viability of this investment and proper accountability of the use of public funds.

Furthermore, the refusal to allow a permanent voting seat for the city on the board reinforces the lack of accountability and willingness to work collaboratively for the betterment of the community.

The fact that the MHES is already receiving substantial provincial funding and paying a nominal rent on city-owned land is another layer of complexity. The potential for the city to utilize this land for affordable housing instead of further investing in an organization that has shown little willingness to adapt or innovate for the future is a significant consideration.

Additionally, the city’s existing assets, such as the underutilized $70-million arena, present an opportunity to host events without the need for a new, costly structure. The city must weigh the immediate desires of the MHES against the long-term needs of its residents, who require accessible recreational facilities, affordable housing and community services.

Ultimately, it is imperative that city council prioritizes the needs of the broader community over the interests of a singular entity. By engaging in a public dialogue with the MHES to explore alternative solutions that could benefit both parties, the city can foster a more equitable approach to development that upholds the interests of its taxpayers.

Residents are encouraged to voice their opinions to city councillors, emphasizing that the current proposal is not a prudent use of public funds. A collective response from the community, including a public hearing on the issue, could prompt council to reconsider the funding request and seek a more balanced solution that supports the entire city rather than an exclusive few.

Craig Elder

Medicine Hat

12
-11