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

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It would depend on what the option price is. A dollar a parcel would be a very good price. Whatever the land is worth 2 years after the city builds the arena would not be a good price. I suspect the price is locked in at a basement price.

Wouldn't surprise me, but that will all come out (agreement in principle is just the first step) and can be scrutinized when it does. Notley calling it a "secret" deal isn't accurate.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

This is why I ultimately think this deal will proceed - because that is a part of how this looks, and the NDP would kill their party in Calgary if they actually did come into power and then kill this deal (resulting in the Flames moving).

Regardless of what happens politically, I still believe this deal gets done - because the NDP does not want to be the government that gets labeled as the government that cost Calgary the Flames.

100 percent agree

I'm with you at sort of rolling my eyes at the handwringing online about this. Like Thanos this was inevitable. Plenty to ask questions about and not like but CSEC has the hammer and was always going to.

Do I love ideologically the public subsidizing billionaires? No
Will I enjoy going to a hockey game in a brand new rink? Yes
Have I thought of getting Oil Kings season tickets so I can watch hockey at Rogers here and enjoy the rink at more affordable ticket price. Also yes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Are you really comparing a public library that you can use anytime, or cheap public transportation to a billionaires pet project that most families can't afford to use? If the public library were owned by a billionaire that charged people ridiculous prices to use it, then you'd have a point.

Odd to expect people to be happy with this deal, especially with the breakdown of the deal.

Absolutely bizarre position to take.





I think people would be less upset about the deal if the CSEC were paying their fair share. They aren't. I can at least understand why Edmonton put money up to get their arena built.

People aren't upset because it's Smith. This government constantly complains about the NDP spending too much. We currently have fundraisers going on in this province for school supplies yet we're handing a billionaire money for his toy, to buy votes, which Danielle Smith has previously said she's against.

She's and idiot and this deal is terrible. Both are true.

Again....this is the point where i ask why the city agreed to it. Every councillor agreed according to reports. No one was holding a gun to their collective heads.

As for the provincial part of this....is infrastructure money for cities not a legitimate expense/spending of funds?

If its being used to finally get this arena done...isn't that a win for everyone?

Building roads/access to Stampede/Victoria park is worse than some overpass or whatever on Deerfoot?

I really do understand why people are upset, it is not a great deal. Thing is, it was always going to be something along these lines or nothing at all. I think the city is better with it than not... knowing full well others disagree with that.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am not so sure that the province is 'divided', and I am not so sure the forum is divided. There are a couple dozen posters here who post the same concerns over and over, and I think they are more a vocal minority than a divided fanbase.

However, it is still true that we are cursed.

It is pretty divided among my coworkers, friends, and family. My guess is if you put it to a referendum it would fail, not that is the best thing to do when it comes to infrastructure projects.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again....this is the point where i ask why the city agreed to it. Every councillor agreed according to reports. No one was holding a gun to their collective heads.

As for the provincial part of this....is infrastructure money for cities not a legitimate expense/spending of funds?

If its being used to finally get this arena done...isn't that a win for everyone?

Building roads/access to Stampede/Victoria park is worse than some overpass or whatever on Deerfoot?

I really do understand why people are upset, it is not a great deal. Thing is, it was always going to be something along these lines or nothing at all. I think the city is better with it than not knowing full well others disagree with that.

Because it is free money. It doesn't cost them anything, so you take it. Which is why this is getting so many cheers from people who don't pay taxes here.


What we should all really be asking is if this is such a good deal, why are the details kept secret until after the election? You want Notley on board? If it is such a good deal it should stand on it's own. Hiding it from public isn't really giving confidence to anyone about how awesome it is. Like, how can you not be suspicious of that?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because it is free money. It doesn't cost them anything, so you take it. Which is why this is getting so many cheers from people who don't pay taxes here.


What we should all really be asking is if this is such a good deal, why are the details kept secret until after the election? You want Notley on board? If it is such a good deal it should stand on it's own. Hiding it from public isn't really giving confidence to anyone about how awesome it is. Like, how can you not be suspicious of that?

What would be interesting to know is who asked to keep this private and confidential for that time frame? Someone obviously asked or suggested a confidentiality period so was it CSEC, the City of Calgary, the Stampede or the Province? You're laying blame on Smith and the Province for partisan reasons while having no insight into the negotiation process.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Obviously she doesn't know what it is, or who benefits, hence "secret". Clearly there is more to the deal, becuase there is not any certainty.


https://www.albertaprimetimes.com/ca...-issue-6914739

So, how can you have an agreement in principle if some of the big pieces are unknown? You are aiming blame at the wrong party, here.

How do we vote on this without the details?

If it's between CSEC and the City, it would be inappropriate for Danielle Smith to talk about that part, assuming she even knows those details herself. If people voting in the provincial election want those details, they should be demanding them from the City.

The way Notley talks, it's difficult to take her 100% at her word. She was very defensive any time she was asked anything that questioned her claim. Sorry, coming out saying there is a "secret" side deal, that only you know about, but actually know nothing about, and when asked how you found out, all you can say is officials... it sounds like she doesn't know anything and is trying to throw shade just for the sake of it. And if officials did tell here there is a confidential part, then that isn't a secret. There is a big difference between privacy and secrecy. Notley's sarcastic tone towards reporters really just rubs me the wrong way any time they tried to challenge her. Why so defensive?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Why is Notley saying there is a "secret" land deal. It's written pretty clearly in agreement;



Already posted, but here it is again;

file:///C:/Users/OCL196.COSCL-OCL196...date%20(1).pdf

I have no opinion whether or not this portion of the agreement is good or bad, but it's certainly not secret.

A ROFR has pretty much no secrecy involved, though it drives prices down. But an option can have plenty of details that are unknown.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bonded

It is pretty divided among my coworkers, friends, and family. My guess is if you put it to a referendum it would fail, not that is the best thing to do when it comes to infrastructure projects.

Yeah, and moreso:

Almost any individual thing if put to a referendum would fail. New hospital in Edmonton? Calgary and rural aren't going to vote for that. New hospital in Calgary? Edmonton and rural, nope. Tax increase? Nope, nope, nope.

Things get done through horse trading. New hospital in Calgary, Edmonton, and clinics in smaller communities, funded by a tax increase? Now that just might pass.

On the other hand, if you put a tax cut, debt repayment, and service increase into individual questions, they'd all pass, but would be impossible to implement together.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

What would be interesting to know is who asked to keep this private and confidential for that time frame? Someone obviously asked or suggested a confidentiality period so was it CSEC, the City of Calgary, the Stampede or the Province? You're laying blame on Smith and the Province for partisan reasons while having no insight into the negotiation process.

Ya, I'm sure it was the Stampede who asked for the details to be kept hidden until after the provincial election. I mean, sure, CSEC could have asked for confidentiality until after the election knowing the details would risk Smith's election, which they now have an interest in seeing through.



Are you people really this naive? If the details were positive for taxpayers, they'd be sharing them.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You mean like any public project ? Library ? LRT line on your side of the city . Every year lots of things are built using taxpayers dollars that certain people don’t use .

It’s fine to hate that private industry is getting a subsidiary. It’s fine to not care about hockey and wish you weren’t spending your tax dollars on it . But guess what . I haven’t ever used the library or any of the new LRT lines . But I still understand why they were built and don’t accuse those using the facilities / services as being the type of person who would cheap out on a meal !

I was commenting on their hypocrisy of this use of taxes. I am fine with taxes going to public infrastructure projects that I may or may not use. This isn’t public.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A ROFR has pretty much no secrecy involved, though it drives prices down. But an option can have plenty of details that are unknown.

Options can, but will they? It was stated quite a few times that the next step(s) will be definitive agreements. It's not unreasonable to believe the public will be able to see more detail when the definitive agreements are set. I just think, on this particular point, it's early to be outraged over "secret" deals when they're not secret and it's been stated many times, more details are coming. It was also stated the provincial side of the agreement will be voted on after the election. If the NDP are in, they'll know what's what. I'm not a Notley hater, but she ####ed up (IMO) making these "secrecy" claims.

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1651631927018024960


Farkas compares the old deal to the new.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yeah, and moreso:

Almost any individual thing if put to a referendum would fail. New hospital in Edmonton? Calgary and rural aren't going to vote for that. New hospital in Calgary? Edmonton and rural, nope. Tax increase? Nope, nope, nope.

Things get done through horse trading. New hospital in Calgary, Edmonton, and clinics in smaller communities, funded by a tax increase? Now that just might pass.

On the other hand, if you put a tax cut, debt repayment, and service increase into individual questions, they'd all pass, but would be impossible to implement together.

For sure. I just don’t think it’s a vocal minority that dislike this deal. It’s a tough pill to swallow for people who are struggling to pay for rent and food. Cost of living has increased to a point where I really don’t understand how people who are making 100k or less combined with a family are doing it.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

That's complete and utter bull####.

Will have to see the revenue sharing piece and the economic impact analysis. Now I see the outrage. Thanks.

In the previous iterations of the project, I don’t think any revenue sharing was on the table.

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1651457817256271873


And here is Smith saying there has to be a revenue stream coming back to the city...


She calls the previous deal "one sided".

[kermitology]

I'm honestly shocked that there are people defending a pretty blatant electioneering financial deal that is pretty much explicitly set up as a vote for me or you lose the Flames.

Why can't the province disclose what their details of the deal are? Like.. for a province that (frankly pretends) to be so fiscally responsible, with an election right on the doorstep, how can you NOT, as a voter, demand details of this to help you decide.

To base a voting decision on the chance that voting for one party over the other could lead to the Flames leaving is insane, and some of you are like: "#### YEAH! I couldn't possibly vote NDP if they won't blindly accept this deal! But the NDP will raise taxes!"

For the love of god can some of you think critically here? When the NDP is asking questions about the fiscal responsibility of capital investments, and they're being criticized by conservatives for it.. what bizarro land are we in?

Like, if the deal is specifically for investments for roads, the green line, CRL contribution etc.. then that's awesome, and the NDP should support it. But holding any of those details back is purely to hold the spectre of "what if" over the election. You all should be livid.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It seems like the old deal was probably better for taxpayers, but that deal is dead, due mostly to the cost increases (on materials, not the curbs/solar stuff). I do want this thing built and think there is a legit public component to the development. I have no idea how much is too much, but it seems to me if the ire is raised by taxpayers, it should be moreso toward the city and not the province. Smith is a moron, but I feel Notley took the bait and is handling this rather poorly. The conspiracy bit comes off as a little unhinged. Would have been much better to say they would approve the deal as presented to them. If this version is not accurate, they can always scuttle it.

If the city was paying 530 mil, and CSEC was paying 700 mil there wouldn't be much ire about the deal. A lot of anger about the deal is that the province basically came in and subsidized a billionaire for his toy at the expense of taxpayers. They did this all while they nickle and dime public services, and claim the NDP are bad with money.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Wouldn't surprise me, but that will all come out (agreement in principle is just the first step) and can be scrutinized when it does. Notley calling it a "secret" deal isn't accurate.

Well it is accurate because if it is basement prices that could be another large subsidy. The option price would already be known, just let everyone know what price they will be buying the land for.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Why is Notley saying there is a "secret" land deal. It's written pretty clearly in agreement;



Already posted, but here it is again;

file:///C:/Users/OCL196.COSCL-OCL196...date%20(1).pdf

I have no opinion whether or not this portion of the agreement is good or bad, but it's certainly not secret.

I know you guys are pretty upset about this whole thing, but can we pause for a second to make fun of gramps over here trying to link to his hard drive in 2023?!?!?!?!?