[PHOTO] Dufferin station, looking west across the street

[DM] "The latest on emigration from Georgia"

I've a post up at Demography Matters taking a look at the latest developments on emigration from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, in the Caucasus.

Emigration is not diminishing with 23% of the population having emigrated, despite the difficulties faced by Georgians in travelling internationally and the relative insecurity of these migrants (the largest community is in an anti-Georgian Russia, while the largest Georgian immigrant community in the European Union is in Greece). Rather, emigration is a necessity.

Go, read.

[URBAN NOTE] "The Saga Of The Maple Leafs’ Futility"

I live in Leafs Nation. That's not only the name of the official and heavily promoted Toronto Maple Leafs' fan club; that's the name Toronto has gotten by proxy.



Toronto has traditionally been devoted to the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter that they haven't won the Stanley Cup since 1967, or been in the playoffs since I moved to Toronto back in 2004, or are really any good. They're the Leafs Nation team, and obeisance is due them.

(That sort of attitude upsets me. You've noticed I'm not a hockey fan?)

Obeisance was due, at least; faced with being shut out of the playoffs, early last month the team management made the surprising move of apologizing to the fans for their failure. Over at Torontoist, Jamie Bradburn has an extended two-part essay (1, 2) examining the sad downwards trajectory of the team. For the first two decades of the team's relative failure, its faults could be blamed on one man.

Until his death in April 1990, many of the franchise’s faults could be blamed on one man: Harold Edwin Ballard. From the time he entered the Leafs’ ownership as part of a triumvirate with John Bassett and Stafford Smythe in 1961, Ballard seemed driven less by a love of the game and more by greed and a near-pathological need for attention. The same year the Leafs won their last cup, that greed appeared to drive the decision to sell their top farm teams in Rochester, NY and Victoria, BC for just under $1 million. The move robbed the Leafs of 45 players, many of NHL calibre. The combination of the sale, the expansion draft to stock six new teams in 1967, changes to player development rules that denied the team the use of the junior Marlboros as a feeder team, and aging stars thinned the Leafs’ depth pool, which led to a last place finish during the 1969/70 season.

But after Ballard died, things never got better. The most recent iteration of hopes for a revival has been dimmed.

On paper, the tandem of general manager Brian Burke and coach Ron Wilson appeared to be a swell idea. Burke blew into town full of bluster, speaking of truculence and then demonstrating his intentions by challenging other GMs to fights in barns. And yet, the product he put on the ice in 2009, his first full season, finished dead last in the conference. The acquisitions of defenseman Dion Phaneuf and forward Phil Kessel have proven to be worthwhile, but one wonders if the cost may have been too steep. Signs of incremental improvement in 2011 did not carry over to this past season, leading to a mob mentality that forced Burke’s hand in dismissing Wilson.

And now, here we are, not a taste of the playoffs since 2004, wondering once again how to right the ship. Ask any fan in the city and they will have a detailed plan for success—sturdier defense, a veteran goalie, speedy Europeans, or bruising fighters that will teach opponents a lesson. Toronto is teeming with folks that are, above all else, tired of losing. They are demanding not the apologies that they have been given, but only an immediate honest-to-goodness winner. If that seems unreasonable or irrational, such is the nature of these things. Fair or unfair, rabid fan-bases don’t much care how you do it, just that it gets done.

Can there actually be significant change? Will the Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup in my lifetime, or at least make it to the playoffs? Stay tuned.

[URBAN NOTE] A second NHL team in southern Ontario? (Part 2)

Back in May 2009 I'd explored the interest of Jim Balsillie, ex-co-CEO of troubled Blackberry makers Research in Motion, in bringing a second NHL team to southern Ontario, perhaps to Kitchener-Waterloo. This never materialized, not least since the appearance of a second NHL team in the Maple Leafs' hinterland would lead to decreased profitability and/or require the team to become better. Now in 2012, the southern Ontario city of Markham, in suburban York Region just north of Toronto, is interested in building a hockey arena with a sufficient number of seats to support a NHL team.

As the Toronto Star noted, this is part of a substantial project aimed at making Markham a coherent city. It's a rather risky gamble, though.

For decades, Markham has been planning to create a downtown where there was none before. Because the town was cobbled together from three smaller municipalities, it never had a natural core.

Nearly 400 hectares of vacant lands straddling Highway 7 provided an opportunity.

A big chunk of that area was owned by development company Remington Group, whose chairman is Rudy Bratty.

Remington and the town hashed out a downtown core to rival any forward-thinking metropolis, with high-density dwellings, dedicated transit lanes, and ample green space. In 2007, a 20-plus year construction process began.
[. . .]

As [Brad Humphreys, a sports economist at the University of Alberta] points out, a large and expanding body of academic research shows that arenas are not the boost they might seem to be.

Humphreys, who was hired by Markham as a consultant to evaluate the town’s financial contribution, said he could not comment on the specific advice he gave.

But a report prepared by town staff echoes his basic point: that “building such an event facility does not generate significant tangible economic benefits for cities.”

As Humphreys explains, most consumers have a fixed budget for entertainment spending. A Markham resident who pays for a ticket to see the new hockey team play is probably not going to buy a movie ticket that week too. If she buys a jacket from the new team’s store, she’s not going to buy another jacket on Main Street.

The largest benefit of an arena, both Humphreys and the report agree, are intangibles: civic pride, a heightened sense of community.

[. . .]

If Markham succeeds, it could be another Winnipeg, whose “intangible” benefits from getting the Jets back would probably rival the GDP of Canada.

Or even a mini-Brooklyn, the borough Manhattanites once loved to snub, whose cool status was cemented by the acquisition of the Nets NBA team.

As in Markham, the private group which brought the Nets to Brooklyn and built the team an arena is also building a significant downtown neighbourhood centred around the sports facility.

Scott Stinson at the National Post, meanwhile, seems almost certain that any new hockey arena capable of supporting a NHL team would be used by the NHL only as a pawn in negotiations with the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Could an NHL team come to Markham? It could, but only after significantly compensating the owners of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and only after Bettman has exhausted all other options. He’s made no secret of being loath to move teams. More likely, Markham’s council has put up $162.5-million just to help the NHL’s current owners gain some negotiating leverage.

It is a baffling turn of events. The town has tried to reassure residents that this is all no big deal, since its share of the arena costs are to be recouped via development levies that are tacked on the construction of new residential units. It won’t cost taxpayers a thing, council has purred.

Except it will. Once those millions start to roll in, it becomes public money. It could be used on pools, libraries, garbage collection, whatever. It will be used to pay down the cost of a new arena. Taxpayers, that is, will be paying for it.

Don’t worry, the town assures soothingly: There’s a business case for it. Think of the economic benefits! Except arenas don’t spur growth. Last year, I spoke with Judith Grant Long, a Harvard professor who wrote a book about public-private arena deals. She summed up her research like this: “It is very difficult to make a case that significant economic benefits are to be derived from developing new major league sports facilities.”

So there’s that. Meanwhile, what if development slows and the funding isn’t easily recouped? What if the arena runs over budget, as such things are wont to do? What if the NHL stays away? The councillors of Markham might want to talk to their counterparts in Kansas City, which built an arena in 2007 that was intended to host an NHL or NBA team.