Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
Completely agree with this list. But that doesn't mean that the current CalgaryNEXT basis is any good. CalgaryNEXT is a bad concept.
It's bad from a city planning perspective because a) it took too much prime river front land for a big box and left too little developable land to repay a CRL with incremental taxes, and b) it was scheduled to happen before the West Village was done filling out.
It's bad from a financing perspective because it pretty much equated to the Flames kicking in about $450M and the taxpayer kicking in $900M when you consider the full scope. Note that those numbers are based on CSEC's response to the City's response to the original CalgaryNEXT proposal ( link to my finance breakdown of CSEC's response)
It's just a bad concept. |
And that's what I'm talking about.
Lets get tangible about this. the city doesn't want a big facility on the river is a great reason to not do it. They have another vision with a smaller foot print for an anchor tenant ... have no problem with that.
The funding though ... counter then. Counter with the city doing nothing but infrastructure and creosote clean up and the rest is the CSE's issue.
That funding model is an opening volley, that's all it was every stated to be.
But for the love of pete just stop with the rhetoric Nenshi, we're all tired of it.