Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
It is, however, disingenuous for the city to include this in the "cost" of the project. The bolded part should have been stripped out of the cost and made a standalone alternative against which CalgaryNEXT would be compared.
Yes, the economic comparison between the two would consider the lost opportunity value. But it is misleading for the city to bury it in the cost estimate. Cost estimates should be a measure of dollars out the door to build the asset.
|
This reading is incorrect. The $80 million dollars is the land not currently owned by the city, that the city would be required by the city to purchase in order to own all of the land required to build CalgaryNEXT on. It is not the land value of the land that the city currently owns.
Under alternate WV scenarios, the city liekly doesn't have to buy all of this land (maybe some of it, or can work out a land swap if roads need to be moved)