Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Some of the project criticism is valid, but I do sense a lot of criticisms around planning, design and the initial presentation are coming from people who oppose any government contribution at all. So even if the plan was perfect from a design point of view, there would be objection from the same people.
|
Maybe so, but that's not the conversation that we're having. I'm very much not an anti-funding or anti governmental contribution person (oh god, I even like the Peace Bridge!) I just think it's an odd strategy to even let the words "best offer" and talk of Plan A's and there not being Plan B's leave your mouth when the proposal is pretty bare bones. There hasn't even been a proper environmental study done apparently! Like, how can the Flames tell us this is their only plan and they've worked it out that they will pay a maximum of $200MM ($450MM if we credit them with being so kind as to charge a ticket tax) when we're not even at the stage where total costs can even be ballparked with any sort of accuracy. We have no idea what would be needed from the City to permit a building of the sort they envision to be build where they envision it being built.
That's ultimately my criticism - quotes about how we should be lucky that Calgary is getting an offer like this with comparisons to true "great cities" like London or Paris are meaningless at best and insulting at worst when there are still so many questions that need to be answered. My initial point wasn't that I'm anti-funding, it was that I thought it was poor optics on the part of the CalgaryNEXT team to start down that path of emotional appeals about how impressive it will be and putting lines in the sand about best offers. Why do that? It makes people like me who would have otherwise been cheerleaders for this development actually become less interested and more skeptical.