Quote:
Originally Posted by just_tim
However, when your partner is also in charge of issuing permits and they change the requirements after they protected themselves, the outcome was inevitable.
|
The City did not change requirements. There isn't an agreed to designed building in a deal, and then an approval process "changes" it. An application goes through a process, and the cost is based on what is approved.
In this case, every development is responsible for cost of the sidewalk to the curb. If the project tears up the sidewalk and it needs replacing, that's the developer's responsibility. Always. What reasonable expectation be that this would be different? The City agreed to step into costs outside the curb-line in the roadway that often would be developer responsibility. The applicant decided the climate mitigation elements, including rooftop solar and actions to get to net zero were things they wanted.
Again, had the Flames not wanted to do things like rooftop solar, the a) shouldn't have agreed to it b) had the conditions codifying their inclusion removed by the approval authority at CPC in Nov, or c) if they still have buyers remorse, appealed the DP all the way up to mid-December. They didn't do any of these things. Beyond that, the condition was structured, at their request, to buy time to seek partners to pay for it. Even then, the Mayor offered to assist in finding funding sources to cover that cost. They still walked away.
They cite an $81.5m cost overrun. But about 90% of the attention is toward either $4m or $10m of that $81.5 as "the reason" for the Flames walking away from the deal. What does that sound like to you?