Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
In other words, you've got nothing. You're just certain that CSEC is the Boogeyman.
|
Well, are you looking for evidence that the CSEC has done this in the past. there isn't because they haven't. Is that a good thing? I don't have any development experience either, so is it right for me to veto stuff in this area?
I don't think CSEC is a boogeyman at all, but their motivation for development would be entirely different than the city's.
The city would want to build a district with a mix of commercial and residential. A place where people can live/work/play. They have a trusted vehicle for that with a proven track record in East Village. The city wants this area to benefit the people that live there and the people that travel there to work/shop/watch hockey.
The Flames would effectively want to monopolize the entertainment of the space. Lets assume the CSEC doesnt have any development interest in the area, why would they care how the area functions when the Flames aren't playing? they care about maximizing their revenue during game day. Getting people into the arena and spending money there.
This isn't unlike the way the Stampede treats the area.
What motivation looks better to you?
Who has a track record to actually produce an area that works within the city framework?
what exactly is the motivation for having a veto on what goes into this area?
Im not saying CSEC is a boogeyman by questioning whether it is a good idea to give them some power over the way the city constructs a large part of its inner-city.