[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[FlamesAddiction]

I watched that whole press conference with Notley, and boy does she have a personal dislike for Danielle Smith.

[Manhattanboy]

I have no problem with ROFOs/ROFRs at fair market value.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by getbak

This is from the FAQs on the Flames site:
https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/even...qs/c-343889022

Doesn’t really say much though. The split could be 90/10 or something dumb.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I have no problem with ROFOs/ROFRs at fair market value.

Neither do I. Doesn’t really matter which entity develops it as long as it isn’t at discounted values.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Did Rachel say she supports Alberta's commitment in principle?

She said she couldn't evaluate it because she has no access to details. For the same reason we can't evaluate it. It's an "election issue" but you just have to trust all the politicians and CSEC that everything is fair.


This, for lack of a better term, is bull####. If it's an election issue, you have to give us the details to make an informed decision. Otherwise the only logical assumption to be made is that it is a bad deal, and they are keeping that from us. Unless you are dumb enough to trust Danielle Smith. Nobody, at this point, is that dumb, though, are they?

[midniteowl]

I think Notley is just doing what Smith did, planting seeds to get votes for the election. Saying there is a secret deal, I just don't know exactly what it is. Saying UCP is spending your money, think twice before you vote for them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

A lot of people don’t complain about property taxes

Taxes are meant to be used for things including services and infrastructure


Yes, the government has money earmarked for infrastructure. Not sure why that is a problem. Point is, if it’s already budgeted for, these aren’t new taxpayer dollars. It’s just the allocation of the earmarked dollars

There are obvious immediate economic benefits, it’s not like this is a sunk cost. In the near term, a bunch of that investment goes directly into the local labour force and businesses providing the materials and services. Money into the local economy. The government will also collect back the GST on the transactions, and income taxes for all the labourers, no?

I would expect the project will attract further private sector development


Let’s do a quick calculation - worst case scenario — say this is just a massive sunk cost and was all net new dollars they were asking for - then if the contribution would see me holding the bag equally with all Albertans

1.226 B / 4.5 million is 272 per Albertan
Over 35 years, that’s $7.78 a year

70 percent (which Notley said taxpayers are paying) of that is $5.44 per year

I personally make worse decisions with 5 bucks more than once a year.
(Anyone here ever bought a ticket to a Flames game? )

(Also, I’m sure there is someone on here complaining about it, that also just throws out their recyclables instead of going to the bottle depot.)


Meanwhile the Alberta government had higher than forecasted 76 billion (14 billion higher than the budgeted 62) in projected revenue in 2022-23

They have a 23 billion dollar capital plan this year covering many things and this is a line item, and I’m sure the capital spend is spread over a few years


I’m fine. I will not notice a thing in my day to day and expect most people won’t either. It will be much more of a high profile bitching contest than anything that torpedoes anyone’s way of life

Build a new stadium.

Maybe Taylor Swift will come here

No offence, but I don't think just repeating the arguments I already diluted in the post you quoted is really moving the needle. Did you do it on purpose? Because it's kind of funny if so. And the math exercise was definitely icing on the cake, let me know how it goes when you get hired to go around to a bunch of children and infants in Grand Prairie or Medicine Hat and tell them to give you $5 to pay their yearly share of the arena lol.

We get it, though, unquantifiable economic benefits, the money is already earmarked, we won't even notice it, etc etc. It's been said. We understand. We just need to trust that the answers are in the ether or something.

Why can't people be straight about it? Why all the cover of darkness for what could easily be said as "I just want it and don't actually care about the economic side of things." I'm still going to enjoy the new arena, but man... it's not lost on me that this money could be far, far better spent. Do you really need to pretend that's not true to be excited by it? Why?

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

She said she couldn't evaluate it because she has no access to details. For the same reason we can't evaluate it. It's an "election issue" but you just have to trust all the politicians and CSEC that everything is fair.


This, for lack of a better term, is bull####. If it's an election issue, you have to give us the details to make an informed decision. Otherwise the only logical assumption to be made is that it is a bad deal, and they are keeping that from us. Unless you are dumb enough to trust Danielle Smith. Nobody, at this point, is that dumb, though, are they?

So is it smart to trust Rachel Notley? Honest question.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

Jesus H Christ. Can you be any more dramatic.

honestly.

It's just a little send-up highlighting how absurd some of the justifications for this deal are.

You'll be fine.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

I think Notley is just doing what Smith did, planting seeds to get votes for the election. Saying there is a secret deal, I just don't know exactly what it is. Saying UCP is spending your money, think twice before you vote for them.

The difference is that Notely isn’t a delusional lunatic who believes that the dinosaurs didn’t exist.

[dustygoon]

$17mm rent growing 1% per year implies the value of the building and land is ~$300mm assuming 7% cap rate and $40mm up front.

Pretty sure the arena and land is going to be worth more than $300mm

Looks like a bargain lease for Mur.

[FlamesAddiction]

One of the reporters mentioned that it is normal that before a deal becomes finalized, there will be things kept confidential if that information might impact other business. Notley's response was that because public money is involved and the period of confidentiality doesn't end until after the election, the public should know all the details before voting.

I can see her point and it is really convenient and likely by design that the UCP timed it like that, but if the deal falls through and it hurts 3rd party business, that wouldn't be good either.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

So is it smart to trust Rachel Notley? Honest question.

I like her. She has integrity and she's decent.

So yes I think so. But can't vote for her (obviously).

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's just a little send-up highlighting how absurd some of the justifications for this deal are.

You'll be fine.

Were you upset when the Federal government had no idea that billions of dollars meant for infrastructure went missing? Or the hundreds of millions that went missing that was supposed to go to mental health issues?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

So is it smart to trust Rachel Notley? Honest question.

If she had presented a deal to the public with very little information, and a secret deal that we don't get to see until after the election? No, you shouldn't trust anyone that tells you that, unless there is a very good reason, like national security. I feel like I shouldn't have to say these things out load...but here we are.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

So is it smart to trust Rachel Notley? Honest question.

If you’re a socialist or a union head like her husband yes.

[zamler]

I won't believe the arena is going to be built until it is built.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I think there are issues with those as well but at least they’ll create permanent new and well paying jobs. Most of the time the government comes out as a loser on them though

Unless the goal is raising taxes and deficits, along with devaluing your currency and triggering inflation.

They usually get a gold star on those.

[Mr.Coffee]

I dunno, whatever, what more details really do we need here Notley? Realistically, I’m not sure it’ll matter outside of the broad terms released. I also think she should be careful on this, as I’m willing to bet most Calgarians would be pretty fricken welcoming of $330mm of provincial funding and to just end this bloody saga.

I think this is a bit of a missed opportunity for her. Yes, I understand the coming across like the only adult in the room angle, but all that says to me is brakes on whatever the deal is and ffs, there really should be an end to this some century and there really should be provincial funding. So just say “we are in conditional upon nothing being extremely horrendous financially”. Something with a bit meatier of a commitment then, “well we gotta see details”. I think that is kind of weak actually.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

One of the reporters mentioned that it is normal that before a deal becomes finalized, there will be things kept confidential if that information might impact other business. Notley's response was that because public money is involved and the period of confidentiality doesn't end until after the election, the public should know all the details before voting.

I can see her point and it is really convenient and likely by design that the UCP timed it like that, but if the deal falls through and it hurts 3rd party business, that wouldn't be good either.

Then this announcement should have been delayed. You can't make something an election issue and not provide any information for voters to decide the election issue on.


Remember the last time the city and CSEC had a deal? There were several pages of information brochures, pie charts showing costs, all the details we needed to say "ya, that deal looks fair enough". This was clearly rushed, and I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest Smith said something like "either announce it now, or a UCP government won't provide any funding later." The city is of course going to say yes to free money, so here we are.


Smith just can't help but find ways to get in the way of everything.