COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY LEGAL OR ILLEGAL? www.scribd.

com/jjones_926209 Compulsory Voluntary Contribution for GTA Sports Center Howard, the only comparison between Markhams Professional NHL Arena Facility financing structure and Miltons Amateur Veledrome Facility financing methodology is both Cities start with the letter M. The estimated capital cost of the Veledrome is $38.000.000. The PAN AM contribution is 56% or $21,280,000, Mattamy Homes (Peter Gilgen - Owner enthusiastic cyclist) is contributing $10,000,000 and Milton through their development charges and other donations is contributing $7,720,000 towards the construction cost. Development charges and other donations in kind (like labour, material, construction equipment) are leaving no costs to the community. We should have followed the Milton miracle and have done this type of creative financing and donations for the badminton center and aquatic facility with another 50 meter pool and diving tank. You know what; it is not too late to do it right now. The problem with Markham's so-called "voluntary" contribution is that there has been lots of publicity about it being related to the processing of developers' applications i.e. don't contribute and your application languishes, contribute and applications get expedited. Any developer will be able to present copies of newspaper articles and witnessed statements to prove the practice was coercive and illegal, but this will likely not happen now, rather sometime in the future. Developers may pay Markham's "mandatory contribution" to get their applications approved, but later, particularly if the development market cools, don't be surprised if increasing numbers come back to petition us for the return of their money. Any waiver Markham requires them to sign can be successfully challenged as having been made under duress owing to the threat of punitive actions and delays by the municipality..... No one can be made to contract out of their legal rights and any waiver that otherwise attempts to do so can easily be declared null and void.....that's the big problem with Markham's situation; too much evidence confirming it's not really voluntary but mandatory if you want to do business in Markham. If its a donation, do the developers get a tax receipt? The second problem is the Town cannot legally enforce or guarantee payments because the charge has no statutory basis. All funds collected by the City are at risk and cannot be relied on to be available to offset Markhams debt obligations. CAOs April 2012 report sets out a fee structure, indexing policy and phase-in

period that is a development charge in all but in name and legal authority. The arbitrary nature of the calculation and how it is being applied is a serious problem. Again, stories that has been in the papers suggests developers who contribute early (and often) will pay less or get some kind of break on the amount that they have to pay because being a "charter member" in good standing is somewhat like becoming a member of an exclusive club to enjoy "the privileges of membership"...the primary benefit is to avoid being targeted for inequitable and discriminatory treatment by the City of Markham What happens down the road when sewer allocation is not a problem? The developers or at least one developer may take Markham to the OMB or court claiming the "compulsory voluntary contribution is illegal? I believe there was a meeting on March 18th, 2012 held in the Canada Room, hosted by the CAO and Mayor, where several members of the development community and a representative from BILD attended. The developers who didnt attend, the CAO had separate meetings to update them. Several of the developers were told in the meeting if they didn't go along with the "compulsory voluntary contribution schema (levy), that their subdivision agreements may take longer to process and sign off. The developers told me that they had no choice as they wanted to do business in the City of Markham. Council was briefed of the compulsory voluntary contribution plan on April 16, 2012. I had already heard about this from several developers but couldnt believe it. My concern is in a couple of years, the developers challenge the "compulsory voluntary contribution schema (levy) in the courts and win. The Judge declaring the "compulsory" voluntary contribution schema as illegal and orders Markhams "compulsory" voluntary contribution practice stopped immediately and all monies collected returned back to the developers with interest. This could be a huge financial liability to the taxpayers of Markham. What liability does this put Members of Council in who vote for the "compulsory" voluntary Contribution schema (levy) and even council members who vote against it? Especially, if they knowingly are aware of the illegalities of the "compulsory" voluntary contribution levy and the potential financial commitment they would be committing the taxpayers of Markham. When a municipality sets development charges it must do so through a strict process regulated by the Provincial Government all of which is subject to appeal. Just because the Upper Unionville developers or Liberty have agreed to make a certain payment to expedite their current applications, don't count on it in the future from everyone. And once one challenge is successful all the rest will follow, its just good business after all. The matter of liability is something our CAO, all senior staff, legal and auditors should be advising council on. At the very least we need a proper independent due diligence done on this proposal: 1. Financial to comment on liability of taxpayers if GTA Sport Facility defaults 2. Marketing to comment on viability prove 3. Sport Consultant to review and comment on viability of arena 4. Legal independent advise on contract and DC By-Law

5. Transportation Engineer and Transportation Planner To analyze site and impact on all streets in area as well as parking 6. Table the Raymond James Report 7. Table BDR Report on Financial Framework 8. Engineering and Environmental Constraints a. Markham Live Street crossing of the tributary b. 407 Rail Transitway Alignment c. High water table - under the GTA Arena and Event Plaza d. Transit Hub interface with the arena 9. Expertise in urban design in creating place - citing of the arena, local roads and block sizes Requesting voluntary contributions is not a problem, but, taking punitive action against anyone who doesn't contribute is, particularly if it results in financial and/or other damages. If contributions are truly voluntary then there would be no mandated donation amount, like fund-raising for a hospital..... if Markham adopts some kind of donation "policy" establishing or suggesting a per unit/application/or acre charge and makes this payment a pre-condition for processing development applications, in my opinion, this could be contrary to the Development Charges Act regulations governing the adoption and administration of development charges and possibly a violation of the Municipal Act in respect of the regulations geared to preventing discriminatory or arbitrary treatment of development applicants. I believe it is important to ensure that Markham has not violated the provisions of the Municipal Act governing the announcement in April of Council's decision to incur a $325 million debt with no prior public meetings, even after 18 months of in-camera private deliberations by the CAO and the Mayor with the GTA Sports Center and partners. There is a whole section in the Act strictly limiting and qualifying what matters can be dealt with in-camera. Financial and budget matters such as the intention to incur a 1/3 of a billion dollar debt are not listed as permitted in-camera items. All discussions and decisions must be made in public. In addition, no one may discuss or otherwise deal with any matter in-camera that should be open to the public if it materially advances the business or decision-making of Council.. At best the public is being given nominal input on the site plan and next to nothing on the aspects of the financial agreement. It is clear to the public that they have been shut out of the decision making process to incur this debt, and that Council has since made it clear in the press and at meetings, that the decision is not debatable leaving the impression the decision had already been made behind closed doors. I would not want to speculate on the outcome if someone was to formally request the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to review the procedure surrounding the decisions that have been made. The City of Markham should not be in the professional sports and professional entertainment business or borrowing money to facilitate private enterprise. The best solution for GTA Sports Center and partners is to look for additional private investors, removing the City from the financing equation completely. From Jim Jones Markham Local and Regional Councillor City of Markham email: jjones@markham.ca ===============================================================

From: Jones, Jim Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 7:50 PM To: Mayor and Markham Council and CAO Subject: Unleashed the Boundaries for Prosperity and Economic Development Howard, nobody is pandering to the people. The public deserves to be involved as they elected us. Remember a vision is only a vision if all the people buy into the vision. Tell me why it is a tough decision to tax the next 40,000 new homes, townhouses and condos (approximately 108,000 new Markham Residents) moving into Markham over the next 20 years. I think it is a coward's approach. A tough decision would be justifying a property tax increase of 5 percent to every household and place of business in Markham, to pay for the GTA Sports Center (NHL size arena). Then have a public meeting and justify our action. It is easy to tax the people who are not here yet, quite frankly Howard, this is a coward's approach and not very creative for the high tech business capital community of Canada. The people are for the NHL sized Arena if they are not paying for it. However, the real test is if they still want the Arena if it is added on to their property tax bills. We already have the highest development charges in the Greater Toronto Area and now we are tacking on an additional tax between $4,450 - $9,500 for all new homes, townhouses and condominium sales town wide. Every NHL Arena and hockey franchise in the National Hockey League that is in a strong hockey market is privately owned. Toronto is the strongest hockey market in North America. The Deputy Mayor is saying we can charge on average, a $107 a ticket or more for any Markham NHL Hockey games. The Maple Leafs have the highest ticket price averaging $121.00 per ticket. The Montreal Canadians have an average ticket price of $71.00. There are many teams averaging $58-$63 a ticket in decent hockey cities. In the weaker hockey cities, they are averaging $48.00 a ticket. MISTA (Markham International Sports Training Academy) at one time, we were expecting our funding to come from all three levels of government, 1/3 from the Federal Government, 1/3 from the Provincial Government and 1/3 from the municipality. Markham was in the midst of putting in an application to the federal government and two things happened. The Ontario Government announced they were going after the 2015 PAN AM Games and a Federal election was called in October 2010, therefore not allowing us to submit our CSIO (Canadian Sports Institute - Ontario) application for Federal funding. The former Premier David Peterson, then Chancellor of the University of Toronto and Chairman of the 2015 PAN AM Bid Committee ripped the CISO out of Markham, after 5 years of planning. The former Premier then re-located the CSIO facility to the Toronto University of Scarborough Campus, along with the 56% funding provided by Federal and Provincial Governments that came with being a venue in the 2015 PAN AM Games. We have spent approximately $500,000 on various studies to ensure the site was construction ready and on architectural drawings. Our architect B+H, staff, consultants and CSIO committee spent countless hours planning for the CSIO, when we were then informed that the CSIO was going to Scarborough on a former dump site. It is estimated that the City of Toronto will have paid over $100,000,000 to clean up the 12 acres of the 33 acre site. We did get legal advice and were told that we had grounds to proceed legally against the CSIO and PAN AM but elected not to do so. After this

disappointment, I was convinced if we are going to control our destiny, we must develop our own city center vision for the future. I have spent thousands of hours developing the Markham Live Vision. At this point in time, there would be no NHL Arena opportunity if it wasn't for me developing Markham Live and MISTA. Investors are now interested in putting a University Campus here, Multimedia Entertainment Center (Casino), Markham International Sports Training Academy (MISTA), Class A Office buildings, Five Star Hotels, Upscale condos, and with greater attention to I-METRO-E/W transit solution. Quite frankly that is what sold Bettman, Daley, Graeme Roustan and many others, who are now interested in the Markham City Center area. The financing for MISTA changed in February/March 2011, when an organization came forward with a private sector proposal, to build, own, and operate MISTA, in exchange for incentives to build a number of condo units, including retail, hotel and offices on government owned land. Incidentally, they are willing to pay market value for the subject land, including paying the development charges and property taxes. There is no need for the City of Markham to develop a business plan, as the potential private sector owners are responsible for a business plan for their own investors and bankers. However, if you look at the MISTA book, you will see the framework, the capital budget and operating budget plans. We have not seen a business plan from the GTA Sports Center either. MISTA is going through the City's procurement process which includes the Request for Information (RFI), Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP) because the CAO has insisted on the need for transparency because MISTA is presently on government owned land. During this time we received an unsolicited bid (commonly known as a Swiss Challenge) which the city rejected due to the fact that we had no policies or procedures in place to accept their proposal. We had nine interested parties respond to the Request for Information. The intention of MISTA is not to be financed with taxpayers money, but to be built, owned and operated by the private sector. Presently the RIFs process is at a standstill. Howard, the concept of MISTA (formerly CSIO) and Markham Live has basically not changed in the last 5-7 years. All the so-called "fancy architectural glossy" drawings are accurate. Adamson's did the concept drawings for MISTA but at the same time they were involved in the Site Optimization study, Metrolinx Hub Study and acting on behalf of the City to integrate the East District with Remington's Calthorpe Plan. What need to be locked down for MISTA are the exact specifications for all sports facilities to be at Olympic standards including seating, dressing rooms etc. which will help everyone determine their MISTA construction costs. MISTA is more than a vision as business consortiums are willing to invest, build and own MISTA. Yesterday, I met with Remington who is interested in MISTA and Markham Live. Remington has spent the last 18 months working with the Mayor and the CAO on the NHL and other components of Markham Live while we were having our own meeting on Markham Live.

Just to bring everyone up to date, these are the components of Markham Live (Markham Live is a 200-300 acre site with approximately a 100 acres on the north side of the 407 Highway, with 70 acres on the east side of the GO-Transit train tracks (Mainly owned by the province and the City) and 30+ acres on the west side of the tracks, owned by Remington and approximately 200 developable acres on the south side of the 407 Highway owned by the Provincial Government. If we are able to bury the hydro lines, the technology is there to do it. It might be easier to move the Rocky Mountains east than bury the hydro lines but we cannot give up. Incidentally, the majority of the National and Provincial sports bodies prefer to be located in Markham Center versus the Scarborough UofT location. 1: Markham International Sports Training Academy (MISTA) National Aquatic Center 2 50 meter Olympic pools and a dive tank National Gymnastic Center National Ice Training Center 2 Olympic ice pads and 2 NHL ice pads National Combative Center National Courts Center National Olympic Sports Fitness, Medicine and Training Center ... for athletes Fitness Center .... for the public and a membership section Multi-purpose Indoor Fieldhouse with eight lane track 6,000 permanent seats and 4,000 temporary seats Champion field for many sports and events Trade Shows Concerts Event hall for University Games and Championships 2: Up to 20,000 seats NHL Sized Arena 3: Up to 3,300 seat Performing Arts Center 4: up to 1.5-2.0 million square feet of World Class retail 5: 4- 8 million square feet of Class A Office buildings 6: Convention Centre .... capable of seating 3-4 thousand people at a dining function 6: up 100,000 square feet Multipurpose Entertainment Center 7: 100 acres for a satellite University campus for 20,000 students 8: 10,000- 12,000 class condo units 9: World class transit hub I-METRO-E/W ... subway characteristics Need to develop a P3 Span of service 19 hours a day Frequencies - eventually 10-15 minutes Close to 50 stations Approximately 95 kms long Electric Criteria: Design for average speed between stops of 80-100 kilometers Funding .... Developing a Public Private Partnership Electric Train Track with be at grade and in places above grade

Any good vision or architectural blueprint should be able to be modified and updated. I believe that we should be able to bury the hydro lines in the Markham Center corridor because it is of great community and provincial interest to do so. However, it is going to take guts, courage and leadership to fight the silos of bureaucracy and break down their turf in the best interests of society. I sincerely believe that all the monies that have been spent on the various components of Markham Live and Markham Center need to be made public and put in the appropriate project categories. I know that I have spent several thousands of dollars on printing, on the various components of MISTA, Markham Live, IMETRO-E/W and CSIO which will stimulate billions of dollars of development activity. The Raymond James report should be made public as we spent approximately $267,000 on this report that I personally have not seen and I know Regional Councillor Joe Li has also asked for the same information. Hopefully, someone will investigate Milton's Veledrome funding strategy on how they are getting all their financing. They should be getting 56 percent of funding from the federal and provincial government because of the Pan Am games funding formula as it is one of the venue sites. I have a lot of issues with Remington's GTA Sports Center site plan and the long term ramification for our City Center and Markham Live. I communicated some of my concerns with Remington yesterday and will continue to do so. Actually, Remington agrees with a lot of my concerns. The bureaucratic silos are really starting to hamper an integrated process and proper city center planning. Howard, perhaps you may not be looking at the whole vision, and that is why you think the NHL Arena will be the catalyst for the Markham Live and City Center. My recommendation is if this project is too large for you to comprehend then perhaps you should resign from the Markham Live committee. I have not heard from any of the other council members that feel the same way as you do. The provincial government is in the process of selecting 3 satellite, 100 acre university campuses, each campus to accommodate 20,000 students. One of the major criteria is for the campus to be on major transit lines. Maybe there should be a referendum to determine the public's priority. Jim Jones Markham Local and Regional Councillor City of Markham email: jjones@markham.ca ============================================================= -----Original Message----From: Shore, Howard Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:20 PM To: Jones, Jim; Hamilton, Don; Burke, Valerie; Campbell, Colin; Chiu, Alex; Hamilton, Don; Heath, Jack; Ho, Alan; Kanapathi, Logan; Landon, Gord; Li, Joe; Moretti, Carolina; Scarpitti, Frank; Taylor, Andy

Subject: RE: Referendum Dialogue It's not nave at all Jim. To pander to people by jumping on a 'referendum band-wagon' is what I mean by being 'cute' - instead of making a tough decision as we were elected to do - let's just pass it to a referendum. But, of course, first we need to have about the notion of a referendum in principle; we'll debate the precise wording (because, of course, the wording, in part, determines the outcome); we will be setting a precedent for any other difficult issue Council is too afraid to tackle on its own; well argue (and potentially have a legal challenge) over whether a referendum is binding and what percentage would be required. And, of course, let's be honest with residents about the cost - there is no legitimacy to any referendum or Proposition (as many are referred to in the U.S.) unless they are conducted with the same comprehensiveness and scrutiny as a Markham-wide election. I think it is irresponsible and completely political to tell a resident that a referendum is a good idea without explaining all of the above. There is no jurisdiction which conducts referendum as a 'knee-jerk' reaction of the type discussed over the past several days. It is dangerous. These jurisdictions have gone through the thought process of determining what may or may not be the subject of a referendum. We have not. Jim, I never claimed to be any smarter than anyone else. Like you, each of us were entrusted by our community with the responsibility of making decisions - large and small, on their behalf. I take that responsibility very seriously. MISTA may be a wonderful vision but I don't believe that it should be the test by which this project is measured. What version is this current incarnation? Is it not accurate that last January 2011 you asked DSC for just 10 - 14 days to produce a full business plan which has never been forthcoming? How much of the Adamson work on the very detailed, glossy concept books has been attributed to Markham Live rather than MISTA? Isn't it true that you indicated that even if Council were to reject MISTA you would nonetheless pursue it under some different guise? So, you say below that you'd respect the decision of the public at a referendum, but not a decision of Council? And, what happened to the expected 1,000 people you wanted to bring out to Angus Glen last May 2011 for a public meeting on MISTA? After years of your work (and I give you tremendous credit for it) and with tens of thousands of dollars of design concept work already complete - potentially gift-wrapped - for a party interested in pursuing MISTA privately, and ads placed in the Globe, if memory serves, only 9 parties even responded to the RFI, the scoring of which has yet to be completed. As for the developer contributions I found it very interesting to learn that we are not the only municipality using this 'technique'. Milton has a very similar mechanism they are successfully using to help fund their velodrome and it has not be challenged at the Board. You talk about "taxing" new residents but you fail to mention the increase in their property values because of the arena. And the developers that have so vigorously complained about the levy - they, like Cadillac Fairview downtown and others downtown and in virtually every other market, will use the arena as a sales feature in their marketing. Google 'condos near ACC' for example and see how many ads are listed "steps from the ACC", "minutes from the ACC", "heart of the sports district", etc..

We had very good behinds the scenes tour at the Senators' Scotiabank Place today and Q & A with executives from their Operations. I also discussed the notion of an Open House evening with Graeme (similar to what we did with the Pan Am unveiling) and he was very receptive. HOWARD I. SHORE Councillor, Thornhill Ward 2 City of Markham 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, ON L3R 9W3 Email: hshore@markham.ca ===================================================== -----Original Message----From: Jones, Jim Sent: August 22, 2012 6:54 PM To: Mayor, Markham Council and CAO Subject: Referendum Dialogue Howard, I don't agree with your logic at all and you are being very nave. "What is so politically cute about a referendum?" We are the high tech capital of Canada, a very high percentage of Markham's population are college and university graduates, they get it and are very capable in determining the right thing to do for the city in a referendum. I know that one member of council thinks the people of Markham are not capable of voting the right way in a referendum. What is the right way? Who says Howard, you are capable of doing the right thing too. All my years in politics, I have always relied in the end on the people's decision, right or wrong. I am not afraid of a referendum at all. Maybe the referendum should be an NHL sized Arena versus the Markham International Sports Training Academy (MISTA). I think that the people of Markham should get to pick the winners and losers, not the Mayor and CAO. However, the game plan for MISTA is to be private sector funded and so should the GTA Sports Center (NHL sized Arena) too. Nobody in the last election said they were going to take the City of Markham $325-$500 million in debt because of an NHL sized arena. Graeme Roulstan started out implying that the NHL sized arena venture was a private sector investment play. I personally believe once this NHL sized arena venture switched from totally private sector to public sector, and then we should have been looking for additional investors. The mayor and council had an opportunity to meet privately with the former owner of the Montreal Canadians who was willing to fly up to Markham from Denver, Colorado and the mayor elected not to make it happen. I believe this was a huge mistake. Nobody is against the NHL sized Arena if its 100% private sector funded. Also, please don't count the "compulsory" voluntary contribution tax as private sector, because it isn't. I think the people will agree that maybe some needed infrastructure could be added to the tax base which will not be covered by development charges.

But taxing the next 40,000 (approximately 108,000 people increase in population) single family homes, townhouses and condos between $4,450 and $9,500 is not correct either. If the trend continues, the larger percentage of the new residents will come from offshore and won't most likely be hockey fans. So why are we putting the burden on them to finance this NHL Size arena? Today, Asian make up almost 55-60 percent of Markham's population and it is growing. There are other infrastructure costs that should also be included in the NHL sized arena equation too. The traffic study and parking plans submitted by Genivar is a theoretical technical plan and has nothing to do with reality. That is why a motion at the last Parking Advisory Committee meeting to ask the CAO to setup up a City Parking Authority to basically address the parking problems associated with the NHL Arena. Can add another $60,000,000 if the parking is under the arena and event plaza or another $100,000,000 if the parking is in a separate structure plus. Plus will need road improvements and additional roads which will be approximately another $60,000,000 to $100,000,000. Markham should do a proper business plan that includes all of the components associated with the NHL arena even if they are City costs. Markham has a habit of looking at thinks asynchronously versus holistically in this particular matter. I know that when we were looking at Markham Live and all its components, engineering did look holistically at all the necessary roads, parking and other infrastructure components requirements. Why didn't they present all the costs associated with this application up front too? If this is a Markham facility and GTA Sports Arena Ltd is only leasing it, then how come we didn't hire our own consultants versus relying on Graeme's and Remington's? We need to be hiring experts better than the applicants to conduct a peer review on everything GTA Sports Arena Center and Remington have presented and submitted. We shouldn't be financing an entity called the GTA Sports Center; it should be the Markham Sports Center. Also, we know if and when a NHL Hockey arrives it will be called the Toronto XXXXX, not the GTA XXXXX. Respectfully yours, Jim Jones Markham Local and Regional Councillor City of Markham email: jjones@markham.ca ======================================================== -----Original Message----From: Shore, Howard Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:34 AM To: Hamilton, Don; Mayor, Councillors & C.A.O. Subject: Re: Markham arena developer defends economic model - The Globe and Mail Don,

As someone who has actually written a paper on Referendum policy, which was presented years ago to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs it boggles my mind how almost irresponsible we can be in egging on this notion of a referendum. If anyone thinks it's a simple as putting out a question - do you or don't you want the City to own an arena (or some variation thereof), they would be sorely mistaken. Holding a Referendum, on any subject, is a full and complete debate in and of itself. The questions are numerous: What items are subject to a referendum - arena, budget, which roads will be worked on, building of a new community centre, the list goes on. Would a referendum (on any subject - because now you've set a precedent) be binding? What percentage is required? It's not always 50% plus 1. Sometimes 2/3 is required. There will be debate over the exact question wording. This will not be cheap. Take a look at any Proposition put up for 'referendum' in the U.S. - these are campaigns in and of themselves. And, most importantly, where referendums are practiced, they are almost always an election ballot item to keep the costs down. But, if someone feels unable to make a significant decision - let's say last year's $380 million Budget - they don't have to vote. But, you did vote on that, didn't you? No call for a referendum. It's politically cute to indicate to people that you like the idea of a referendum but I think we have to be more responsible than that. ___________________________ Howard I. Shore Councillor, Thornhill Ward 2 City of Markham 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, Ontario L3R 9W3 www.howardshore.ca =========================================================== ----- Original Message ----From: Hamilton, Don Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:53 AM To: 'Concerned Resident and Mayor, Councillors & C.A.O. Subject: Re: Markham arena developer defends economic model - The Globe and Mail I agree with the Resident. I started emailing Council as soon as I got your message about the possibility of holding a referendum. Some support and some opposition. I wish you would email Mayor,councillors&c.a.o@markham.ca and let them know it's not just me that wants a public vote. $325 million debt deserves a public vote Don Hamilton Your Unionville Ward 3 Councillor dhamilton@markham.ca ===================================================== ----- Original Message -----

From: Concerned Resident Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 09:56 AM To: Hamilton, Don Subject: Fw: Markham arena developer defends economic model - The Globe and Mail Hi Don, My note was sent after seeing MES but before the Globe or the Star articles. Globe is below if you didn't see it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/markham-arena-developer-defends-economicmodel/article4488686/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Now insiders say its dicey, Phoenix is a mess, and I heard Roustan, in the past, has screwed up financial commitments? Once we past the point of no return, huge trouble. Referendum lets all off the hook. Concerned Resident