Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
The Herald, the Sun and the Metro all ran with headlines in and around "Flames underestimate arena plan costs by double" and you don't see misrepresentation in that?
I'm not a big Ken King fan, but he's right to say there isn't a deal if the city never planned on cleaning up the creosote, building a field house or developing the West Village.
And I've said a dozen times that I agree the cost is $1.8B if the options are
a) CalgaryNext
b) Leave it
but I think we can all agree that b) isn't feasible, and the city spun their response to for titillation and not logic.
the Flames spun their initial proposal and had my ire. Now the city has done the same and have a similar reaction from me.
Both sides are treating the citizens like idiots.
|
Ok, fair, but that's newspapers sensationalizing, not the city. The City presented the cost required to get CalgaryNEXT online.
There's also the factor of recouping the costs, at least partially, of remediation which is much more likely with East Village type development rather than a CalgaryNEXT setup.