Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The point to it was that there wouldn't be any development at all without the proposal. And the property tax dollars from adjacent development would simply be added to city coffers, which would be used for cleanup.

The area will be redeveloped at some point in the future. There is a plan for it on the books and that plan has been on the books since before Nenshi was elected.

The city is currently making money from the land. GSL, Renfrew Chrysler, and Greyhound all pay rent to be there. There's no rush to do anything with the land right now. The city can take its time and do the redevelopment when it makes sense to do so.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The point to it was that there wouldn't be any development at all without the proposal. And the property tax dollars from adjacent development would simply be added to city coffers, which would be used for cleanup.

Don’t you think if the city cleaned up the land and opened it up for development, there would be interested developers? That’s pretty prime land and I think one of the issues is whether a hockey and football event center is the right way to spur development. It might be, but I don’t think it’s the only option.

[shermanator]

Ron MacLean just interviewed Gary Bettman on the Flames arena thing. Starts around 1:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7QZ_yGD5t0

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Don’t you think if the city cleaned up the land and opened it up for development, there would be interested developers? That’s pretty prime land and I think one of the issues is whether a hockey and football event center is the right way to spur development. It might be, but I don’t think it’s the only option.

Not unless you move Bow Trail, which was not part of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. The Arena/Stadium was an isolated monolith plunked down in West Village right at Sunalta Station. As designed it would have done little if anything to make it an attractive real estate play.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Don’t you think if the city cleaned up the land and opened it up for development, there would be interested developers? That’s pretty prime land and I think one of the issues is whether a hockey and football event center is the right way to spur development. It might be, but I don’t think it’s the only option.

I think it would. But the cleanup would have to occur first, which is my point.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Ron MacLean just interviewed Gary Bettman on the Flames arena thing. Starts around 1:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7QZ_yGD5t0

"The Flames would take the Edmonton deal in a heartbeat."

Unfortunately for the Flames, if I'm the city of Calgary:

[Bunk]

Nm

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Ron MacLean just interviewed Gary Bettman on the Flames arena thing. Starts around 1:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7QZ_yGD5t0

Great interview from Maclean.

[chummer]

This discussion pisses me off to no end.

The good fans of Calgary, the ones who have supported this team for almost 40 years, they're the ones who are getting screwed.

[Max Cow Disease]

Good old wigglehead Bettman. His demeanor sure doesn’t serve him particularly well in the public eye. I’ve never been one to pile on him and think he’s been a fairly successful commissioner overall, but he comes off as an immensely condescending, arrogant dude. People who dislike Nenshi for his often brash disposition won’t find much refuge on the other side of this debate with guys like Bettman being the talking head (or King for that matter).

[You Need a Thneed]

For review:

The city has planned (still a long way out), to do a CRL for west village, similar to what it's successfully doing in the East village. The city doesn't want to compete against itself by starting west village before east village is built out, or very close.

There is a significant amount of land in west village. Plenty enough to pay for land remediation and other necessary infrastructure upgrades.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal cannot possibly work as a CRL, because it itself adds a huge cost to the CRL loan, and mostly because it takes up nearly all the most desirable land that could be developed to pay back the loan. The only way the CRL would have even the slightest remote possibility of working would be to add a large chunk of sunalta into the CRL area, but the problem with that is that that area is already built out - meaning that it redevelops much slower than bare land.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal was not merely unpalatable to the city - it was 100% completely impossible. CSEC should have known this, and would have, had they involved the city in planning CalgaryNEXT, even in the smallest amount.

There is only two possible scenarios. Either CSEC honestly didn't know, or they did know - and tried to hide that in order to try to deceive supporters. Ken King is the head of CSEC, and should have been fired the day they released the CalgaryNEXT proposal, either for being completely incompetent, or for being a con-man.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

For review:

The city has planned (still a long way out), to do a CRL for west village, similar to what it's successfully doing in the East village. The city doesn't want to compete against itself by starting west village before east village is built out, or very close.

There is a significant amount of land in west village. Plenty enough to pay for land remediation and other necessary infrastructure upgrades.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal cannot possibly work as a CRL, because it itself adds a huge cost to the CRL loan, and mostly because it takes up nearly all the most desirable land that could be developed to pay back the loan. The only way the CRL would have even the slightest remote possibility of working would be to add a large chunk of sunalta into the CRL area, but the problem with that is that that area is already built out - meaning that it redevelops much slower than bare land.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal was not merely unpalatable to the city - it was 100% completely impossible. CSEC should have known this, and would have, had they involved the city in planning CalgaryNEXT, even in the smallest amount.

There is only two possible scenarios. Either CSEC honestly didn't know, or they did know - and tried to hide that in order to try to deceive supporters. Ken King is the head of CSEC, and should have been fired the day they released the CalgaryNEXT proposal, either for being completely incompetent, or for being a con-man.

One of the best posts I've read on here.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

Good old wigglehead Bettman. His demeanor sure doesn’t serve him particularly well in the public eye. I’ve never been one to pile on him and think he’s been a fairly successful commissioner overall, but he comes off as an immensely condescending, arrogant dude. People who dislike Nenshi for his often brash disposition won’t find much refuge on the other side of this debate with guys like Bettman being the talking head (or King for that matter).

He is also grossly misinformed. He actually threw it out there that Calgary may lose their Olympic bid if they don’t get an arena. Sorry Gary, you just dropped your tell.

First off despite what you may think, Calgary isn’t panicking over losing the Olympics. This isn’t 1981. Second the IOC said the Saddledome would work just fine. It isn’t costing us anything.

Last, anyone think the province or feds would give us money to build a new arena when the IOC said it isn’t necessary?

Flames lost the election and the Olympic angel. It has been totally fumbled on their side. Watching Betman try and work a low pair into a bluff in the interview was hillarious and telling he is attempting panic on all fronts.

[Frequitude]

Maclean erred in his follow up to Bettman's claim that the city's proposal involves the Flames paying for the whole thing.

Instead of asking why that's a problem (it's obvious, arenas aren't a positive investment), he should have asked "Do you believe that property taxes or rent count as funding towards an arena?". Because that's the basis of Bettman's claim.

And then if Bettman said "yes", which he would have to for his claim to be valid, it should have been followed up with "Regular homeowners like your fans have to both build or buy their house and then also pay property taxes on it. Why should team owners be treated differently?"

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

For review:

The city has planned (still a long way out), to do a CRL for west village, similar to what it's successfully doing in the East village. The city doesn't want to compete against itself by starting west village before east village is built out, or very close.

There is a significant amount of land in west village. Plenty enough to pay for land remediation and other necessary infrastructure upgrades.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal cannot possibly work as a CRL, because it itself adds a huge cost to the CRL loan, and mostly because it takes up nearly all the most desirable land that could be developed to pay back the loan. The only way the CRL would have even the slightest remote possibility of working would be to add a large chunk of sunalta into the CRL area, but the problem with that is that that area is already built out - meaning that it redevelops much slower than bare land.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal was not merely unpalatable to the city - it was 100% completely impossible. CSEC should have known this, and would have, had they involved the city in planning CalgaryNEXT, even in the smallest amount.

There is only two possible scenarios. Either CSEC honestly didn't know, or they did know - and tried to hide that in order to try to deceive supporters. Ken King is the head of CSEC, and should have been fired the day they released the CalgaryNEXT proposal, either for being completely incompetent, or for being a con-man.

Good post, though these points have all been raised numerous times in this thread including by the guy who worked on this file for the City.

Why do we keep needing to bring this up to argue against points that have been thoroughly debunked?

Has GioforPM seriously not heard your argument before? I find that hard to believe.

It's almost as if some posters are disingenuously arguing to muddy the base of facts around this issue.

I'm reminded of that saying that the amount of effort to disprove bullshot is an order of magnitude greater than the effort it takes to create it.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

For review:

The city has planned (still a long way out), to do a CRL for west village, similar to what it's successfully doing in the East village. The city doesn't want to compete against itself by starting west village before east village is built out, or very close.

There is a significant amount of land in west village. Plenty enough to pay for land remediation and other necessary infrastructure upgrades.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal cannot possibly work as a CRL, because it itself adds a huge cost to the CRL loan, and mostly because it takes up nearly all the most desirable land that could be developed to pay back the loan. The only way the CRL would have even the slightest remote possibility of working would be to add a large chunk of sunalta into the CRL area, but the problem with that is that that area is already built out - meaning that it redevelops much slower than bare land.

The CalgaryNEXT proposal was not merely unpalatable to the city - it was 100% completely impossible. CSEC should have known this, and would have, had they involved the city in planning CalgaryNEXT, even in the smallest amount.

There is only two possible scenarios. Either CSEC honestly didn't know, or they did know - and tried to hide that in order to try to deceive supporters. Ken King is the head of CSEC, and should have been fired the day they released the CalgaryNEXT proposal, either for being completely incompetent, or for being a con-man.

To add to this, the Flames proposal for Victoria Park also doesn't work, because it proposes the city's portion will come from a CRL.

That CRL already exists (the East Village/Rivers District) and is being used up. It went to remediation, infrastructure upgrades and public realm stuff (like the River Walk, sidewalk and roads, etc.), as well as some going to the *gasp* library. The remainder that will be left for Victoria Park would go to more public realm features like underpasses, crossing, sidewalks, etc. The CRL (buoyed by the property tax from The Bow) is paying back the loans to do those works, that helped turn the area into a place where private money would want to develop which is how we have the condos and hotels going up.

So again, CSEC proposed a funding model that simply doesn't exist, not just one that is unpalatable to people against public money for private benefit. There isn't the money there in the first place.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Good post, though these points have all been raised numerous times in this thread including by the guy who worked on this file for the City.

Why do we keep needing to bring this up to argue against points that have been thoroughly debunked?

Has GioforPM seriously not heard your argument before? I find that hard to believe.

It's almost as if some posters are disingenuously arguing to muddy the base of facts around this issue.

I'm reminded of that saying that the amount of effort to disprove bullshot is an order of magnitude greater than the effort it takes to create it.

Nothing changes a wealthy, fiscal conservative's stripes faster than a shiny stadium to go watch their favorite team play in!!!

[GioforPM]

Geeze, Tinordi, not only have I heard the argument, I've actually read the 2009 West Village plan. Have you? It fell apart because they wanted to do the 2017 expo there and it wouldn't work financially. And that CRL didn't have lots of money for cleanup. They only bought the land in 2009, well after the West Village plan was commissioned. And the actual cost for remediation turned out to be way higher than what they publicly stated when buying it (though they had been warned).

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

The issue I was initially commenting on was whether Bettman was lying. He wasn't - he was making the owners' argument. The City's analysis gave a price, the owners claimed thatw as way overestimated.

I am not making an argument about the numbers. They may well say that CalgaryNEXT was impossible fiscally. I'm saying that no developer is going to touch the area without the City first cleaning it up.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Geeze, Tinordi, not only have I heard the argument, I've actually read the 2009 West Village plan. Have you? It fell apart because they wanted to do the 2017 expo there and it wouldn't work financially. And that CRL didn't have lots of money for cleanup. They only bought the land in 2009, well after the West Village plan was commissioned. And the actual cost for remediation turned out to be way higher than what they publicly stated when buying it (though they had been warned).

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

The issue I was initially commenting on was whether Bettman was lying. He wasn't - he was making the owners' argument. The City's analysis gave a price, the owners claimed thatw as way overestimated.

I am not making an argument about the numbers. They may well say that CalgaryNEXT was impossible fiscally. I'm saying that no developer is going to touch the area without the City first cleaning it up.

But the whole point of bringing numbers into the equation is that a CRL in the West Village will pay back the investment to clean up the area. It can't pay for clean up AND an arena. It also can't take away investment from the East Village until that CRL is near completion, otherwise you stagnate the ability to reconcile the CRL in both. And lastly, you can't have an arena/stadium mega project take up so much space without any contribution to the CRL.

Considering the numbers is extremely important.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by kermitology

But the whole point of bringing numbers into the equation is that a CRL in the West Village will pay back the investment to clean up the area. It can't pay for clean up AND an arena. It also can't take away investment from the East Village until that CRL is near completion, otherwise you stagnate the ability to reconcile the CRL in both. And lastly, you can't have an arena/stadium mega project take up so much space without any contribution to the CRL.

Considering the numbers is extremely important.

Sure it is. I think the argument is that areas next to the CRL area would also increase in value, adding a higher tax base and the cleanup cost gets at least partially addressed. You could also increase the footprint by not having some of the sports complexes (i.e. the stadium), but negotiations never even approached that level. Or you could negotiate something about the return from CSEG in property taxes. I don't know why they have to be 100% or 0% only. Or why rent has to be $1 or market price only.

I don't really have a dog in the fight - I am just bemused by the attacks on Bettman for arguing the position of his employer.

The City made a huge mistake (though most of that council are gone) by buying that land. Nenshi has made the west side a very low priority, which I think has coloured his approach to it. Numbers aside, I think he felt that any development on that side detracted from his favoured project, the East Village.

I don't think the West Village will get done in the next 20 years. An arena project was a good concept to getting it done.