[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Torture]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Exactly. It’s not cost overruns. It’s 100% new scope being added by the city put in DP conditions.

And frankly sneaking the solar panels into a condition of approval is sneaky AF. Applicant should have appealed. Gotta go read the full conditions to see just how sneaky the city was.

The solar panels were ALREADY in the proposal before it was added to the DP. There was nothing sneaky.

[Mr_Pilot]

Deep breath folks, it's going to be ok

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

It's an insult. It is a drop in the bucket but sends some kind of message. The new building with it's measures and building envelope and decent mass transportation, will be far more climate efficient.

An insult to who? You? The tax payer?

The amount of water carrying on this forum for Edwards and CSEC is astonishing. But I guess this is a flames forum

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Torture

How do you expect people to get to the arena from mass transportation without sidewalks?

Maybe address my point first. The new building will conserve more energy then existing so why is a random climate charge tacked on.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Gemnoble

So are the Flames more likely to end up in Quebec or Houston? Houston would keep the conference's even. But Quebec would mitigate the Canadian rage.

No one is moving to Quebec. Houston for sure.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by rohara66

What gives the city of Calgary the right to ask a developer to include solar panels as a condition of DP approval. That’s a total joke. There is zero industry standard, land use bylaw or building code requirement for solar panels to be included in any construction project. If the city of Calgary wants solar panels then they should pay for them.

Is there a requirement in the OCP?
I can't speak to what's included in the Calgary LUB since I'm not currently living in Calgary, but I'm my experience, this kind of thing is set out in bylaw or OCP.

[Flames in 07]

The first couple pages of posts reminds me why Calgary cannot have nice things. Nobody cares what the actual deal is. Looks like to me the city is trying to reneg on section 4.2 and if so, the sun of that and all the rising costs that could have been avoided by doing a deal many years prior would make me leave.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Maybe address my point first. The new building will conserve more energy then existing so why is a random climate charge tacked on.

Plans for solar were *already* in the proposal. Council just said "we're going to hold you to that and make it a requirement so you can't drop it". Is that changing the scope? Is that random?

[GullFoss]

In all fairness, the economics of the deal were always marginal at best, both for CSEC and The City of Calgary. The saddledome is less than 40-years old and has one of the highest capacities in the league. The incremental benefits of a new arena are not that large.

From the CSEC perspective, even with the subsidies, the incremental cash flow from a new arena is probably in the mid-single digits in terms of return on investment. The metrics are probably worse now given the cost overruns and lower revenue projections due to COVID and continued consolidation of the energy sector (less demand for boxes and premium seats)

From the City of Calgary perspective, the public benefits were always dubious.


Maybe this is political - Murray Edwards has an axe to grind. But it might also be that the deal didn't make sense for CSEC and the flames were looking for a way out. It's probably a bit of both.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Torture

Plans for solar were *already* in the proposal. Council just said "we're going to hold you to that and make it a requirement so you can't drop it". Is that changing the scope? Is that random?

Why would they simply not say 4.5 million for solar panels.

[Manhattanboy]

All or a good part of these cost increases are because of conditions imposed by Planning Commission which are generated by bureaucrats and approved by unelected commission members except for two councilors.

The City manager and planning director need to be taken to task. Not reasonable to say in July cost overruns are Flames responsibility and then drive up costs as the approving authority. City administration would have known the conditions they wanted last July. The City has dealt in bad faith.

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

Curious join date. Must be a quiet night for the Oilers.

Just found out about this site, life long Flames fan but this just burnt me out

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

https://twitter.com/user/status/1473470942177562627


Its not a big word, but definitely means a lot when it comes to posturing.

I still kind of think it'll work out. Just two sides playing out the publicity angle.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Why would they simply not say 4.5 million for solar panels.

Ask the Flames, they were the ones that said they were going to incorporate green energy and solar in the building when it went to Council for approval.

[SaskyFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Torture

Exactly. Original deal that Ryan Pike shared the City was on the hook for these types of cost overruns.

The Flames came back and said "we want CMLC removed as the developer", the City said "okay, but you're responsible for cost overruns" and they all agreed.

Now their are cost overruns and the city has offered to pay a portion but is holding the Flames to the majority.

They both *agreed* that the Flames would be on the hook for cost overruns but the Flames are now threatening to take their ball and go home.

Isn’t deal Ryan Pike posted the revised agreement from the summer? It clearly states these are City costs does it not? What am I missing?

[Matty81]

Flames are done in Calgary if they walk away from this... there is no other game in town to negotiate with, take the small drop in the bucket costs and the sweetheart funding deal and run. Unless he really does want to move them to Houston or something, which wouldn't surprise me because I don't think Edwards has a lot to do with Calgary anymore these days.

I don't think they realize how unpopular their arena being funded by the city is with most people around town as hardball public negotiations are super tone deaf

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Torture

Ask the Flames, they were the ones that said they were going to incorporate green energy and solar in the building when it went to Council for approval.

I feel you should be the broken Jack in a Box on broken toy island. The deal was made. These are tack ons and not defined as your description above. Lalala.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by SaskyFlamesFan

Isn’t deal Ryan Pike posted the revised agreement from the summer? It clearly states these are City costs does it not? What am I missing?

I believe it's the original, not the amendment from when CMLC was dropped at the flames request and the flames agreed to cover cost overruns.

[Sec214]

We'll see the two sides make all love and peace very soon. City and Calgary trying to save a buck or two. Beers just went up .50 to cover the over run.

[Manhattanboy]

Here's the big problem for both the City and ownership at this point. With everything else going on, no one really cares anymore.