Trevor Dailey's Weblog

The August 27, 2014 edition of Metro had a brief article by, Angela Mullins on a presentation by Ivey Business School professor and economist, Mike Moffatt titled, "The impact of London's missing 24, 700 full-time jobs." This article was of interest to me, but I do not think Mike Moffatt understands the problems that are affecting London.

The solution to London's steady high unemployment rate is not:

"…building on London’s strengths, especially low-cost of living."

"…advanced manufacturing and agri-food... building infrastructure for sectors like audio/video editing and technical consulting services…."

The answer is getting London City Council completely out of the economy of London. If London City Council would stop squandering the tax money it collects, stop meddling in the economy, and concentrate on doing the things a municipal government should be doing then business would come to London again.

London should invest in its infrastructure: roads, sewers, water systems, etc., and make London the city with the best infrastructure in the area.

London should have the lowest tax base in the area.

London should scrap the tax on downtown businesses by the London so-called Merchant's Association. 

London should get rid of of its Business Improvement Area (B.I.A.)

London should end the overregulation of business in London.

London should stop wasting tax money.

The poor economic situation in London will not improve if London City Council continues to syphon off the benefits of business with its heavy taxation, excessive regulation, and its socialist economic schemes.

© Trevor Dailey

The Principle of Pot (2010) is a documentary about Marc Emery presented by Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever. It is approximately 4 hours long in two main parts. The Principle Of Pot is not about cannabis. 

Before watching the documentary, on DVD, I did not know a whole lot about Marc Emery, and he wasn't a person I admired or liked. My opinion of him as a "drug dealer who got what he deserved" when he was sent to a U.S. prison has changed. As this documentary showed me, I did not have all the facts to create an informed opinion, and much of what I thought regarding the Marc Emery case, and the individual, was clearly wrong. Going into this documentary, I had my own opinions.

I do not do recreational drugs. I do not associate with the drug culture, a culture I do not like. I do not like being around drunkards or stoners. My personal policy when it comes to drugs is basically do whatever drugs you want as an adult, but don't do any of it around me, and don't think society should bail you out if drugs ruin your life.

The Principle of Pot is an objective documentary that does not advocate cannabis use. The documentary tells the story of Marc Emery from his beginnings in London, Ontario up until days before his imprisonment the U.S. following his extradition to the U.S. for drug charges brought forth by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The documentary shows Marc Emery as he fights against a municipal Union (CUPE) garbage strike by renting a truck and picking up the garbage with volunteers in certain areas from elderly and lower income households, the law prohibiting Sunday shopping, one video clip from 1990 shows Emery in a heated debate with (baffling) still Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley who strongly supported the Sunday Shopping Ban, opposition to the proposed tax money funded Pan Am Games, as well as his fight for the legalization of marijuana. Everything in the documentary is very detailed, and it does a very good job of showing who Marc Emery really is as a person, and the political motivation behind sending him to a U.S. prison for committing a U.S. crime while in Canada.

An annoyance with the video I have is the occasional and intentional replying of a certain words from a Emery's speech that Paul McKeever seems to use make the point known to the viewer. This "skipping record" effect is unnecessary in my view.  

The Principle Of Pot full documentary, in a playlist, is available on YouTube, and is also available in a 3 DVD complete movie. I highly recommend watching The Principle Of Pot. 

© Trevor Dailey

YouTube: The Principle Of Pot - full movie in playlist.

Audio podcast: Just Right: 137 – Guest: Marc Emery, ‘Prince of Pot’ / Guest: Paul McKeever, Producer, The Principle of Pot

Audio podcast: Just Right: 149 – Selling your organs / Marc Emery and the Principle of Pot – Part 2

Recently, I was reminded of the change in name from the John Labatt Centre to Budweiser Gardens in 2012. There is that old question, "What's in a name?' (Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2) 

When Museum London, more of an abstract art gallery than a museum to me, had a one time Labatt exhibit, I went to see it. This exhibit had many fascinating artifacts on display documenting the history of the Labatt Brewing Company. It was very well done. I learned a lot about the history of this business, started by John Kinder Labatt in 1847, that has been part of London for 167 years. Budweiser does not hold this distinction.

Companies change hands, being bought and sold, and Labatt is no different. Labatt is owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev having been sold in 1995. What Anheuser-Busch InBev should know is history and brand recognition is important. It would be foolish to erase the name Labatt from the Company.

London City Council voted 12 to 3 in 2012 to remove the name Labatt from the building, a name that was there since construction was completed in 2002. One City Councillor, Nancy Branscombe, claimed she did not like the name, Budweiser Gardens, saying it sounded "like a beer tent", but mistakenly voted for the name change after, she claims, she "pushed the wrong voting button".

The motivation behind the name change was money for the City in naming rights, but the City was never told how much money it would be getting from this deal because of "corporate policy". The City voted to remove the Labatt merit, and take the money without even knowing the amount of money the City would be getting. 

No one on City Council stood up and said:

For more than a century and a half, Labatt has been in London. Labatt began here, and has never left. Over these many years, Labatt has employed millions of people through good economic times, and bad economic times. The Company has generously given millions of dollars back to the city it calls its home.

Labatt is more than a business in London, it is part of our history, part of our heritage, it is part of our city family. To agree to this name change would be to turn our backs on Labatt.

This is not about money, nor is it about Anheuser-Busch InBev. To this proposed name change, I say, no thank you on principle. Labatt is with London. London is with Labatt.

Instead, the only real concern of City Council was getting the bag of mystery money that was offered. This is not surprising to me because the City pays about $2 million to $4 million (tax money) per year managing the $10 million (tax money) debt on the building, but the City only receives about $100,000 to $200,000 per year in revenue from the arena, and since the land and property is leased from the City, Budweiser Gardens pays no property tax. 

With this in mind, perhaps the name change was the right thing to do. The Labatt family had the business sense and the integrity the City of London does not have, and the Labatt name deserves better.

© Trevor Dailey

References

Just Right Media: 274 – Guest – Orlando Zamprogna – Ticky tacky muncipal politics 

London Free Press

Labatt

Wikipedia

Museum London