Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
Bingo, correct me if I have this wrong, but your position here almost seems like you want the city to act as a developer.
Your stance has constantly come across as "CalgaryNEXT isn't that great, but the city is unreasonable because they won't come up with their own concept, and the mayor saying "no" to a proposal that ultimately the city needs to approve or deny isn't a constructive manner of moving the process forward".
If they don't like CalgaryNEXT, my impression is you feel the city should be the ones putting together a proposal for an alternate location, and an alternate funding structure.
There are absolutely examples of cities acting as developers, it happens all the time, but it is something Calgary has shied away from, except for some arms-length work with CMLC.
Is it your view that the city should act as a developer of private lands, and spin up the resources required to act as such? Currently, that capability doesn't really exist within the city, and what you are asking them to do is outside of their current operating scope.
If the argument here is that the city should act as a developer, bring in those capabilities to their organization, and bear the risks that these projects entail, I feel that is possibly a larger discussion. Currently, we turn to the free market for development, and it is the city's role to approve or deny applications. Not to fund them. Not to design them. Is this something you feel should fundamentally change, and our civic structure should expand to perform these duties?
I would be very open to the idea of the city proposing the Flames work with CMLC. In fact I'd be down right excited about it.
The thing is, speaking of organizations who don't have the capabilities to act as developers, the Flames are struggling to do something that is also outside of their core business. So here we are.
|
Wow ... there's a lot there.
I don't think I need them to be a developer, but the need to grandstand and politicize this issue is a waste of an opportunity.
They have their own plans, and ideas and vision (probably more than one) for the West Village, but I think it's fair to say something should be done to clean up that Bronconier mess.
Seems to me a more responsible way to conduct yourself when presented with an opportunity is to analyze it and respond what doesn't work so the other side can do the work to make it fit the city's needs.
If you say no because and have a list of say 7 issues and the CSEC sees the 7 things as deal breakers then you come to a close in a professional way.
To just take pot shots at the other side is a waste of an opportunity, and a huge disappointment to me.