[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

I mean, he isn’t entirely wrong. I’m ultimately glad the arena is getting built, but I don’t think it’s a great deal for Albertan tax payers

Supporting infrastructure projects does not = kids dying due to health care capacity issues. Health care can be supported along with infrastructure projects to a growing city.

I stay out of the back and forth on the hate/justification for the deal but these takes are stupid.

The UCP is giving money for infrastructure around the building area and while it helps bridge the gap they are not paying the the event Centre directly, just creatively.

Prior to this announcement people were bitching that the UCP didn't provide urban investment in the budget proposal.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

So is it smart to trust Rachel Notley? Honest question.

I don't know much about her, but she didn't seem reliable in that presser. She seemed really defensive and most exchanges came down to an eventual; "You just can't trust Danielle Smith!".

The whole thing seemed more about campaigning than the actual development deal.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's a fun take, this is OUR fault! LOL The Flames spent over a decade coming forward with unworkable plans and being incredibly hard to work with. So now it just costs what it costs? And again, I'm not so upset about the price(though it feels ridiculous) it's the taxpayer share of that cost with what appears to be very little benefit.

Don't forget the fact they could just NOT spend to the cap and run a budget where they set aside capital for a new building.

That would've resulted in a roster with all the "asset management" dreams of so many posters, and likely better results than what we've achieved the last 30yrs.

Great deal AND we gave a thumbs up to the status quo.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Then this announcement should have been delayed. You can't make something an election issue and not provide any information for voters to decide the election issue on.


Remember the last time the city and CSEC had a deal? There were several pages of information brochures, pie charts showing costs, all the details we needed to say "ya, that deal looks fair enough". This was clearly rushed, and I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest Smith said something like "either announce it now, or a UCP government won't provide any funding later." The city is of course going to say yes to free money, so here we are.


Smith just can't help but find ways to get in the way of everything.

Wouldn't be surprised if Edwards was in on this too. Anything to keep the socialists at bay. And, if the UCP lose, he still has the option of FU-ing both the NDP and the mayor by walking away again. Not that I'm cynical...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

Were you upset when the Federal government had no idea that billions of dollars meant for infrastructure went missing? Or the hundreds of millions that went missing that was supposed to go to mental health issues?

Well, I'm not upset now, so... no? or equally?

At the risk of being bold, I do generally believe that money spent on things that have a tangible, accessible economic benefit to the community is better than money spent on pay-to-play projects and money just... lost. Crazy, I know.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know much about her, but she didn't seem reliable in that presser. She seemed really defensive and most exchanges came down to an eventual; "You just can't trust Danielle Smith!".

The whole thing seemed more about campaigning than the actual development deal.

And providing funding but making the approval of it AFTER an election is not campaigning?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

Supporting infrastructure projects does not = kids dying due to health care capacity issues. Health care can be supported along with infrastructure projects to a growing city.

I stay out of the back and forth on the hate/justification for the deal but these takes are stupid.

The UCP is giving money for infrastructure around the building area and while it helps bridge the gap they are not paying the the event Centre directly, just creatively.

Prior to this announcement people were bitching that the UCP didn't provide urban investment in the budget proposal.

It's money that could go towards more pressing needs like healthcare capacity issues though, right?

You're not going to pretend that isn't true, are you?

[flamesfan6]

Also this is hilariously bad deal for tax payers, it's comical. Glad I don't pay taxes in Calgary or Alberta

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know much about her, but she didn't seem reliable in that presser. She seemed really defensive and most exchanges came down to an eventual; "You just can't trust Danielle Smith!".

The whole thing seemed more about campaigning than the actual development deal.

That's exactly what I got from her.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's money that could go towards more pressing needs like healthcare capacity issues though, right?

You're not going to pretend that isn't true, are you?

Let's do both. Quit pretending we are special in Alberta and just enact a 5% PST already.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

And providing funding but making the approval of it AFTER an election is not campaigning?

It's not like they announced the deal sneakily a day after the Legislative assembly adjourned. The deal can't be signed until the assembly reconvenes (after the election), so while it's being brought up as an election issue it will be up to the assembly to pass it, regardless who wins.

Would have been worse if they announce and approved the deal then adjourned in March.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

And providing funding but making the approval of it AFTER an election is not campaigning?

We all know what Smith did was campaigning, just the same as what Notley did is campaigning. Neither of them are saint here.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's money that could go towards more pressing needs like healthcare capacity issues though, right?

You're not going to pretend that isn't true, are you?

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

Also this is hilariously bad deal for tax payers, it's comical. Glad I don't pay taxes in Calgary or Alberta

I don't think we will know how bad it is (hilarious or otherwise) until we have all the details. I'm holding out hope the additional money spent will significantly improve area infrastructure and there can be good public benefit from the non event centre areas built. There is a chance to tie the BMO expansion, new entertainment district, studio bell/east village/central Library together into an amazing area.

If they can do a really good job of that it's maybe just a slightly bad deal. If they do none of that then it's a hilariously bad deal.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's money that could go towards more pressing needs like healthcare capacity issues though, right?

You're not going to pretend that isn't true, are you?

Of course it could! what would you propose... Province of Alberta only support health care and not invest in any urban upgrades?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No offence, but I don't think just repeating the arguments I already diluted in the post you quoted is really moving the needle. Did you do it on purpose? Because it's kind of funny if so. And the math exercise was definitely icing on the cake, let me know how it goes when you get hired to go around to a bunch of children and infants in Grand Prairie or Medicine Hat and tell them to give you $5 to pay their yearly share of the arena lol.

We get it, though, unquantifiable economic benefits, the money is already earmarked, we won't even notice it, etc etc. It's been said. We understand. We just need to trust that the answers are in the ether or something.

Why can't people be straight about it? Why all the cover of darkness for what could easily be said as "I just want it and don't actually care about the economic side of things." I'm still going to enjoy the new arena, but man... it's not lost on me that this money could be far, far better spent. Do you really need to pretend that's not true to be excited by it? Why?

It would be quite inefficient to send an individual to collect 5 dollars from every person in the province. That is absurd

It’s not in the ether. Infrastructure is infrastructure. It’s budgeted, it’s being allocated. They said no incremental tax dollars during the presser.

I never said there should be no detailed disclosure, I agree there should be

And never said the money couldn’t be better spent. For a lot of people, sure it can. So what. That applies to every dollar spent everywhere

I don’t trust Smith, the UCP and any business dealing they have as far as I can throw them either


But I also don’t hold the view that electing not to build an arena with 100 million a year contribution from the provincial government out of a 23 billion capital budget will magically translate directly to reversing the ####ty things the UCP want to do in terms of education, privatizing health care, etc.


This is simply not a large sum of money when evaluated with respect to budgets, population, timeline, etc.

Nobody is ever going to gift wrap a full guaranteed investment plan with full ROI for you. You know that.

But you can figure out what some of those numbers are if you want. It’s easy. Assume a percent of the investment going to labour, assume a nominal tax rate, there is a line item for you.

What do you think they can do better? Consult with Qatar about how they managed to quickly and efficiently build so many stadiums?

[Jiggy]

Smitty is on the Fan right now for anyone who is interested

I wonder what the cringes per 60 will be during this interview.

[PuckSlap]

I really hope we can get some major acts back here. I don't want to go to Vancouver or Edmonton to see some great bands or stadium shows.



Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The conspiracy theories are starting to come out now. Always a great way to appeal to your wackadoodle base and feed their delusions.

I think it is obvious that Murray and crew put too much in at 40 million. Needs to be something in there so they effectively pay nothing.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

It's not like they announced the deal sneakily a day after the Legislative assembly adjourned. The deal can't be signed until the assembly reconvenes (after the election), so while it's being brought up as an election issue it will be up to the assembly to pass it, regardless who wins.

Would have been worse if they announce and approved the deal then adjourned in March.

No, they waited until there apparently isn’t enough time to release the full details of the deal right before the election and are saying just trust me bro.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know much about her, but she didn't seem reliable in that presser. She seemed really defensive and most exchanges came down to an eventual; "You just can't trust Danielle Smith!".

The whole thing seemed more about campaigning than the actual development deal.

What deal? What would you like her to comment on? Without any information it'd be pretty dumb for a politician to wander into if's and maybe's. Politicians don't do that. So Smith can comment on the deal, because she knows what is in it. Notley has wisely chosen not to, because there is nothing to comment on.


And I don't think I need to point out the obvious, but OF COURSE you can't trust Danielle Smith. She has been deceiving Albertans for decades. Is your memory that short? Notley is just stating the obvious here, you can't trust Smith. If you do, well, that kinda speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate facts and history.