CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

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

Well A) Non profit vs For Profit and the flames owners can sell and make profit

B) Lets have a debate of taxing the stampede.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by 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.

There is definitely bias in the report, which is frustrating as a fan.

The problem is that it still puts everything the Flames have presented to shame.

[You Need a Thneed]

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.

The airport tunnel cost included financing costs. Also, your old analysis of the airport tunnel isn't correct either. The interchanges were not required under the tunnel option, which is why they weren't included. After the fact, this has been proven to be true, and saved a bunch of money, when the city studied the possibility of downgrading Metis Trail, which was made possible by the network that the tunnel provided.

Back to CalgaryNext, I don't see how this can possibly go ahead in any form. This is a huge failure by KK, however, they did scam the city into doing all the study work for them. Perhaps that was the whole point?

I suppose the city's report isn't necessarily CalgaryNEXT specific though, and they will be able to use the information gained when they do start the redevelopment.

I don't know where else in the inner city has enough room for a similar sized building, but I doubt the city in the end really cares to have the feildhouse and the stadium combined. Too many compromises, and too much time where the facility isn't available to the public.

I think the city's general outline they provided today makes the most sense. New arena north of stampede grounds, new feildhouse where it has been planned at foothills. And on McMahon, I might even spend a bit more money to refurbish even more.

[Kjesse]

Its hard to reconcile my love of the Flames with the debacle this has become. The knives are out for KK but remember, he's employed at the pleasure of the owners, they wear this too.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by 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.

2017 is an election year and this will be one of the campaign issues. No surprise

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

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

Fair.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I guess I'm the only one that thinks that McMahon could still be useful if, and it is a big if, the $100M in upgrades modernized it. Once you pass $100M or so it probably becomes better to just build a new one for $300M.

I'm gonna be brief since I'm not on a proper keyboard. Must be fully seated, no more benches, full concourse on 2nd level. No more going all the way down for services. Upgrade lower level concourses, put in boxes, perhaps by reducing capacity and lowering height of middle sections (remove last 10 rows, everything above walkway), expand end zone seating, upgrade red and white club.

Somewhat separate but related, upgrade crowchild and 24th. In fact upgrade crowchild altogether.

The age of the structure is irrelevant. There are literally dozens of football stadiums in the US that are as old or older and nicer because of upgrades.

Major downside is that a downtown football stadium would be great for the city and the team. And I think the university would still own it which is a problem.

Guess I'm saying the stadium upgrade idea isn't ideal, but not for these overblown reasons of age and lipstick on a pig comparisons. It is the infrastructure around, ownership and location that are the issues.

[Jaydee]

KK is a buffoon and needs to be removed from the organizaiton

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Fair.

Yup, it should be in the discussion right now.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

.

Back to CalgaryNext, I don't see how this can possibly go ahead in any form. This is a huge failure by KK, however, they did scam the city into doing all the study work for them. Perhaps that was the whole point?
.

For sure it was the whole point. It's clear that the city isn't a partner for the flames but an adversary, so getting them to do this work is the one smart step the teams have made so far.

The city pushed the goal posts out as far as possible, but now they exist. So now the flames have a chance to start working their way toward them, item by item and issue by issue. They may never get there, but each step also adds a little pressure on the city to move too.

[nik-]

lol, what is your criteria for "adversary"

Asking questions?

The villains

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Well A) Non profit vs For Profit and the flames owners can sell and make profit

B) Lets have a debate of taxing the stampede.

On (A) I think a for-profit development can have significant public benefits. The stampede grounds could be developed to have a promanade, park space, public space, an arena, and a convention centre...all of which would have public value. The new arena and convention centre would by itself provide more value than the stampede grounds provide 355 days of the year.

And in return for developing the land with a significant public benefit component - including an arena - the flames organization would get a land portion to compensate them for the cost.

Im amazed that no one questions why prime land is basically held as "off-limits" so a festival can take place 10 days a year.

On (B) I meant that a developed stampede ground that is privated and developed with commercial, residential and retail sites would bring in significant tax revenue, while the current stampede ground brings in nothing.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

On (A) I think a for-profit development can have significant public benefits. The stampede grounds could be developed to have a promanade, park space, public space, an arena, and a convention centre...all of which would have public value. The new arena and convention centre would by itself provide more value than the stampede grounds provide 355 days of the year.

And in return for developing the land with a significant public benefit component - including an arena - the flames organization would get a land portion to compensate them for the cost.

Im amazed that no one questions why prime land is basically held as "off-limits" so a festival can take place 10 days a year.

On (B) I meant that a developed stampede ground that is privated and developed with commercial, residential and retail sites would bring in significant tax revenue, while the current stampede ground brings in nothing.

doesn't the stampede own it? They can choose to do with it what they please, including leaving it as it? This is why I was steering towards debating taxing them.

[Freeway]

I want a new arena AND roads and transit. Does that make me an adversary?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol, what is your criteria for "adversary"

Asking questions?

The villains

Your English lesson for the day.
Adversary and villain are 2 different words. Ali and Frazier were both great boxers and adversaries. Neither was a villain.

ad·ver·sar·y
ˈadvərˌserē/
noun
1.
one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute.
"Davis beat his old adversary in the quarterfinals"
synonyms: opponent, rival, enemy, antagonist, combatant, challenger, contender, competitor, opposer;

[nik-]

Thanks.

Notice the first sentence.

You're buying everything the Flames are selling, and that's your right. Council is doing their jobs by questioning an awful proposal out of concerns for the plans and costs. Sorry that bothers you.

[dammage79]

I can't help but think this was a smoke and mirrors proposal to soften the city on the true plan by the Flames to build the new rink outside of the Stampede grounds.

Kind of a "Look at this terrible thing! Now look at this not so terrible thing doesn't look so bad right next to it now does it?"

Still doesn't do a darned thing for the stamps though. But the Flames are more of a priority. and maybe perhaps the Flames group would work the the stampede group to put a new Stamps stadium on the stampede grounds which would be more multi-use than a hockey arena.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wait... you want the city to agree on plans for 1.8 billion dollars behind closed doors?

[getbak]

Lots of good information in the documents. The ones I found the most informative were the one on the contamination clean-up and the field house report.

Looking at the contamination report, it doesn't appear there's any urgency to get the clean-up done immediately, and once the clean-up actually starts, we're still looking at the better part of a decade before construction can start.


The field house report raises a lot of the same questions we've all had since this was first announced. If the Stamps will use the field house at the same levels they currently use McMahon, they'll be taking up a significant percentage of the available hours of use for the building during the football season.

[dammage79]

I mean the Flames can put up almost all the money for a new arena on their own no? the initial 200 million and the ticket tax for the rest? What do they realistically need to build one? 450 million? 550?