Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Financing the ticket tax shouldn't have any opportunity cost as our debt ceiling is artificially imposed well below any dangerous point. Provided that the repayment terms and ticket sales projections are reasonable that is a low risk item even if the city is on the hook for default.
Financing the 200 million city contribution again depending on the repayment source is likely a reasonable expense that has no impacts outside of the direct cost of being a 30 year interest free loan (pending release of plan)
The owners in previous proposals were saying 200 million up front cash money.
These items don't seem to harm the city in a financial way outside of the Capital commitment. The 400 million in loans with the city just paying interest on the 200 million share would not have a direct impact on Transit and roads. Your spouting hyberbole undermining the limit public contribution position.
|
It is well known that the city is already using those debt/loan mechanisms within its current structure every year so they cannot simply continue to add what could be $500M at the outset to that. This would put the city in a very dangerous position and set a very bad precedent moving forward. Even low interest on an amount that high would be unacceptable anyway considering how little CSEC will ever have to put up for this current sham of an offer that is allegedly on the table.
There was nothing in the previous proposal referencing $200M upfront from the owners, that is completely false. If you're talking CalgaryNEXT that isn't even up for discussion as it wasn't the same situation at all. The comparable is Edmonton based on what we know and this is the way it went with the Edmonton deal. I've posted these figures before so it is readily available for those with the willingness to read.