View Single Post
Old 12-22-2021, 07:25 AM   #373
tkflames
First Line Centre
 
tkflames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

If the city were responsible for cost overruns and the Flames asked for the city to fund a gigantic $10M Flames Logo on the side of the building we would be losing our minds.

If Pike is right and the city is responsible for costs associated to meeting the exit time frame of the spec (i.e. the pathways and road infrastructure), then this implies that these overruns are scope creep.

If the permitting requirements added a previously unestimated cost of solar panels or solar powered lights, this is an over run, however, given that the city issues the permit and makes the stipulation, it's an overrun with an obvious conflict of interest.

It's embarrassing that the parties were not able to work through this and let the deal fall apart and then tried to sprint back to taxpayers to be first to tell their side instead of solving it. This is where the Flames and Jyoti FAIL as people working in the interest of all of us.

I suspect there is some truth that the flames are using this as an excuse to get put of the deal...but given the value increase and real estate value potential of the surrounding projects I don't think they have much benefit to waiting longer for inflation/escalation to subside. I could equally see this as a new mayor thinking she can pork up this project with all of her special interests/objectives after the deal was made and the Flames not wanting to go down that road.

Overall...an embarrassing saga that speaks to the skills and interest of the people involved to find a common middle ground for the benefit of everyone...
__________________
Go Flames Go
tkflames is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to tkflames For This Useful Post: