Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
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).
|
I don't think anybody has claimed the city's report was of PHD defensible calibre, but it didn't need to be. It's a 30000 foot look, to decide whether it's worth exploring in far more detail. Whatever you want to say about the report, it's hard to argue that it's any less valid than what the Flames brought to the table (going all in with qualified consultants in response to the Flames
napkin high-level proposal would have been crazy).
You do know the mayor =/= administration, right? He's also only 1 vote on council. The people writing the report may well have known the mayor's position and had that influence them a bit. You can characterize the mayor's position as 'no public money no matter what' if you want, but I suspect the report writers would have seen it as I do: 'make sure it makes sense, and is a fair deal for the city'. Is that in incorrect/unfair prejudice for the writers to have?
Put another way, it was the Flames job to demonstrate why the idea would work. In a perfect world, administration would ask themselves 'will this work or not?' - but even if their mindset was 'let's demonstrate why this will not work', IMO it is undeniable that they did a better job of proving that case than the Flames did theirs.
Is there anything in particular in the report you disagree with?