CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[mikephoen]

Regarding the parking discussion in a number of posts above, at the season ticket holder meeting I attended last month they discussed this a bit. Currently the Saddledome has between 2000 and 4000 parking spots available for Flames games. The reason for the fluctuating number is because of how many spots go to events that are going on at the BMO Center or other events in Stampede park. According to the Flames it's basically never 4000 and is usually closer to the lower limit. The Calgarynext proposal has 2400 dedicated parking spots planned, so there will be plenty of parking for regular fieldhouse use and about the same parking for Flames games. I forget what the number of spots was for McMahon, but it was definitely lower than 2000.

I also really like the dedicated shuttles to other near by parking complexes idea. That seems like it would really help with moving people out after games.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by New Era

Nice try Flash.

The only way the province gets involved is if there is already a commitment to site. They aren't going to invest time and money to force the previous owner to pay for remediation unless they have a solid proposal with money behind it to build on that site. This would still be a CoC problem without a major project ready to invest in this space, and the province is not in the business of doing the CoC any favors in that regard. 50 years of inactivity there should tell you that.

Solid Proposal? Money Behind it? Well, we know one thing for sure: if the province does have a commitment to the site, it isn't CalgaryNext.

Hi-yo!

On to serious discussions. Has it ever been made clear why CSE is so adamant about the location? The only plus it has is that it is "central", otherwise it's a logistical nightmare.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Solid Proposal? Money Behind it? Well, we know one thing for sure: if the province does have a commitment to the site, it isn't CalgaryNext.

Hi-yo!

On to serious discussions. Has it ever been made clear why CSE is so adamant about the location? The only plus it has is that it is "central", otherwise it's a logistical nightmare.

CSE prefers that location, as it seems to be the only central location that can fit the fieldhouse/stadium and arena in one spot. I believe all of the plan B's discussed would split the facilities.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Has it ever been made clear why CSE is so adamant about the location?

They want CRL $ and they probably can't get it anywhere else?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Tyler

They want CRL $ and they probably can't get it anywhere else?

You do realize that it is not free money, it all has to be paid back within a set time frame right?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You do realize that it is not free money, it all has to be paid back within a set time frame right?

It's paid back by the property taxes generated by the new development that is made possible by the CRL investment. Since the Flames are proposing that CalgaryNext will be owned by the city, it won't generate any property taxes (which is one of the complaints people have about the proposal).

The CRL would be paid back by anyone who builds on the land, except for the operators/occupants of CalgaryNext.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by getbak

It's paid back by the property taxes generated by the new development that is made possible by the CRL investment. Since the Flames are proposing that CalgaryNext will be owned by the city, it won't generate any property taxes (which is one of the complaints people have about the proposal).

The CRL would be paid back by anyone who builds on the land, except for the operators/occupants of CalgaryNext.

Well... occupants would need to pay some sort of rent.... a high price for a one of a kind facility in the City which is uniquely built to fit their needs!

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by getbak

It's paid back by the property taxes generated by the new development that is made possible by the CRL investment. Since the Flames are proposing that CalgaryNext will be owned by the city, it won't generate any property taxes (which is one of the complaints people have about the proposal).

The CRL would be paid back by anyone who builds on the land, except for the operators/occupants of CalgaryNext.

Citation please, I have read everything and can not find any reference to the City owning the facility and that NO property taxes will be paid. Thanks in advance.

Update: I found one sentence in the presentation that the city would own the building.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Citation please, I have read everything and can not find any reference to the City owning the facility and that NO property taxes will be paid. Thanks in advance.

http://calgarynext.com/faq.php

Q: Will this project raise property taxes?

A: No, CalgaryNEXT will not raise property taxes. Please refer to the funding page of the CalgaryNEXT website for a breakdown of the funding mechanisms in place.

Q: Who would own the facility once completed?

A: The City of Calgary would be the owner of CalgaryNEXT facility.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

https://twitter.com/CBCCalgary/statu...81539101843456

Deja vu? 35 years ago, Calgary was also locked in a debate over where to put a new arena. #TBT #CalgaryNext

Not sure how to embed twitter videos but its cool to see the initial concept for the dome.

Why didn't they build that extra area onto the saddledome? Probably would have alleviated some concourse issues.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by getbak

The CRL would be paid back by anyone who builds on the land, except for the operators/occupants of CalgaryNext.

Indirectly, it's everyone outside of the CRL district that pays it back. Anyone building in the district pays the same taxes based on the same rates as outside the district, except all that revenue is diverted straight to the CRL and not into the city's tax revenue. So for whatever budget the city sets, the CRL district doesn't pay much into the budget, meaning everyone outside of the district is indirectly subsidizing them until the CRL is paid off.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by rage2

Indirectly, it's everyone outside of the CRL district that pays it back. Anyone building in the district pays the same taxes based on the same rates as outside the district, except all that revenue is diverted straight to the CRL and not into the city's tax revenue. So for whatever budget the city sets, the CRL district doesn't pay much into the budget, meaning everyone outside of the district is indirectly subsidizing them until the CRL is paid off.

The theory, of course, is that without the CRL to kickstart development in the area, there would be nobody paying taxes inside the CRL district. This is a dodgy assumption at best, but it does have the effect of reducing the outright subsidy.

The East Village CRL is a big drain on the general revenue, because all the taxes from the Bow project are diverted into the CRL fund – yet the Bow was already approved for construction before the CRL was passed, and the boundaries of the CRL were gerrymandered to include that block. Basically, the East Village project was given a free gift of all the property and business taxes from the Bow building.

If that doesn't raise anybody's hackles, it's not so easy to see why the West Village should.

[mhsyyc]

So some Tsuu Tina lands being developed are being developed by the band. It would be fun to see the city's reaction if CSE had some discussions about putting the stadium and arena out there. being out there.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by mhsyyc

So some Tsuu Tina lands being developed are being developed by the band. It would be fun to see the city's reaction if CSE had some discussions about putting the stadium and arena out there. being out there.

Jimmy two times

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The theory, of course, is that without the CRL to kickstart development in the area, there would be nobody paying taxes inside the CRL district. This is a dodgy assumption at best, but it does have the effect of reducing the outright subsidy.

The East Village CRL is a big drain on the general revenue, because all the taxes from the Bow project are diverted into the CRL fund – yet the Bow was already approved for construction before the CRL was passed, and the boundaries of the CRL were gerrymandered to include that block. Basically, the East Village project was given a free gift of all the property and business taxes from the Bow building.

If that doesn't raise anybody's hackles, it's not so easy to see why the West Village should.

The difference being that the CRL in east village went towards infrastructure spending. River walk, streets, st Patrick's island etc. The WV CRL, according to the flames, will be given to the Flames to build the arena. If WV is developed and CRL is used on interchange and street development along with extended river walk, many wouldn't bat an eye.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Regarding the parking discussion in a number of posts above, at the season ticket holder meeting I attended last month they discussed this a bit. Currently the Saddledome has between 2000 and 4000 parking spots available for Flames games. The reason for the fluctuating number is because of how many spots go to events that are going on at the BMO Center or other events in Stampede park. According to the Flames it's basically never 4000 and is usually closer to the lower limit. The Calgarynext proposal has 2400 dedicated parking spots planned, so there will be plenty of parking for regular fieldhouse use and about the same parking for Flames games. I forget what the number of spots was for McMahon, but it was definitely lower than 2000.

I also really like the dedicated shuttles to other near by parking complexes idea. That seems like it would really help with moving people out after games.

More crap from King, those 4000 spots are on the grounds, there's another 1200 or so on the west side of macleod and at least 1500 more north of the gates.

[Jay Random]

Where on the west side of Macleod? Those parking lots were developed years ago.

[GioforPM]

The lots north of the gates are a nightmare to get in and out of.

I like the shuttle concept - it works very well in Glendale (for football anyway). Or the City could include a transit fare in the parking fee for various DT lots - your parking receipt is your transit ticket.

[hockey.modern]

Toxic creosote in Calgary's West Village not our problem, says Domtar
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...em-says-domtar

A predecessor of Domtar Corp. owned and operated a wood-preserving plant on the 15-hectare parcel until 1962 and earlier this week, Alberta Environment and Parks confirmed it had “initiated conversations with potential responsible parties.”

“Until we have a definitive plan presented to us, we cannot speculate on any potential actions or outcomes and it would be inappropriate at this time to discuss the issue of remediation in any detail,” Jamie Hanlon, spokesman for Alberta Environment and Parks, said in an email.

But Domtar spokesman David Struhs said the company does not have any responsibility for the creosote contamination and will not be involved in any potential cleanup of the site.

“Domtar has never operated at this site,” Struhs said in a brief email.

[GreenLantern2814]

Seriously, why is this still ongoing.... There's a reason a combination arena football stadium field house community track centre combination project doesn't exist in every city. It's because it's a stupid idea.

The Saddledome is kind of a dump, and it needs replacing for the modern age. Fine. Everyone can agree on that.

Build a new building on the Stampede Grounds. Maybe spend ten million or twenty million redeveloping some of the grounds so that it's not a total cluster#### to get out of. Enclose the entire tunnel to the C-Train. Or make sure there's an underground route directly to the new building.

Renovate McMahon.

Stop trying to play Sim City with real life.