Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
You mean the land the City already owns? And what other costs? I thought the City wanted this site because they already had all the infrastructure costs and improvements on the plan and with funds to move forward on those improvements? You fell for the old slush as many costs into our proposal move by the City. Christ, someone even asked why the raising of the Saddledome costs were not included in the Flames proposal. Because it is an unrelated cost to the project or one that is the responsibility of the City. That was one of the things from the City's proposal that was out there. They included a whole bunch of stuff irrelevant to the actual discussion, let alone the project. What exact costs are you referring to?
|
Saddledome demolition costs are very relevant because CSEC is demanding it to occur.
No comment on rent being a public contribution?