Quote:
Originally Posted by TX_Flame
Why do people keep bringing up remediation and infrastructure as if that wouldn't have to happen anyway no matter what is done with that land?
|
Because it still affects the amount that the city needs to make back to break even on this. If they do all the remediation, develop a neighbourhood plan, sell it all to developers, tax it with a levy that will pay off the development, they'll probably come out even or ahead.
If they do the same remediation, sell and tax only a third of the land, shoulder more of the cost of building and developing a facility on the remaining two thirds of the land which they will not get ongoing tax revenue from, make some money back from usage fees that will decline after about 30 years (as the building becomes outdated for NHL standards of that era and the Flames look for a new home), then there's a much greater chance the city never makes back their investment.
Yes, the remediation needs to be done no matter what. But it can't just be left out of the equation for the city. The fact that remediation may be very expensive makes it even more important that the city makes sure that the rest of the project is going to be a revenue generator for them, and I'm not convinced they have that opportunity, as it's presented.