Re: Owen Sound says no to Poutine Feast in 2022 (Owen Sound Sun Times, 25th January 2022)

It seems to me that opposition to the Poutine Feast is tilting at windmills.

First, let me state that I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to protect downtown businesses, or any small businesses for that matter, but that “protectionist ship” sailed a long time ago.

Quite some years ago, the council of the day voted, through a council meeting rather than open it to public input, to change the zoning to allow a superstore to build on the east hill reasoning it was going to build somewhere so it may as well be in Owen Sound: The Big Box stores and influx of franchised businesses was going to happen eventually, as was happening in all other communities.

Forward some years, the mayor of the day stated that Shoppers Drug Mart’s new downtown store was evidence that it was “investing in the community”. Nope....Shoppers was investing in itself and nothing more. It was putting its hands into the pockets of Owen Sounders and recognised the potential of the increasing seniors’ market, the lucrative prescription market. This is the capitalism system we live in and I take no issue with it. I am sure a lot of my RRSPs are benefiting from Shoppers and similar businesses.

When I first moved to Owen Sound many years back, the downtown was thriving. It is now a shadow of its former self, in large part because of the east-side retail developments, although there are still a respectable number of downtown retail businesses to keep it relevant. Well, so far anyway.

Councils have tried to manage the local economy, especially the downtown, over the years but have failed, because that is beyond its ability to affect the inevitability of the pursuit of profits, and, because it has, through zoning, made space for big retail.

Some years back, council voted against allowing Walmart to build an addition to accommodate a grocery section because it would, council argued, have a negative impact on smaller grocery stores that it assumed many seniors shopped at. That went well.

Council may have a desire to protect small, independent, downtown businesses but the growth on the east side has already done damage. The enemies of the downtown eateries are the large number of franchised restaurants, not a four-day poutine festival. Downtown restaurants may survive because they offer unique food options not available in the franchised businesses. A large regional food festival has the potential to bring in a lot of “tourists” to the downtown and many businesses would benefit economically. Some of these tourists might never been to the downtown

The key here is “tourists”. The tool used to calculate the economic impact is specifically based on tourists attending, NOT locals. Locals cannot be included in the calculations because that does not generate “new” dollars to the area. The impact tool’s manual states: “a visitor is someone who takes an overnight out-of-town trip or an out-of-town same-day trip of 40 kilometres or more away from his/ her home...” Locals do not count. There is no such thing as being a tourist in your own backyard or being on a staycation: These do not generate “new” money.

If a local event was organised, it would have to draw 10,000 tourists (not locals) to have the same economic impact as stated in the Poutine Feast proposal’s economic impact report. The economic impact is based on 10,000 same-day tourists, no overnight stays. I ran the same model with 3,000 tourists and 10% of whom had a one-night stay, with the resultant economic impact of $116,000 to $164,000. Let us assume that the proposed 10,000 attendees (or fewer with multi-day visits) materialised; that would be a lot of people spending money in the area, and, we must assume, at some businesses downtown.

Using the argument that, as Peter Reid was quoted, “[we]...assume most of the economic benefit of the event would be “leaving the city” in the promoter’s pockets since the festival includes out-of-town vendors” can be applied to Summerfolk (vendors and musicians), RibFest (vendors), and the fall fair (chance games, rides) for example. Actually, the model calculates booth internal and external economic benefits so to assume most of the benefits will leave is not correct. Local retention of economic impact is built into the model’s calculations.

This “money leaving the city” perspective applies to so many businesses in the city. Franchise businesses pay significant start-up fees and royalty fees can top 50%, all monies leaving the area. If the business is resident-owned some money will flow back into the economy. Franchisees purchase all their stock from the franchisor, sending more money out. Corporate-owned businesses send all their profits out of the area. This includes such businesses as Bounce Radio (an American company locally franchised through Bell Canada), the Sun Times (owned by Post Media), Rogers and Bell cable/internet, and a BIG one - Walmart. The GTR (Grey Transit Route) takes people out of the area, to Orangeville and Shelburne for shopping and connections elsewhere. A large, west-side marina is now owned by an out-of-town company, Maple Leaf Marinas, the “largest owner of operating marinas in Canada”. And a number of large apartment buildings and rental properties are non-resident owned, again with profits leaving the area.

The list goes on. These all send money out of the area, lots of money; through the money pipeline to Bay Street.

The following figure illustrates the multiplier impact model with its leakages and locally retained monies. It is complicated and requires significantly in-depth data collection and analyses to determine what leaves and what stays. But, as the model indicates, the “etc” implies a continuous cycle. This model is the basis for the calculations used in the Poutine Feast report.

It is the way it is. Locally-owned is not now easily defined; it is more a case of a continuum of localness, or to what degree can we state a business is “local”.

Let’s stop tilting at windmills.

David Clark
Independent Researcher
Owen Sound