CITYSCAPES

The Big Lie and the portlands

The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, is credited with inventing the concept of "the big lie" in the world of public relations.

Essentially, the doctrine runs like this: if you tell a lie, and make it a whopper, and continue by all means possible to propagate that lie, then the vast majority of people will begin to believe it. The Nazis seduced a nation of some 60 million otherwise smart citizens with this method, so it is hard to argue that it does not work.

The technique has since been learned and applied by all sorts of individuals who have more noble goals in mind. In essence, however, whatever the meritorious social or economic benefit to be achieved, the substance of the communication is deceitful.

So it is with descriptions of the eastern port lands as being "deserted", "abandoned" and "derelict". These are the terms that are regularly employed in the mainstream media to justify the various schemes designed to resurrect this area by either the 2008 Olympics or Mayor Lastman's vision for the port lands.

It is impossible to determine who first was responsible for generating this lie, but it has been around for quite some time and has been repeated so often by those wishing to drive out the last bastion of real industry in Toronto that it has become a media mantra.

A couple of years ago, I recall reading an editorial in a popular local sailing magazine, wherein the editor was calling upon her readers (principally sailors, like me) to unite to get rid of "the blight of industry" in the eastern port lands.

It is industry that essentially provided what economic sustenance this province sustained during the bleak years of the depression in the '90s. Conversely, the recreational boating market all but perished. It is industry that gives Ontario its leading edge as a "have" province, along with Alberta and British Columbia, whose economies are more dependent on agriculture or natural resources. These three provinces pay the bills for the other seven and all of the northern territories. Without Ontario's industrial base, it would be two supporting eight.

Nevertheless, the idea that industry has no place in a large, modern urban setting continues to dominate the public agenda in Toronto. Nowhere was industry mentioned in Mayor Lastman's "I have a dream" speech last November on a chilly harbour dock, while he embraced his newfound buddies, Harris and Chretien. The three politicos were there to tout the three Bs: bicycles, benches and butterflies. Lost on them was the fact that industry goes on 52 weeks a year, while the Bs are enjoyed for no more than four months at a time.

Pushing industry aside is also the centrepiece of the Olympic Bid Committee's commitment to "unlock the port lands".

I am astonished that such misguided notions can be sustained in light of the saga of the cost of Skydome and the federal and provincial governments' recent attempts to subsidize professional hockey teams. Lest anyone forget, the Olympic stadium in Montreal has been a basket case since 1976. If the real sports legacy in this country is endless taxpayer supported subsidies, why on earth would residents of Toronto ever be thinking about replacing self-sustaining industries in the eastern port lands with sports facilities that will require financial support for the rest of their lives, their children's lives and likely their grandchildren's as well. The eastern port lands are not pretty. If we get the Olympics and all the things are done as outlined in BIDCO's Master Plan then that will change. The question is what we have to pay for "pretty". Do we really wish to sacrifice established, proven economic benefit for aesthetics? That is the choice.

This is the only area in the city where three of the four modes of transportation converge: road, rail and marine. These are the essential ingredients for a successful port/industry operation. Coupled with this is the convenient access to two major highway systems: the north-south Don Valley Parkway and the east-west Gardiner Expressway. If the port operation disappears, it is irreplaceable.

There are, of course, other businesses in the port lands that are not port-related, but if the port operation, for which there is strong argument, can be driven out, then those industries would fall as well. After all, if a business can be conducted equally as well in a Mississauga industrial mall as in the port of Toronto, why bother to keep it here?

The economic benefit the port brings to Toronto seems to escape the change agents.

According to a recent study "Evaluating the Port of Toronto: Markets and Impacts on the GTA" by The Mariport Group, released in December 1999 by the Toronto Port Authority, the total economic value of the port operation to the GTA is about $500 million and employs 2,714 people.

By comparison, $237 million is attributed to the activities carried out on the CNE lands by 2,817 individuals, and the highly ballyhooed Toronto film industry produces approximately $685 million on the backs of 30,000 jobs.

The health of the film industry, of course, is almost entirely dependent on the Canadian dollar continuing to linger at bargain basement levels relative to the American dollar. Should it rise, look for great suntans on the Toronto film people from their extended production gigs in Mexico.

Leaving the artificial financial base of the film industry aside, economic measures normally look at something called "productivity". Roughly translated, productivity is calculated by dividing the dollars produced by the number of workers required to produce them. Using this criterion, for every person employed in the port operation there is more than $184,000 of economic benefit to the GTA. Similarly, the CNE produces around $84,000 per person, and the film industry accounts for less than $23,000 per capita.

The port operation is 220% more productive than the CNE and 800% more productive than the film industry.

The City of Toronto maintains a film liaison office at taxpayers' expense to assist and promote the film industry in Toronto. It has no counterpart for the port industry. Maybe if it did, it would have a better understanding of which side its bread really is buttered on.

Here are two other considerations.

In addition to the current level of economic contribution, the Mariport study identified other opportunities to increase the annual economic activity of the port by another $178 million. This would just about match the aggregate dollars contributed by the film industry.

It also estimated lost costs to remove the port operation to allow redevelopment to proceed on the port lands. These costs were calculated to be more than $1.1 billion.

Now I ask you, would anybody pay $1.1 billion dollars for deserted, abandoned and derelict land?

Well, I guess those who swallow the lie would--with your money--while you are sleeping.

Gary Reid is a freelance writer and a public affairs consultant. Gary Reid, letters@torontofreepress.com Opinion 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002