Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
This is wrong. The City funded a study on the feasibility of the location and the provided an alternate option at another site. The Flames dug in their heels with "There is no Plan B".
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Did they not say all of those things?
Between the report, and the transcript of the council meeting where it was discussed, I'm pretty sure all of those points were explicitly stated (in addition to other reasonable concerns).
I don't see how council could have even arrived at the conclusions stated without an analysis first?
There's a lot more stuff here
From attachment 4 - page 18:
I feel like people have been affected by the newspaper headlines written after this meeting. CNext was 'torpedoed' (to borrow a word from a headline) thoughtfully, analytically, meticulously, respectfully, and professionally - by both administration and council. King & Co. are entitled to disagree as they wish (and there are parts of the analysis worthy of debate), but the City went above and beyond in 'showing their work'. I may be wrong, but I don't think Nenshi's snark really picked up until after King seems to have stubbornly buried his head in the sand to all of the analysis and tried to play the spin game first. |
I hate to belabour this subject but the "analysis" prepared by administration on CalgaryNext is not properly done (and I've mentioned this in this thread several times before with a detailed explanation as to why). If administration was truly interested in preparing a fair financial analysis of the project, they would have hired qualified consultants to pro forma both scenarios (with and without CalgaryNext) and compare them - similar to what is being done right now for the Olympic bid facilities. I don't think administration is capable of preparing a proper analysis without outside expertise.
As illustrated by Bunk's comment, the mind of the mayor's office long before the project was introduced (which admittedly King and the Flames botched immensely).