The System Worked- the Optics Didn’t

The controversy over the proposed closure of Stoney Creek Arena has been widely framed as a failure of leadership or administration. But there is another, more constructive way to read what actually happened: the system worked. 

The arena closure appeared in the draft budget, councillors spotted it, questioned it, and the proposal was ultimately reversed. That sequence — review, challenge, correction — is precisely what council is meant to do. 

Mayor Horwath has said the arena was never intended to be closed and that its inclusion was inconsistent with her direction to protect core community services. Whether one accepts that explanation fully or not, the more important fact is that the budget did not pass quietly or unquestioned. Councillors examined the document, raised concerns publicly, and forced clarification. 

That matters. 

Strong-mayor powers do not eliminate the role of council. Councillors are not passive recipients of a finished product; they are meant to scrutinize, probe, and flag problems. In this case, they did exactly that — and quickly. The error did not survive the review process, and the outcome changed as a result. 

Much has been made of who bears responsibility for the arena appearing in the budget in the first place. That debate is fair, but it risks overshadowing a more important point: the checks and balances functioned as designed. A draft proposal was challenged before final adoption, not after irreversible decisions were made. 

That is not a failure of governance. It is governance. 

Public trust is built not on the idea that mistakes will never occur, but on confidence that mistakes can be caught and corrected. Budgets are complex documents assembled under tight timelines. What matters most is whether elected officials are empowered — and willing — to question what is in front of them.

In this case, they were. 

There is still room for improvement in clarity, communication, and process. Residents reasonably expect fewer surprises when it comes to cherished community assets. But it is also worth acknowledging that accountability did not vanish behind closed doors. It showed up at the council table. 

Rather than viewing this episode as proof the system is broken, it may be more accurate — and more reassuring — to see it as evidence that council oversight still has teeth.

Now, if only council would curb its fixation on grass cutting in an election year…..