CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Mr.Coffee]

I can't be the only one who thinks this is hilarious.

A pile of university kids... nah, they're way too professional.

A pile of junior high kids could have handled this better.

I guess I'm just enjoying watching this unravel because I think they've handled it just so, so, so excruciatingly poorly.

[Violator]

Can't they build this in phases?

But in one reality calgary next was a failure because of the innaction with the city not cleaning up this mess

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Violator

Can't they build this in phases?

But in one reality calgary next was a failure because of the innaction with the city not cleaning up this mess

So you believe the City is responsible for environmental cleanup of toxic soil and contaminants?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rage2

Anyone find it odd that while the city pretty much rants about CalgaryNEXT in the entire report, they go and recommend that a new arena be built on or near Stampede grounds out of nowhere?

Also, the city is good at making readers think what the city wants you to think. When has a project costing plan included interest in the final cost? Look at some of the big proposals that got pushed through, the library or the airport tunnel, they talk about financing costs but it's never included in the total expenditure. It's almost like the city tried to inflate the cost as much as possible to scare off readers immediately.

Not the first time the city did something like this in an analysis. They did the same shell game in the airport tunnel analysis. I picked it apart years ago:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/more-air...61#post4277761

Disclaimer: While I like the location of CalgaryNEXT, I do not like how much public contribution is going into it even prior to this report, which is a bit of city BS imo.

I know weird, right? It's almost like the city felt they should have been consulted with and treated like a partner in these plans or something. What arrogance!

[Schraderbrau]

Las Vegas Flames, Seattle Flames, Hamilton Flames or Quebec Flames. Personally I hope the Flames move to Seattle, a guys trip every year to watch our old team play in Seattle would be fun.

[sureLoss]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/20...new-facilities

Those who assume CalgaryNEXT will be shelved by the damning analysis issued by the city Wednesday don’t know much about the Calgary Flames or its owners.

Those who presume Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp. boss Ken King will abandon the quest to replace two of Canada’s oldest major sports venues because of a predictably beefed up report are clearly unaware of the moxie with which Flames owners built the team and their success.

“We remain committed to the concept and believe that we brought a vast amount to a public project,” King told the Calgary Sun shortly after receiving the 173-page report.

“And not withstanding city administration’s feeling that this is a daunting project we are committed to reading the report and coming back with a comprehensive response.”

In other words, stayed tuned.

The Flames have long been aware Mayor Naheed Nenshi has little interest in entertaining the complexity of finding a necessary solution to replacing the city’s aging sports venues.

Safe to say they weren’t shocked when the results of the six-month study on the Flames’ vision to build an $890 million new arena, fieldhouse/football stadium in the west village was rejected as “not feasible in its present form or location.”

The report suggests the cost could ultimately hit $1.8 billion with taxpayers being on the hook for up to two thirds of the bill.

The report will be tabled at council Monday where councillors will no doubt echo its recommendations that the Flames consider building on or around the Stampede grounds and upgrading the McMahon Stadium.

Suffice it to say renovating the dilapidated, 56-year-old football stadium is a laughable notion at best. They’ve already put enough lipstick on that pig.

King said he’ll have a more in-depth response to the report as early as next month.

“I think it’s important we be open-minded and objective about working with the Stampede as we are asking the city to be comprehensive, open-minded and objective,” said King.

But it’s clearly a second choice the team is nowhere near contemplating this early in the game.

That last quote from King makes it sound like the Flames are open to the Stampede area arena idea.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

Las Vegas Flames, Seattle Flames, Hamilton Flames or Quebec Flames. Personally I hope the Flames move to Seattle, a guys trip every year to watch our old team play in Seattle would be fun.

You'd want to keep giving money to the ownership group that *hypothetically* tried to extort the fanbase/city and then moved the team?

[driveway]

I like the idea of a combined football-hockey venue in the West Village. I think the city spending $200 million on it for the field-house aspect of it is a totally reasonable amount to spend.

I think every other dime should come from CFSE.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Tyler

So you believe the City is responsible for environmental cleanup of toxic soil and contaminants?

Ever since I knew about this toxic soil, I shiver every time there's a rain fall or snow melt and wonder where that ground water leaks to.

Externalities is always the public's problem. It's always been that way. Nobody is complaining when the factories are hiring people. Lord knows if a real political leader were to stop and ask for a little foresight and regulation, the private lobbyists will be out calling them tyrannical and holding back "progress". Low taxes and low unemployment rate, amirite?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by driveway

I like the idea of a combined football-hockey venue in the West Village. I think the city spending $200 million on it for the field-house aspect of it is a totally reasonable amount to spend.

I think every other dime should come from CFSE.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the question is what is part of "every other dime". Are road and infrastructure upgrades part of the CFSE dime or city dime?

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I don't necessarily disagree, but the question is what is part of "every other dime". Are road and infrastructure upgrades part of the CFSE dime or city dime?

A portion to CFSE dime yes - see currie barracks and I think Deerfoot Medows.

[Enoch Root]

I always find it interesting that people will blindly accept the numbers from one side of an issue, after having not accepted any of the numbers from the other side.

I haven't taken a close look at any of them yet, but I will say this: there is no way a ticket tax would cost the city $84M.

Making some quick assumptions of $200M, a 20 year term, and an interest rate of 3.75% (which sounds fairly reasonable), the total interest charge for the life of the loan would be $84M.

However, the cash flow generated from the ticket tax makes the payments, not the city.

So the only thing I can conclude here is that the city has worked on the assumption that the ticket tax was a complete failure and the city was left with the entire bill.

I don't mind them stating that, on a worst case basis, the ticket tax loan could cost the city as much as $84M.

However, to say that the ticket tax will cost that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Because the expected cost of the ticket tax loan to the city would be $0

Given this one (first) look at the numbers, I am less than confident about the authenticity of the rest of them.

[Jordan!]

Who gets a rink first, the coyotes or flames?

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by rage2

Anyone find it odd that while the city pretty much rants about CalgaryNEXT in the entire report, they go and recommend that a new arena be built on or near Stampede grounds out of nowhere?

Also, the city is good at making readers think what the city wants you to think. When has a project costing plan included interest in the final cost? Look at some of the big proposals that got pushed through, the library or the airport tunnel, they talk about financing costs but it's never included in the total expenditure. It's almost like the city tried to inflate the cost as much as possible to scare off readers immediately.

Not the first time the city did something like this in an analysis. They did the same shell game in the airport tunnel analysis. I picked it apart years ago:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/more-air...61#post4277761

Disclaimer: While I like the location of CalgaryNEXT, I do not like how much public contribution is going into it even prior to this report, which is a bit of city BS imo.

####ing city, only seems to care about what's good for the city and it's citizens.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Bahahahha "give"???

They can buy the land and pay tax on it if the Stampede's lease allows for it and the Stampede allows for it.

Originally Posted by jayswin

You can't be serious with that proposal? You really think the Stampede would consider moving the main attraction of the Stampede outside the city?

'Wow, I'm so excited to eat at Joe's Burgers...Hi there I'll take a double cheeseburger, large fries and a chocolate shake'.

'Okay, sir, your fries and shake are coming right up, however you'll have to grab your burger at our auxiliary location in Cochrane'.

Isn't teh Stampede just a non-profit foundation that is "owned" by the city. If so, then wouldn't it just come down to the "net public benefit." What is more beneficial for the people of the city - (1) an awesome commercial, recreational and social district that can be used 355 days a year in the middle of the city or (2) the stampede which is used for 10 days a year?

The city would also get tax dollars on the stampede, could get a "development working interest" in exchange for the land

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Who gets a rink first, the coyotes or flames?

Coyotes. There's at least some semblance of a plan there.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I am somewhat surprised at the anti KK sentiment here.

I can't imagine that he alone made a decision to purposely mislead people or put out a low bal offer.

To me the flames should have worked all this out with the city first so the flames and the city could at least be on the same page with a proposal and look like a team rather than the bickerson's.

But what do I know as I don't manage such large scale projects.

I think people who already had an axe to grind are seeing what they want to. And I don't think any of this was ever going to get sorted behind closed doors. Then the mayor and the teams would have been burned for trying to swing a back room deal. Damned either way.

As for the costs, the city itemized the 900m or so in CRL, infrastructure, land, finance and remediation. I don't remember the teams ever saying they had figured for those. Sticker shock is fair. Accusations of deception not so much. Unless I am missing something.

While its totally appropriate that the city would consider every nickel of costs, I wish they had compared them to other paths - not for the teams, but for the city. 90% of those costs are getting spent anyway, Calgary next or no Calgary next. So what are we really out as taxpayers, and could the teams make up that gap?

i would guess there will be lots to talk about still. But who knows. I'm not sure if this is FU from the city or just the mayors first counter offer.

[Freeway]

The $1.83 billion presumes that the Flames were correct with their $970 million estimate for the building facilities themselves. If not? Possibly closer to $2 billion.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I think people who already had an axe to grind are seeing what they want to. And I don't think any of this was ever going to get sorted behind closed doors. Then the mayor and the teams would have been burned for trying to swing a back room deal. Damned either way.

As for the costs, the city itemized the 900m or so in CRL, infrastructure, land, finance and remediation. I don't remember the teams ever saying they had figured for those. Sticker shock is fair. Accusations of deception not so much. Unless I am missing something.

While its totally appropriate that the city would consider every nickel of costs, I wish they had compared them to other paths - not for the teams, but for the city. 90% of those costs are getting spent anyway, Calgary next or no Calgary next. So what are we really out as taxpayers, and could the teams make up that gap?

i would guess there will be lots to talk about still. But who knows. I'm not sure if this is FU from the city or just the mayors first counter offer.

Wrapping the presentation in a number that is pretty clearly not close to the actual cost (and people knew this before) is deception.

[Mr.Coffee]

I'm just honestly kind of surprised the team and city are communicating with each other through the public like this and didn't work together from the get-go behind closed doors. At least until major cost hurdles and city planning around the location were hashed out. Just seems very, very odd.