I love how people all the sudden care about creosote if it helps drive their view on the issue. No one gave a crap for a very long time, but conveniently now it's a huge public issue.
If it isn't getting worse, wait until the city reaches 2M people. Then we will actually need the land, and have a much larger tax base to draw from.
Province: "We'll keep monitoring, but we won't do anything about it."
Nenshi: "FFS guys, get off your asses and fix this as it is your responsibility."
Like I said, just part of the same long-running pissing match.
The Province, specifically Alberta Environment, couldn't even muster the ability to fix the Gas Plus gas station fiasco in Bowness. There's little or no chance they have the ability to deal with such a complex and costly mess as West Village.
I love how people all the sudden care about creosote if it helps drive their view on the issue. No one gave a crap for a very long time, but conveniently now it's a huge public issue.
If it isn't getting worse, wait until the city reaches 2M people. Then we will actually need the land, and have a much larger tax base to draw from.
It's kind of like when people got on their high horses about the homeless problem when we started debating refugee numbers...
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
IMO the fieldhouse/stadium is not the most effective combination. Look at Lindsay Park, Genesis Centre, etc. - they run very busy/full 365 days a year. I know a fieldhouse is different, but if done properly, I think there is 365 demand on the space. Football games are Friday nights, Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons - the same peak demand times as the fieldhouse would have for regular use.
Let's not forget the fact the unnecessary infrastructure a football stadium requires that would be wasted for the other 350+ days that the facility is a field house. Concession stands, extra bathrooms, Stamps retail stores....all things that are absolutely not needed for a field house. The combined football stadium/fieldhouse combination is a straight money grab or piggy back by CSEC.
Province: "We'll keep monitoring, but we won't do anything about it."
Nenshi: "FFS guys, get off your asses and fix this as it is your responsibility."
Like I said, just part of the same long-running pissing match.
Isnt it the City's responsibility and not the province? Maybe I am missing something.
Isnt the sequence of events something like this...
1 - lumber or furniture biz operates on that land and some part of their wood curing process produces creosote which knowingly or unknowingly seeps in the ground.
2 - City buys the land
3 - previous owners no longer have business interests in the province and are HQ in QC
4 - City finds creosote on land - cannot sue because company has no operations in QC
5 - residents across the river freak out because it may have migrated across the river and contaminate their properties so AB environment tests.
6 - not sure who (should be the citys problem since they own the land) but someone pays for mitigation to contain the site to the south side of the river
7 - City doesnt have the money for this cleanup and province is probably like to fkn way is that my problem so city asks province to attempt to sue this company somehow.
Isnt it the City's responsibility and not the province? Maybe I am missing something.
Isnt the sequence of events something like this...
1 - lumber or furniture biz operates on that land and some part of their wood curing process produces creosote which knowingly or unknowingly seeps in the ground.
2 - City buys the land
3 - previous owners no longer have business interests in the province and are HQ in QC
4 - City finds creosote on land - cannot sue because company has no operations in QC
5 - residents across the river freak out because it may have migrated across the river and contaminate their properties so AB environment tests.
6 - not sure who (should be the citys problem since they own the land) but someone pays for mitigation to contain the site to the south side of the river
7 - City doesnt have the money for this cleanup and province is probably like to fkn way is that my problem so city asks province to attempt to sue this company somehow.
8 - Calgary Next...
I believe the City's deal to purchase the land specifically excluded assuming liability for the creosote, which has been known about for a very long time.
Isnt it the City's responsibility and not the province? Maybe I am missing something.
Little known fact - a municipality isn't really an independent government anyway. It's really just a delegation by the province, who can undelegate at any time. It's not separate like the feds versus the province.
Anyhoo, ultimately Alberta has the responsibility and ability to clean it up. But they can foist the bill on Calgary.
Isnt it the City's responsibility and not the province? Maybe I am missing something.
Isnt the sequence of events something like this...
1 - lumber or furniture biz operates on that land and some part of their wood curing process produces creosote which knowingly or unknowingly seeps in the ground.
2 - City buys the land
3 - previous owners no longer have business interests in the province and are HQ in QC
4 - City finds creosote on land - cannot sue because company has no operations in QC
5 - residents across the river freak out because it may have migrated across the river and contaminate their properties so AB environment tests.
6 - not sure who (should be the citys problem since they own the land) but someone pays for mitigation to contain the site to the south side of the river
7 - City doesnt have the money for this cleanup and province is probably like to fkn way is that my problem so city asks province to attempt to sue this company somehow.
8 - Calgary Next...
It's the provincial government's job to pursue collection from Domtar. The province suggests its next to impossible to enforce Alberta's environmental laws outside the province, so they haven't pursued it.
But by all accounts, legal experts agree that the province is being "unduly pessimistic". Recent cases have allowed provinces to enforce provincial law extra-provincially.
Quote:
“Companies definitely tend to fight these provisions and it may be there is a reluctance by the province to engage in that fight,” Collins said.
“It makes no sense that you can sell a contaminated site and move to the province next door and your liability is eclipsed.”
Jillian Henderson, a spokeswoman for the city, said in an emailed statement that Calgary had not sought compensation from the Canada Creosote Co. for the contamination. “The province is the appropriate regulatory agency to determine responsible parties,” she said.
Quote:
“In 1997, a Release Agreement was signed between the Province and the City stating the Canada Creosote site contamination was not caused or contributed to by the City,” a statement on the city’s website reads.
The Province is the one with responsibility of determining who pays for the clean-up (atleast, environmental legislation is responsible in forcing the party to clean it up).
It looks like if the province comes to the city and says, you need to pay for this, the city would have a pretty good argument against that demand.
The Province is the one people should be pointing their fingers at in this situation. Given that the NDP has been pushing enforcement of environmental issues since their time in office (i have personally been involved in a few), the province's reluctance here is strange.
Given the expected costs, a few hundred thousand on legal costs to obtain and enforce judgment on Domtar isn't that big.
Let's not forget the fact the unnecessary infrastructure a football stadium requires that would be wasted for the other 350+ days that the facility is a field house. Concession stands, extra bathrooms, Stamps retail stores....all things that are absolutely not needed for a field house. The combined football stadium/fieldhouse combination is a straight money grab or piggy back by CSEC.
But the football stadium itself is unnecessary infrastructure for 350+ days. I'd be disappointed if they built a stadium that couldn't be used as a field house for that reason.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheFlamesVan For This Useful Post:
My ideal would be that the Flames and Stampede partner up on a retractable roof stadium that would also serve as the BMO centre expansion.
Ideally you could host the rodeo there every day during stampede rain or shine, people would be happy and drinking. You could host nightly concerts there during Stampede.
Also because the stampede would be the primary tenant federal/provincial money might not be out of the question. add in some cash from the flames and a ticket tax and the financing isn't crazy.
My ideal would be that the Flames and Stampede partner up on a retractable roof stadium that would also serve as the BMO centre expansion.
Ideally you could host the rodeo there every day during stampede rain or shine, people would be happy and drinking. You could host nightly concerts there during Stampede.
Also because the stampede would be the primary tenant federal/provincial money might not be out of the question. add in some cash from the flames and a ticket tax and the financing isn't crazy.
Isn't the wagon track way bigger than a football stadium? Or am I remembering wrong?
Isn't the wagon track way bigger than a football stadium? Or am I remembering wrong?
Yes, the track is the issue, not only with covering but with putting seats all around. I don't care enough about chucks to fret if they went with a field house/football stadium/rodeo field. But lots of people would.
To answer the poll question, absolutely the Flames should move if the City doesn't chip in. Should the City pay for the whole thing? No. But the team puts the City on the map to a degree, and whether you like it or not, are the biggest face the City has. How many times has the Calgary Flames opened up doors to people that have googled the team, followed a couple links, and resulted in a stopover or vacation to the City and province when they realize the proximity to the Rockies, the Stampede, and all the other things we have to offer. I would almost bet, the second or third most googled terms after the word Calgary is the word Flames.
The team creates jobs, revenue for businesses, sponsorships, community support, charitable opportunities, plus the need for a building that can double as a venue for many other events that benefit the community, and most importantly civic pride and importance. It makes us feel good we have a big league team. It makes us happy when the team does good. The Flaming C is more the flag of the city, than that horrible thing that's the official flag.
Maybe if they agree to change their name to the "Calgary High Density High Rise lets all ride Bicycles and buses because that's the bests" the mayor will get this thing done toot-sweet. But we need the Flames, more than the Flames need us. There are many markets that would be more than happy to take them off our hands.
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Maybe if they agree to change their name to the "Calgary High Density High Rise lets all ride Bicycles and buses because that's the bests" the mayor will get this thing done toot-sweet
Good lord
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
I'm as anti-CalgaryNEXT from both a concept and a funding strategy as they come, but pylon's right. The taxpayer should put up more than $0.
Oh, I agree, NEXT is completely asinine. It was dead in the water the second the site was chosen. And the presentation was laughable. How Ken King survived a day after that is mind boggling. It was on par with Homer Simpsons Nuclear Plant mock up with the macaroni and racing stripe. And wasting one nickel on the Stamps is equally asinine. The CFL is so Mickey Mouse, and losing fans in droves. I would bet the CFL dies within 2 decades.
But a project on the scale of what Edmonton did, that's fair. My personal belief is it should be a straight up 50/50 venture, with the parking revenue being 50/50. Let the Flames manage the building, bring in the acts etc.... and the City gets a small cut of that too via some sort of civic ticket tax.
I'm as anti-CalgaryNEXT from both a concept and a funding strategy as they come, but pylon's right. The taxpayer should put up more than $0.
Sure... so long as the taxpayer get's back more the $0. I don't really care whether the city put's up 0% or 100% so long as we (The City) see a commensurate ROI.
