Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So you lease it to the Flames.

AT&T Park in San Francisco is the model held high in MLB, as the only Park in 50+ years built with zero public funding.
This is what the city did though, from Wikipedia
The land is prime as well.

Sure

But that's a far cry from the last couple pages of this thread where a number of posters are saying the city should just "give" the land.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure

But that's a far cry from the last couple pages of this thread where a number of posters are saying the city should just "give" the land.

I don't think anyone means literally give them land.

[Tinordi]

Stupid me for thinking that people are using a word by its meaning.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Hey I took your data set and took out all the ones that didn't support my conclusion and it now supports my conclusion!

Except the data set was badly flawed to begin with, and was chosen specifically to suit the conclusion of the original poster. "These other buildings were older" is not a valid argument for the Saddledome still having "13 years" of utility when one considers that the overwhelming majority of the time places like the Forum and MLG existed predated the need or desire for things like luxury suites. And it is no surprise that these old arenas were turfed once the changing economics of the games made modern amenities a necessity.

The original argument also fails to note that these older rinks were renovated significantly over time - far beyond the Saddledome's 1994-95 renovation. The Montreal Forum, for instance, was massively altered several times in its history to dramatically alter seating capacity - something that in modern arenas is no more cost effective than simply building new.

So yes, if you want an apples to apples comparison, you compare a building against other facilities built within the same time period.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I have voted in this City for over 30 years and not once has the discussion about expenditure on Public Art been brought up by a candidate. Even when I asked specifically about this project, all of the candidates have brushed it off as not an election issue, which they then vote on in closed door sessions. I have no faith that the political "leaders" of this City will make an informed decision. As to the bolded not 1 of my neighbours agrees with spending millions of dollars on art work (and a $25M bridge plus bike lanes).

If you believe that our political leaders can make an informed decision when it comes to business in this city you haven't been paying attention. Our city taxes have increased by 60% overall in the last 10 years with absolutely no increase or improvement in services. Maybe take some of that money and use it for investing in business for the city.

I would argue that many people think that bike lanes and pedestrian bridges are an improvement in services. You or your neighbors may not agree with spending money on art and bridges but there are many who do.

Re: The stadium. I'm for it, at this point. I put trust in the people who are working on it. I have no idea of details and realistically cannot debate anything right now as we do not have any real details. I look forward to the proposal, simply because I am curious of the architecture.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Stupid me for thinking that people are using a word by its meaning.

That land is going to cost $500M to clean up. Should the city spend that money and then sell it the land at a huge loss? Or should the city just leave it how it is? Because no developer of any kind is going to come in and clean it up, and then develop. The economics don't work.

It actually makes a lot of sense to strike a deal with a pro sports team in this case due to the land remediation costs. If they don't make a deal for an arena, they'll have to make a deal down the road with another type of developer.

It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure

But that's a far cry from the last couple pages of this thread where a number of posters are saying the city should just "give" the land.

As long as there is understanding that the actual value of that lease of land would be... I have no idea... But many times more than what the Giants are paying.
The point is no public money went into the stsdium, but 100 million in tax concessions and infrastructure, as well as a sweetheart lease deal.

[Weitz]

Do you have a study suggesting it will cost $500 million to clean up?

That seems excessively high.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Our city taxes have increased by 60% overall in the last 10 years with absolutely no increase or improvement in services. Maybe take some of that money and use it for investing in business for the city.

Calgary has been booming for 15 years. Each new house built in this city requires infrastructure (roads, water systems, fire halls, etc.) with an upfront capital cost that takes 20+ years to pay out in property taxes. If you don't like it, join the people (like the mayor) calling for developers (and ultimately new home owners) to pay more of those infrastructure costs.

And going all the way back to the Duerr years, city hall was letting the infrastructure backlog get bigger and bigger. Bronconnier was mainly playing catch-up.

And if you're looking for someone else to blame, look to the provincial government which drastically but funding for cities back in the 90s (which is why Duerr couldn't build anything), and still milks Calgary and Edmonton taxpayers to buy votes in rural Alberta.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do you have a study suggesting it will cost $500 million to clean up?

That seems excessively high.

I've heard that number quoted, there hasn't been a formal study done though they are in the midst of extensive testing. Fair enough. However, here's an article quoting a city councilor saying that it's going to be significantly more than the hundreds of millions spent on the East Village site cleaning it up. I believe the general thought is that it's going to be double that so that's where the number comes from: article

Brown wouldn’t estimate the cost of cleanup, however area Coun. Evan Woolley said it would be much more involved that environmental remediation done in East Village, which cost in the hundreds of millions.

Also note the article talking about how it sunk a massive amount of capital into the infrastructure in East Village, in order to attract billions of dollars of private investment:

Instead, city officials turned their attention to East Village, creating the CMLC as an arms-length organization to handle its land holdings, which poured more than $325 million of taxpayer supported money into environmental and infrastructure upgrades over the last 10 years through a Community Revitalization Levy (CRL), which in turn has attracted $2.5 billion in private investment into the area.

Taxpayers will be putting hundreds of millions into West Village just like they did East, regardless of the arena or not.

Lastly note the concern that it's difficult to develop without an anchor tenant in West Village. This is from the CEO of the CMLC. Note that the Bow tower was the anchor tenant for East Village.

Brown said they are now looking into whether a similar concept would work in West Village.


One advantage East Village had, however, was the inclusion of the Bow Building in the CRL area, ensuring financial stability.


Without a large anchor tenant, Brown said a CRL would be tougher in West Village, meaning involvement of provincial and federal government funding could be needed.

So the CEO of the CMLC is actually saying that without an anchor tenant in West Village, not only are we going to need taxpayer dollars at the city level to develop it, but provincial and/or federal taxpayer dollars would be needed as well.

This isn't a black and white issue, anyone treating it as such really is discrediting themselves.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Stupid me for thinking that people are using a word by its meaning.

Well you're the only one to use the words "give land". It hasn't been used by any posters over the last few pages.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Stupid me for thinking that people are using a word by its meaning.

Yes, stupid you. But given you are one of the most duplicitous posters on this site, nobody should be surprised that you made a conscious decision to take a word in the most literal fashion possible - even though you could not possibly have failed to realize there were more reasonable applications - to push your own agenda.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by heep223

I've heard that number quoted, there hasn't been a formal study done though they are in the midst of extensive testing. Fair enough. However, here's an article quoting a city councilor saying that it's going to be significantly more than the hundreds of millions spent on the East Village site cleaning it up. I believe the general thought is that it's going to be double that so that's where the number comes from: article



Also note the article talking about how it sunk a massive amount of capital into the infrastructure in East Village, in order to attract billions of dollars of private investment:



Taxpayers will be putting hundreds of millions into West Village just like they did East, regardless of the arena or not.

Lastly note the concern that it's difficult to develop without an anchor tenant in West Village. This is from the CEO of the CMLC. Note that the Bow tower was the anchor tenant for East Village.



So the CEO of the CMLC is actually saying that without an anchor tenant in West Village, not only are we going to need taxpayer dollars at the city level to develop it, but provincial and/or federal taxpayer dollars would be needed as well.

This isn't a black and white issue, anyone treating it as such really is discrediting themselves.

The Vast Majority of the $325 million is "infrastructure upgrades" not environmental cleanup.

The "infrastructure upgrades" portion includes funding a portion of the National Music Centre, a portion of the library, the St Patrick's island bridge, and rebuilding all of the roads, etc.

The environmental cleanup won't be easy or cheap, but it won't be anywhere remotely close to 500 million.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The Vast Majority of the $325 million is "infrastructure upgrades" not environmental cleanup.

The "infrastructure upgrades" portion includes funding a portion of the National Music Centre, a portion of the library, the St Patrick's island bridge, and rebuilding all of the roads, etc.

The environmental cleanup won't be easy or cheap, but it won't be anywhere remotely close to 500 million.

I'll quote this again:

Brown wouldn’t estimate the cost of cleanup, however area Coun. Evan Woolley said it would be much more involved than environmental remediation done in East Village, which cost in the hundreds of millions.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by heep223

I'll quote this again:

If you read the original article again, it goes into more detail on what the "hundreds of millions" covers - I.e. not just cleanup, but cleanup and infrastructure upgrades. I expanded further, with personal knowledge (from reading newspaper articles of the years), that the infrastructure upgrades included in that $325 million number include much more than what would normally be called infrastructure upgrades. I beleive it is the entire cost of the TIF plan for the East Village to date - which includes funding a portion of the NMC, a portion of the library, the 4th Street Underpass, the St Patrick's Bridge, etc. Just those 4 things is around $150 million (EV portions of the toal cost only), At least, IIRC.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If you read the original article again, it goes into more detail on what the "hundreds of millions" covers - I.e. not just cleanup, but cleanup and infrastructure upgrades. I expanded further, with personal knowledge (from reading newspaper articles of the years), that the infrastructure upgrades included in that $325 million number include much more than what would normally be called infrastructure upgrades. I beleive it is the entire cost of the TIF plan for the East Village to date - which includes funding a portion of the NMC, a portion of the library, the 4th Street Underpass, the St Patrick's Bridge, etc. Just those 4 things is around $150 million (EV portions of the toal cost only), At least, IIRC.

Fair enough, I was just interpreting that article that says the environmental remediation itself in East Village was hundreds of millions of dollars, and that the city councilor was saying that West Village would be significantly more for the remediation. Maybe they were talking about all the infrastructure like you're saying, that's not how it comes across. Sounds like you have more knowledge on it than I.

Anyways my original point is just that it's a really complex situation that will likely be a public/private partnership, like lots of large scale development ends up being, and looking at it with a black and white lens is oversimplification. In this case a poster (I think Tinordi?) was saying land = money, so giving away land is giving away tax payer money which he doesn't support. But this land has an anchor attached to it and if the city wants to develop it as part of their planning, then solutions can be quite complex.

[temple5]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I have voted in this City for over 30 years and not once has the discussion about expenditure on Public Art been brought up by a candidate. Even when I asked specifically about this project, all of the candidates have brushed it off as not an election issue, which they then vote on in closed door sessions. I have no faith that the political "leaders" of this City will make an informed decision. As to the bolded not 1 of my neighbours agrees with spending millions of dollars on art work (and a $25M bridge plus bike lanes).

If you believe that our political leaders can make an informed decision when it comes to business in this city you haven't been paying attention. Our city taxes have increased by 60% overall in the last 10 years with absolutely no increase or improvement in services. Maybe take some of that money and use it for investing in business for the city.

Lots of generalized statements in this post, hard to know if it was supposed to be written in green text.

Compare the tax rates of your home to any city in Canada with a population greater than 500K and then see if the tax rates in Calgary are too high. All the tax rates are listed on each cities websites - here is the one for Edmonton. Plug in your assesment value and see if you are paying more or less. For my home I am paying about $100 less per month then I would be at the most comparable city in the country.

http://coewebapps.edmonton.ca/taxestimator/default.aspx

No increase or improvement in services? Thats a pretty bold statement, do you travel at all outside your own neighborhood? I guess the West LRT isnt an increase or improvement in service for anyone. They should just shut it down as its just an empty train going back and forth.

I am not saying there isnt waste at the City but there is waste in all businesses and in almost everyone's personal finances and to expect the largest company in Calgary to have 0 waste when every other company has at least some seems just a tad bit preachy.

I wont comment on the rest of the post because there is no point in having a conversation about municipal financing and governance with someone who already thinks our property taxes are too high.

[Reneeee]

Might be putting my foot in my own mouth here but put me in the group of people that would gladly donate tax dollars to this project than the new central library or National music centre or any other city funded project that doesn't directly benefit me the taxpayer. Let's plebecite this beast next week

[powderjunkie]

^ I really don't think you would want to plebiscite this - at least among people who actually vote I don't think it will be a very high proportion that agree with you.

As far as environmental cleanup costs, I wouldn't put too much faith in what one reporter and one councillor say (ie. those aren't bona fide facts that you could use to extrapolate).

I imagine that an arena/stadium are probably some of the best possible projects to tie into environmental cleanup, considering they would involve digging big pits to begin with.

[powderjunkie]

dup