Mark Sutcliffe was the most prominent political advocate for Lansdowne 2.0 and voted for the final redevelopment and partnership amendments in November 2025. He argues that the existing arena and north-side stands require replacement and that proceeding with the approved redevelopment is financially preferable to maintaining aging facilities without the new private development and partnership revenues.

His public case describes the plan as ‘more for less.’ Sutcliffe says lower construction estimates and higher air-rights revenue improved the final proposal, increased the amount associated with affordable housing and reduced the City’s net burden. He argues that taxpayers are responsible for approximately 31 percent of construction costs and none of the operating costs, and that the City receives roughly three dollars in asset value for each dollar of net municipal investment.

He also emphasizes broader benefits: modern facilities for sports and concerts, continued homes for the REDBLACKS and Ottawa 67’s, housing on the site, tourism, jobs, economic activity and renewed public spaces. Council’s approval included a requirement that the revised partnership guarantee the REDBLACKS and Ottawa 67’s remain in Ottawa and play at Lansdowne until at least 2042.

With construction underway, Sutcliffe’s position is effectively to deliver the project rather than reopen the approval decision. The main accountability questions are whether the City remains within the approved financial framework, whether projected private and partnership revenues arrive, whether public-space and transportation commitments are fulfilled, and how his administration would respond to overruns or delays.

Jeff Leiper voted against the final Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment and partnership amendments. His opposition was not limited to the need for new facilities; it focused on whether the approved financial and governance model was the right way to deliver them.

Leiper publicly criticized the process in October 2025 after Mayor Sutcliffe promoted major elements of the staff recommendations before councillors and the public had received the underlying documents. He described that approach as disrespectful to Council and objected to the characterization of community critics’ financial analysis as false information. This reflects a broader concern about transparency, independent scrutiny and the treatment of dissenting evidence.

His recorded vote places him clearly against the plan that Council ultimately approved. The opposing case at Council raised risks related to cost overruns, revenue assumptions, opportunity cost, the size and location of the Event Centre, festivals and the Great Lawn, consultation with sports tenants, and the adequacy of independent cost-benefit analysis.

Because contracts have since been approved and construction is underway, a future Leiper administration could not necessarily reverse the project without legal, contractual and financial consequences. His campaign had not yet published a detailed post-approval Lansdowne plan explaining whether he would seek renegotiation, independent audits, design changes, stronger governance or simply tighter implementation oversight. His entry therefore distinguishes his clear opposition to approval from the still-developing question of what he would now do as mayor.

Alex Lawson was not a member of Ottawa City Council when Lansdowne 2.0 was approved and therefore has no recorded vote on the project. As of July 29, 2026, Compare Ottawa did not locate an official campaign policy stating whether he supports the approved redevelopment, would seek to renegotiate it, would attempt to cancel future phases or would continue it under stronger oversight.

Lawson’s broader campaign emphasizes management reform, measurable delivery and reducing the influence of political insiders. His Influence Firewall proposal would bar people who financially or organizationally supported an elected official’s campaign from lobbying that official for four years. Those principles could be relevant to future City-OSEG governance and procurement decisions, but applying them to Lansdowne without an explicit statement from Lawson would be inference rather than a verified position.

The project is already under construction, making the absence of a detailed position significant. A mayoral candidate should explain how he would handle the approved contracts, monitor cost and schedule, protect taxpayers, address transportation and public-space concerns, and respond if projected private development or partnership revenues underperform.

Until Lawson publishes those commitments, his overall position remains under review.

Opposition to Lansdowne 2.0 is one of Saravanamuttoo’s defining civic positions. He argues that the City committed roughly half a billion dollars to a private-partner redevelopment while lacking sufficient resources for local arenas and other community infrastructure.

His broader spending plan identifies Lansdowne as a “sweetheart deal” that should not be repeated. He calls for open books, stronger project accountability and a reorientation of municipal spending toward community priorities.