Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
First off I've never said they should be given the land, though I think "leeching" is a pretty strong term that suggests a pretty polar view of the whole thing.
I think the Flames ownership group deserves a little more respect than that given their history in Calgary.
To be honest I think the fact that the city could counter with the Flames paying for part of the clean up is what makes an anchor tenant a good solution to the whole thing.
You won't get that out of a developer who wants to build two condos as the start to the redevelopment.
But sure if the city wants to foot the whole bill for clean up with our tax dollars and then start the development from square one they have every right if that's what they think is best.
|
How is leeching a polar view? You keep ignoring my main point.
EV is doing well as the CRL is going towards development of the community.
WV can't succeed with the CRL going to an arena taking up a huge part of land meant for the CRL.
The arena is leeching the CRL from the community when compared to the EV model.
As for "given land" they want free land by renting and not owning. Not sure of lease rules, but guessing it won't be a lease which is considered beneficial to the city.