Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Umm, what? I have said no such thing. Or anything even remotely like that.
|
I'll grant it's not exactly as I paraphrased, but it's not remotely...remote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
I didn't say either of those things.
A lot of people that are against this deal are the same people that have made it clear, over and over, that they are against ANY deal. Most of the complaints are the same complaints we would hear, regardless of the details of the deal, as long as there was even a single dollar of public money involved. And a lot of people are trying to argue that the deal is paying for an NHL team, or has no benefit to the city - ridiculous. The public money is going to the development of the east village, to building an event centre for the city, and to upgrading the infrastructure in the area.
As for you, you have been banging that same, "where's the benefit" drum. And implying that hospitals aren't going to get built as a result. I am pretty sure that you are more reasonable than those comments would suggest.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinit47
Here are my questions, and I apologize if these details are out and I missed them.
1. Who gets arena naming money - this is significant and people are assuming CSEC gets all of it, which is a worst case scenario.
2. Who gets money from additional events. I'm not so sure this is 100% CSEC. CSEC was responsible for ops and maintenance costs last deal, which would make more sense to have them then get all revenue. The current deal makes CSEC look much more like a simple tennant with a 35 year lease term. I don't think it's a slam dunk that they get all revenue.
3. who gets parking revenue. This could be significant with the BMO expansion next door.
4. What mechanisms will exist to ensure any land CSEC gets to develop is purchased at market value? If the value is fair, and the city obviously retains it typical zoning control then maybe this isn't an issue.
5. The previous agreement had a small city fee on tickets. Has this been mentioned either way? It was $3mln a year, so not nothing.
Unlike the last deal the current council voted unanimously in favour of this deal, so perhaps some of these items will fall to the city's benefit.
|
I admire your optimism, but do you really think they would have left all of the 'good news' out of the press conference?