CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by New Era

It would be like someone buying North Hill Mall and wanting to redevelop that space then telling the group they are responsible for improvement costs to 16th avenue, something that has been an issue for decades and a well known problem for the City.

I know this wasn't your point, but you made me think... the North Hill Mall site would be a far better location for this megaplex, and could probably be purchased and torn down (except the condos) for less than the costs of even remediating creosote issues in WV. There sure would be a lot of whining from the condo owners, but surely their property values would increase being next to such a "transformative" development, right?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I disagree. There isn't another plan on the table right now that I know of so what was the city going to compare it to? Some hypothetical dream proposal?

While you're right that it's not logical for a city to leave that land as it is inperpetuity nobody's is saying that... frankly, what it sounds like you're saying is that something needs to be done with it "Right Now" which isn't the case. It's not disingenuous for the city to include all the externalities is the project cost estimate for CalgaryNext, I think it would be more disingenuous (in the sense that dis-ingenuousness is commonly regarded as deceit) to leave it out and mislead the citizens (who they actually serve) to the full actual cost of the project.

Well I provided the link that has the city emblem on it and the 3-1-1 line for any additional questions that was done back in 2010

Additionally we know the city approached the group that developed the East Village to submit a proposal for doing something similar in the West Village.

Those two items are pretty concrete and certainly suggest a desire to develop.

To develop means to incur infrastructure and clean up costs that will cost money.

That money should be estimated and compared to what it will cost if they go the Flames route.

So yeah, disingenuous

But as an aside I'm not trying to sell the Calgary Next project here. I think they and the city need new facilities. I think this project may help the city get something done that might be tough to get done otherwise. And I think politics from both sides are really getting in the way.

Hopefully the city being so silly yesterday will lead to some of this BS going away from both sides.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You are 100% correct if the decision is to do Calgary Next or just leave everything the way it is.

However this little puppy that came out in 2010 suggests they are going to do something or at least are looking at it seriously.

http://www.realestateforums.com/ref/...thias_tita.pdf

And given the fact they mention moving Bow Trail, creating another 8th Avenue and a promenade they probably will need to move some creosote, add some utilities and build in some infrastructure.

This has zip to do with the Flames and their plan.

And when the City wants to look at the feasibility of enacting that plan; when they choose to expand the city into that area, we can discuss the costs and merits of such plan. From the sounds of it, this area has been on the back burner for other, more pressing needs, like EV, Vic Park, Beltline, Currie, etc.

If the Flames want this area developed right now, then the discussion of costs needs to include the cost of the developing the whole area. Is it feasible ten years from now with a better economy, larger tax base and lest downtown/inner city development options?

Also you are claiming that the WV ARP means the area is going to be developed right away, but the big article Markusoff had in the Herald last year had internal communications from it that the City planners did not want to develop that area until EV was close to being completely developed etc. There are plans for a lot of things that the city is no where near interested in completing at the moment, for several reasons (see: fieldhouse)

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I provided the link that has the city emblem on it and the 3-1-1 line for any additional questions that was done back in 2010

Additionally we know the city approached the group that developed the East Village to submit a proposal for doing something similar in the West Village.

Those two items are pretty concrete and certainly suggest a desire to develop.

To develop means to incur infrastructure and clean up costs that will cost money.

That money should be estimated and compared to what it will cost if they go the Flames route.

So yeah, disingenuous

But as an aside I'm not trying to sell the Calgary Next project here. I think they and the city need new facilities. I think this project may help the city get something done that might be tough to get done otherwise. And I think politics from both sides are really getting in the way.

Hopefully the city being so silly yesterday will lead to some of this BS going away from both sides.

It's true that the additional cost when compared to other potential developments will be less than the $1.9B, but it's a moot point. With this proposal someone need to come up with $1.9B and the viability of the project should be based on that.

[Cappy]

I think we are getting to focused on the number and the accuracy of the number. I think the main point is that the City believes, based on its estimate that the plan is currently unfeasible.

The Flames have a chance to respond - which they should - and discussion can begin on this, or another proposal.

Let's remember, this report wasn't from the Mayor's office or council. It was created by the City Administrator, who reported it to council and recommended that the project is not feasible. It is entirely up to council to vote for the proposal as is (which is unlikely).

It's a first step, and frankly, even those who support the project shouldn't be worked up by the outcome of the report. It was expected.

The media likes to use the amount for clickbait and other shenanigans

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's why I don't understand all the Ken King hate. He takes the high road and he's a clueless buffoon while our mayor stomps his feet angrily like a child and wouldn't know a high road if he was standing on it and he's the greatest mayor in the world.

If you're the screwer, doing it "nicely" just makes you smarmy. If you're representing the screwee, a little reaction to it every once in a while is an asset. That's why.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

This reading is incorrect. The $80 million dollars is the land not currently owned by the city, that the city would be required by the city to purchase in order to own all of the land required to build CalgaryNEXT on. It is not the land value of the land that the city currently owns.

Under alternate WV scenarios, the city liekly doesn't have to buy all of this land (maybe some of it, or can work out a land swap if roads need to be moved)

I don't think your interpretation is correct. I think it's the land that the city owns that they are being expected to give up.

It's because, again, due to the complete lack of detail in KK's presentation, it appears to be assumed that the City gives the Flames the land to build CalgaryNEXT for free.

The city is basically putting that as a cost on their side, since the Flames clearly did not put a "land acquisition cost" line item in their single powerpoint slide.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I provided the link that has the city emblem on it and the 3-1-1 line for any additional questions that was done back in 2010

Additionally we know the city approached the group that developed the East Village to submit a proposal for doing something similar in the West Village.

Those two items are pretty concrete and certainly suggest a desire to develop.

To develop means to incur infrastructure and clean up costs that will cost money.

That money should be estimated and compared to what it will cost if they go the Flames route.

So yeah, disingenuous

But as an aside I'm not trying to sell the Calgary Next project here. I think they and the city need new facilities. I think this project may help the city get something done that might be tough to get done otherwise. And I think politics from both sides are really getting in the way.

Hopefully the city being so silly yesterday will lead to some of this BS going away from both sides.

Yes but if the WV is developed like the EV, the CRL will be used to support the community, infrastructure upgrades and even potential contamination clean up. Even if the CRL can't cover these costs, it will offset them.

If the WV is developed for CalgaryNEXT, the CRL goes to an arena, and all the other problems still exist, with less land to apply to CRL to as there is an arena taking up a massive chunk of the zone.

Developing the WV like the EV is a good plan and much more cost efficient for tax payers then building an arena.

CalgaryNEXT in the WV is silly.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I provided the link that has the city emblem on it and the 3-1-1 line for any additional questions that was done back in 2010.

Cool. So now all you need for that to be relevant is to get Ken King to step into his time machine so that he can go back in time and propose CalgaryNext 6 years ago so that we can compare these two plans. One of which has zero public information.

Or you could just acknowledge that there is no other actual plan to hold it up against and by extension it's not disingenuous at all.

[JiriHrdina]

Andre Chabot was not the Fan and basically acknowledged that the site needs to be fixed at some point, and certain costs are going to be incurred regardless. He stopped short of saying the costs are misrepesented in the city report.

[Bunk]

Gee, if only someone could have foreseen this outcome.

[Rhettzky]

So why aren't we (the City) going after Domtar for the contamination? Seems to me that should have been done years ago.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

So why aren't we (the City) going after Domtar for the contamination? Seems to me that should have been done years ago.

I see to remember there being something about since the city squired the land from them the responsibility for the land shifted to the City. Could be wrong but I seem to remember something like this when redevelopment talk first started

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

So why aren't we (the City) going after Domtar for the contamination? Seems to me that should have been done years ago.

Chabot touched on that. Likely if any costs would he recovered it would be a decade away at least, with no certainty that a case would go in the City's favor

[powderjunkie]

I think it's important to remember that the city bought this land in 2009. Ceci and McIver should take some responsibility and push to get provincial and federal money to deal with this debacle (as should be the case regardless considering jurisdiction around environmental regulation).

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-cleanup-costs

Despite the fact the 2009 report to council said the city was assuming an unknown environmental liability in purchasing the land, minutes show an overwhelming majority voted to forge ahead. That majority included five current incumbents, now Alberta finance minister Joe Ceci, current NDP byelection candidate Bob Hawkesworth and interim Tory Leader Ric McIver.

Only Dale Hodges and Andre Chabot dissented

Hindsight yada yada yada, but this is exactly the kind of thing that should have been addressed in the good times (instead of Ralph bucks, for instance).

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

So why aren't we (the City) going after Domtar for the contamination? Seems to me that should have been done years ago.

They have no legal recourse to do so. Domtar didn't actually break any laws. The city should go after the province, if that's the case.

[Bonecrushing Hits]

I have heard from a close source (no not at orange Julius) plan B is directly north of the saddledome for the rink and beside McMahon for the football stadium with the new hockey rink being the priority. Not exciting I know, but probably makes the most sense for everyone.

[NiklasSundblad]

delete

[NiklasSundblad]

delete

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But the difference is the fact that there would be infrastructure costs in a west village development anyway.

You have to clean it up, run utilities, make roads, move roads, alter roads, look at the crowchild overpass.

Building a sports district there changes things and may add infrastructure costs to the original plan, but to just say all of those costs are for this project is a little disingenuous.

There's a reason the city is sitting on that land though, because right now there is no money to fix it, The East Village was given priority. As you alluded to, the area needs a comprehensive plan, roads need to be built, moved and fixed. The Flames want to build there now, then that stuff has to be paid for right now. There's nothing disingenuous about the city's stance, maybe too blunt for your liking, but honestly... Do you want a city government that plays fast and loose with your tax money?

It's like buying a fixer upper with the intention of saving up to renovate gradually, but than your new significant other moves in and they want a new roof, a really fancy kitchen and a one of these, right now. If they said "but you need to renovate anyway" does that make it suddenly easy to pay for? What stance would you take?