"The arena is dead, long live Eaton's" should be the rallying cry for a coalition formed to save the Portage Avenue landmark. Instead, they're shooting themselves in the foot saying that Winnipeggers can have it both ways - that a redeveloped mixed-use Eaton's building is compatible with the subsidized arena deal, so long as the arena is built somewhere else.

The coalition's stated purpose to is to spare the Eaton's building from the wrecking ball. But they'll never succeed in doing so if they continue to make careless public statements supporting a relocated subsidized arena.

"We must make it clear the decision is not an arena or Eaton's. We can easily have both," reads the Save the Eaton's Building homepage.

The attitude can be summed up as a classic case of NIMBY - short for "not in my back yard." It's a strategy that will surely backfire unless the group trains its sights on the public subsidies that will build the new arena and bury Eaton's.

If the subsidized arena is built, Eaton's is sure to be razed. But if the subsidy package is stripped away, the arena is temporarily derailed and Eaton's gets a stay of execution.

Tomorrow, the coalition will be in court hoping to halt the demolition. As it stands, the Eaton's building is still private property. So it's highly unlikely a court will rule against the owners' wishes to demolish their building.

The better approach is to seduce the private-sector owners with a sweeter deal. Coalition plans are already under way to propose an alternative mixed-use development of the site. But they don't stand a chance to compete against public subsidies lined up for the arena proposal. Ad the man said, "money talks, BS walks."

If the building owners can turn a fast buck investing in a sure-fire, low-risk, publicly subsidized sports/entertainment complex, then why waste their time exploring some high-risk mixed-use facility dreamed up by local planners?

By my calculations, the total dollar value of direct public funds, concessions and tax breaks for the True North arena is a minimum of $256 million over 25 years. It's nothing to sneeze at.

Compare that to the chump change available to the Eaton's owners if they were to take advantage of the fifty-percent heritage building tax credit. The coalition's chances of winning the subsidy battle are nil. If they try, my money is on the arena.

Their best hope is to work toward nixing the arena's endless tax and subsidy advantages to make possible fair competition on a level playing field.

The threat to Eaton's is corporate welfare in action. It's a time-failed policy that allows unqualified politicians to pick the business winners from the losers. It's also the kind of lazy thinking that made government the undisputed master and champion of downtown development. The result has been anything but edifying.

As the coalition prepares to battle it out in the courts, they would do well to note that success hinges less on the strength of their alternative design proposals than on a tactical strike against the government subsidies that threaten the designated-heritage site in the first place.