Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
From what was presented, it wasn't entirely clear as to whether the CRL would be used to finance the arena/stadium itself or the costs of remediation and bringing infrastructure in the WV up to par to allow for development. If the CRL funds are solely allocated to infrastructure improvement, then I think there's a better chance that the numbers will work. If be are using CRL funds to construct a realty tax exempt asset, then I agree that we will run into problems.
The assumption made is that a well executed district plan can attract increased retail, hotel, and possibly limited office investment to the WV. This would help offset the development land lost to stadium. I'd also hope to see the entertainment complex moved as close to the CP line as possible, freeing up riverfront lands for development.
These are all questions that are yet to be answered as we simply do not have the information yet. I'd be happy to draw up a pro forma, but there are too many wildcards at the moment. All I'm saying is that it's far too early to write off the concept.
|
Ken King stated in his presser that it was up to the powers that be to decide who pays for the cleanup. The proposal didnt mention any infrastructure changes and the plan appears to keep all roads etc. the same.
Judging by the financing plan on the Calgary next website
http://calgarynext.com/financing-plan.php the CRL is used for construction of the building (as it notes there is already ample parking and public transit). Any infrastructure changes would require a larger CRL.
Again, all this is based on the website and King's comments. things could change but it appears the City would need to kick in more for any improvements to the lands.
The "increased development in the area" argument is a red herring.