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

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by temple5

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

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 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.

Nice cut green text. Here is a little information about our great city leaders building of the West LRT line, where they had to get Provincial Government approval to borrow the money with backing from the province.

"There’s no question that the rapidly growing Western city was due for an upgrade to its rail network. But according to Steve Lafleur, a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, the project was supposed to cost taxpayers $700-million, but came in at just under $1.5-billion.
That means that the 8.2 km of new track cost $195-million per kilometre. With an expected ridership of 35,000 per day, that’s $42,857 per passenger — enough to buy them each a shiny new car. Over its lifetime, the new line will last much longer and service many more people than a fleet of new cars, but the statistic gives a sense of just how much the project ended up costing.
In comparison, Vancouver’s Canada Line, which was built for the 2010 Olympics and runs between downtown and the airport, cost just over $2-billion for 19.2 km of subway and elevated track. How the city of Calgary could have done such a horrendous job with the original budget estimates and provided taxpayers with so little value for their hard-earned money relative to other large infrastructure projects is a question all Calgarians should be asking.
Instead of heads rolling over this latest boondoggle, Calgary’s elected officials are already moving on to discuss new and innovative ways to waste money. Council is set to debate its RouteAhead plan on Wednesday, which calls for $12.9-billion in transit upgrades — including $11-billion for new LRT and bus lines — by 2040. If that estimate is as bad as the west LRT, it could cost taxpayers closer to $25-billion.
Part of the debate is whether the next extension will run into the southeast, or the north. A report released over the summer priced the southeast line at $2.7-billion. The RouteAhead plan makes no mention of where such funds would come from. But the larger question is whether the government can be trusted to come up with realistic budget estimates, when the latest one was 100% over budget — which is extremely high, even as government-funded infrastructure projects go."


The City spent hundreds of millions on the East Village infrastructure and clean up, plus "gave" the land to the developer to achieve some big thinkers idea of what a "modern" city is all about, they should do the same for development in the West Village.


Your comment about new communities needing infrastructure which we all need to pay for is disingenuous also. The developer of the area needs to pay for the services and increase the lot prices accordingly. We all pay some additional taxes yes, but the majority are covered by the new home owners. If you actually feel that your property tax dollars are being utilized efficiently then apparently you work for the city unions. I also never said our taxes were too high, I stated that they have increased up to 60% with no increase in service.

[Beatle17]

And if you want some more information for the brains at City Hall here is one more.

"After five years of construction the original $20 million dollar suburban expressway had morphed into an $89 million urban corridor.

Ward 7 Alderman, Druh Farrell, says it's not fair to treat the evolution of the project as a single plan.

"It was outdated thinking," says Farrell. "Really, it was a whole new project."

A recent city auditor's report was critical of how the 16th avenue expansion was managed.

"City council failed in leadership, even after the shovels were already in the ground," says Nenshi of the auditor's report.

Considering the rising cost of construction during the boom , Nenshi says the cost overruns were not terrible."


How many businesses along 16th Avenue were forced out of business because of incompetence from city hall? I can find you many more instances where they treat the tax payers as their own personal bank if you want, including the $25M pedestrian bridge that was committed to without a bid process and was installed improperly in the beginning. No doubt we needed a bridge at that location (according to Druh for sure) but there were much more budget worthy options available.


Because certain people choose to have bike lanes, art work etc., does not mean that others, myself included, wish to see our tax money spent on projects like those. I would prefer that city investment went to projects that are planned and budgeted correctly and provide a real addition to making us the world class city we should be, not pet projects. If the East Village is considered one of these projects then the same consideration of city infrastructure upgrades, tax incentives and actual city input should be allotted for the West Village also.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by heep223

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.

Unless the Flames are paying normal property tax rates on property assessed over $1 billion that takes up only two city blocks, their project won't be the anchor tenant that The Bow is. The arena may actually take up space that may otherwise be used by such a development.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Nice cut green text. Here is a little information about our great city leaders building of the West LRT line, where they had to get Provincial Government approval to borrow the money with backing from the province.

"There’s no question that the rapidly growing Western city was due for an upgrade to its rail network. But according to Steve Lafleur, a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, the project was supposed to cost taxpayers $700-million, but came in at just under $1.5-billion.
That means that the 8.2 km of new track cost $195-million per kilometre. With an expected ridership of 35,000 per day, that’s $42,857 per passenger — enough to buy them each a shiny new car. Over its lifetime, the new line will last much longer and service many more people than a fleet of new cars, but the statistic gives a sense of just how much the project ended up costing.
In comparison, Vancouver’s Canada Line, which was built for the 2010 Olympics and runs between downtown and the airport, cost just over $2-billion for 19.2 km of subway and elevated track. How the city of Calgary could have done such a horrendous job with the original budget estimates and provided taxpayers with so little value for their hard-earned money relative to other large infrastructure projects is a question all Calgarians should be asking.
Instead of heads rolling over this latest boondoggle, Calgary’s elected officials are already moving on to discuss new and innovative ways to waste money. Council is set to debate its RouteAhead plan on Wednesday, which calls for $12.9-billion in transit upgrades — including $11-billion for new LRT and bus lines — by 2040. If that estimate is as bad as the west LRT, it could cost taxpayers closer to $25-billion.
Part of the debate is whether the next extension will run into the southeast, or the north. A report released over the summer priced the southeast line at $2.7-billion. The RouteAhead plan makes no mention of where such funds would come from. But the larger question is whether the government can be trusted to come up with realistic budget estimates, when the latest one was 100% over budget — which is extremely high, even as government-funded infrastructure projects go."


The City spent hundreds of millions on the East Village infrastructure and clean up, plus "gave" the land to the developer to achieve some big thinkers idea of what a "modern" city is all about, they should do the same for development in the West Village.


Your comment about new communities needing infrastructure which we all need to pay for is disingenuous also. The developer of the area needs to pay for the services and increase the lot prices accordingly. We all pay some additional taxes yes, but the majority are covered by the new home owners. If you actually feel that your property tax dollars are being utilized efficiently then apparently you work for the city unions. I also never said our taxes were too high, I stated that they have increased up to 60% with no increase in service.

I don't disagree about how much the WLRT cost but that wasn't what you stated. You stated that there was no increase in service...which is not true. WLRT, recycling program (blue bins), improvements to 311, creation of emergency operations center and likely many minor things that you didn't notice. bottom line is that Calgary has one of the lowest property tax rates in Canada for major cities. part of the reason taxes go up each year is that the unions have increases...how do you suppose The City pays for that? when half of the property taxes go to the province anyways?
also, yes the developers/builders pay some of the capital costs of the infrastructure, but they don't pay to maintain it. this means more infrastructure (to add to the aging infrastructure) that needs to be paid for.

[Beatle17]

Calgaryrocks - we disagree on the definition of improvements to service. The things you mentioned as improvements I see as infrastructure improvements that were needed but are financed in a different way than our taxes for services. I think overall we see great improvements in the City, but where we differ is in how our City leaders go about using our money. The discussion has been interesting but I don't want to distract from the arena construction thread anymore.

Thanks for the discussion and input.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

Unless the Flames are paying normal property tax rates on property assessed over $1 billion that takes up only two city blocks, their project won't be the anchor tenant that The Bow is. The arena may actually take up space that may otherwise be used by such a development.

Wouldn't it be impossible to build such a tower in that location due to the impact on the Bow River?

[mhsyyc]

I just got back from a trip to Baltimore. I had the good fortune to be right down by Camden Yards and got two Oriole games. The vibe and atmosphere downtown on game day is electric and the central location had very obvious benefits to local business.

This was my first experience at a downtown /stadiumarena of any sort since I went to Maple Leaf Gardens in the early 80s. It was great. A much more enjoyable experience than doing the arena in the middle of the parking lot that we do here.

[nik-]

That's because if you're not at Camden or the Inner Harbour you get shot in the face. So everyone gathers there.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Wouldn't it be impossible to build such a tower in that location due to the impact on the Bow River?

Yes it would. "Such a development" was refering to the anchor tenant concept more generally - something that generates a large positive value for the CRL. It's also worth noting that the Bow's FAR is <=20 - i.e. two 20 story buildings, occupying two blocks, would have the same density, and I believe that may come close to what's permissable in the East Village.

A subsidized arena would fulfill a different role - similar to the NMC/Library in that's it's an expense for the CRL that would hopefully be paid off by the private developments in the area. But with the amount of space they'd use gone, there may not be enough space for those other developments.

[Tyler]

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audiopl...pid=2665082483

Ken King acknowledges West Village and says they will wait til the playoffs and provincial election are over until they announce anything

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Tyler

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audiopl...pid=2665082483

Ken King acknowledges West Village and says they will wait til the playoffs and provincial election are over until they announce anything

Damn. Another 7 weeks.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Damn. Another 7 weeks.

To be fair, he didn't mention which playoffs or which election year..

[acerbic_1]

We can't be wasting money on a stupid sports arena when there are cycle tracks to be built and parking space to be eliminated!

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Tyler

To be fair, he didn't mention which playoffs or which election year..

Good point. I took that as the Flames, this year.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by acerbic_1

We can't be wasting money on a stupid sports arena when there are cycle tracks to be built and parking space to be eliminated!

Nen-sheep! Sillyhall! Chinese finger trap bridge! All hail the DINGER!!!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by acerbic_1

We can't be wasting money on a stupid sports arena when there are cycle tracks to be built and parking space to be eliminated!

lol you guys are like Highlander or something. mikey, Calgaryborn, 1stLand, now you.

Lord help us if Sean Chu signs up.

[JBR]

Post-election bump. Someone told me there was an election last night. Is Backlund the new Premier?

Anyway, curious how the election result affects the Flames' development plan. Watching the news (after countless OT goal rewinds), the first thought in my mind was this thread... sad, really.

CP political and/or development experts and insiders... what say you?

[Incogneto]

I am guessing it means that there will surely be ZERO provincial dollars going into the stadium plan.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I am guessing it means that there will surely be ZERO provincial dollars going into the stadium plan.

I think that was always the case, regardless of the winner of the election. No political party would have the audacity to take tax dollars in a recession for a private venture like this. It would be a tough sell in Calgary even if the economy was in better shape.

Indirectly, I can still see some contributions for environmental cleanup, infrastructure, etc. But tossing bricks of Bordens at the Flames for their new building? I still can't see it happening.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I think that was always the case, regardless of the winner of the election. No political party would have the audacity to take tax dollars in a recession for a private venture like this. It would be a tough sell in Calgary even if the economy was in better shape.

Indirectly, I can still see some contributions for environmental cleanup, infrastructure, etc. But tossing bricks of Bordens at the Flames for their new building? I still can't see it happening.

Totally agree. But to say there was a chance for some funding with the PC in govt, there isn't even that now.