Council’s decision to nix a previously approved $600,000 outdoor light show during the 2013 world figure skating championships could hurt the city’s reputation as a host of future such events, Tourism London’s board of directors says.

In a letter going to council Tuesday, Brad Rice, the board’s president, said the sport’s governing body, Skate Canada, has indicated that if the nightly light show isn’t restored, the decision “could have a serious impact on whether London will be recommended for future international events.”

If the show doesn’t go on, he adds, “existing and future partnerships would be compromised and London’s credibility as a ‘can do’ city would be severely undermined.”

That Tourism London is irked by the decision is of little surprise — that much was clear as soon as council voted to axe it — but Rice’s letter underscores what light-show supporters have said throughout: that going all-out for events like the massive figure skating showcase builds London’s case for future big-league events.

For politicians who voted to nix the lights, though, the problem is clear: It’s just too much money, with no lasting benefit, in tough economic times.

It’s of course worth noting, as Rice does in his letter, that the city is still spending some $3 million sprucing up downtown for the event.

A familiar face popped up at city hall early this week, nearly a year-and-a-half after it was last seen around 300 Dufferin — Roger Caranci.

The long-time councillor, you’ll recall, decided against seeking re-election in the 2010 civic campaign, opting instead to run as the federal Liberal candidate for London-Fanshawe in what was then a looming federal election.

We all know how that turned out: the Stephen Harper Tories seized a majority government at the great expense of the Liberals, who were devastated nationwide. And in the process, Caranci lost his bid to become MP, too.

And that brings us to today, with Caranci seeking to enter a new field, possibly working with a former council colleague, and working as a consultant on city hall issues for a few clients.

The most notable of them? Tricar, which is building a second high-rise across the street from the John Labatt Centre and seeking a partnership with city hall on an adjacent parking garage the developer is planning.

Caranci worked with Tricar on that proposal, which council endorsed in principle in the fall. (Essentially, the deal could see Tricar building the garage, with 300-or-so space, and leasing it to the city. One estimate put the annual leasing costs at $500,000.)

City staff are studying the proposal and looking into negotiations with Tricar. A report is expected to go to politicians in the near future.

Amid all that, Caranci, 47, says he keeps a keen eye on his old stomping grounds. For a politician, there really is no other choice, he said.

“When it’s in your blood, it’s in your blood,” he said.

Three months after Occupy London protesters were turfed from their Victoria Park camp, the decision by city council to force that eviction continues to reverberate.

Most recently it was Monday, when the Ontario Ombudsman, who’s launched a probe into the council’s behind-closed-doors vote to evict, notified city council he’ll be interviewing all 15 of them. And each council member is allowed to hire their own lawyer, on the public’s tab.

That, in turn, has sparked concern from a Londoner whose original complaint was one of two to launch the whole Ombudsman probe in the first place.

Oliver Hobson, an Occupy supporter who visited Victoria Park often during the encampment, is now asking that the city review its so-called indemnification bylaw, which allows politicians’ legal expenses to be recouped. (The bylaw was passed in 1993.)

Not that Hobson doesn’t think politicians should have some right to legal costs if hit with an action through their work at city hall. But he wants to see the regulations tightened up — and he’s particularly irked it’s applying to the Ombudsman’s probe.

“In some instances during terms on council, OK (it’s fair),” he said. “But in instances like this there’s absolutely no way they should be considering doing this.

“It’s almost as if money is no object and it doesn’t matter because someone else is footing the bill.”

In addition to be irksome to a taxpayer, Hobson said any move to hire lawyers just looks bad.

“What’s council’s reaction and how is it handling this (investigation)? From my point of view, as a member of the public, it’s poor behaviour.”

So the Ombudsman will complete their probe and produce a report, which may or may not find council was wrong to hold its vote behind closed doors. (The city does have a bylaw that allows for confidential votes in several instances … and that may include instances like the Occupy vote.)

But before that, Hobson has asked to speak at the next meeting of council’s finance committee to offer his two-cents on the possible legal bills he doesn’t want taxpayers footing.

City council unexpectedly voted last week to pull the plug on spending $600,000 to have an expert firm create an outdoor light show for downtown London during next year’s world figure skating championships.

The production, at least images of similar ones I’ve seen, is impressive. But the pricetag was way too high for a number of city councillors, particuarly considering the project will have no lasting benefit. Once the event’s over, the lights are gone and so’s the $600,000.

Despite those concerns, council approved the $600K in November as part of a total $3.6-million spree that will spruce up downtown in advance of the figure skating event.

Then, last week, council voted 7-6 against the contract — a curveball, to say the least, that left Tourism London irked and Mayor Joe Fontana (who was absent for the vote) calling the decision “dumb.”

Two-thirds of council would have to agree to even discuss the issue again this year, which is not going to happen.

So, that’s it. Lights out, right?

Not quite, according to a council source who predicts the $600,000 light show could still happen.

How? Well, as it was explained to me, what council shot down was a specific deal with the light-show crew — not the decision to spend $600,000 on the spectacle. So, while that deal’s rejection is now a decided matter of council, a new contract (say, one at a slightly lower price) could be tabled as a brand new matter for council.

And if that were to happen, would council just vote it down again?

Remember, last week’s vote to kill the deal was 7-6, with two council members absent, Sandy White and Joe Fontana. Both of them had previously supported the light show — the mayor enthusiastically so.

So if, as one councillor contends, a new deal can be tabled, and everybody’s there, that makes it an 8-7 approval, doesn’t it? This is worth watching.

Jim Chapman, the local media personality who penned the quickly-becoming-legendary song London Is The City Of Opportunity – it’s drawing much attention since Joe Fontana unveiled it as his state of the city address – is shrugging off critics.

Oh, yes, there critics — at least in social-media world, where, as I wrote in a story, reaction varied from acceptance to criticism to parody. I must say, I’m surprise how much attention (good, bad, whatever) the tune is generating.

Chapman says the negative reviews don’t bother him. “People are entitled to their opinions,” he said. They’re also entitled to their YouTube parody videos, apparently.

Chapman, who says he’s written “dozens and dozens” of songs and jingles, said the idea of a ‘jingle’ is not far off what he was trying to do with this song.

“I’ve been doing that kind of thing for more than 30 years. (The song) is an extended jingle, essentially,” Chapman said. “The purpose of the song was to reinforce the message the mayor and city council are working so hard to get out there — that there are opportunities in London.”

An interesting endnote: Among Chapman’s other memorable songs? The old London Tigers theme song … tear em up tigers.