Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
Which is why they included The Bow, and weren't sneaky about it, and consistently mention it whenever somebody (i.e Ken King) use a CRL as a funding model.
It delayed the Bow's tax dollars from reaching the city's general revenue (and the province) as a bet that the capital projects funded with it will return a greater amount in the future than if the money hadn't been diverted, without taking away from the city's existing operating budget. They're on track to achieve that, making it a net benefit to the city in the long run from a pure financial perspective without taking into account the benefits of turning a blighted, undeveloped area and turning it into a good one.
None of this has been hidden away or avoided, it constantly gets brought up. So what are you continuously going on about? CMLC still has a budget to work with to facilitate development, and they're doing great with it.
|
The only way the city could “lose” overall, is if the EV CRL “failed.”
Tying in the Bow merely ensured that the CRL would not fail.
Yes, it was convienient to include it, but let’s not forget that all the land in the CRL is continuous, and all was in need of redevelopment. It’s not like it has to be gerrymandered into the CRL. Had the Bow not already been under construction, the border would likely have been made in the same place.