CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[puckedoff]

The future of 3D referee mounted GoPros, drone cams and Lay-Z-boy technologies will make watching the game live at the arena obsolete. Flames can play at Calgary East Twin at that point and we can save that $800mm to build something of REAL value, like a bigger, bluer hoop.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If the ground wasn't contaminated, I would say yes.

Given that environmental disaster, I am not sure CNext ever happens.

I'd suggest its the opposite. Without the environmental disaster, CalgaryNEXT would never seriously consider the west village. The contamination gives the owners a great reason to get someone else to dig them a hole. Holes are a shockingly expensive part of any construction project.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Deep down, do you people really (and I mean really) believe, that the massive inertia behind CalgaryNext (power, money, influence, upcoming election) is really going to result in alternative plans and locations?

I mean it's cute to stomp your feet and wax poetically about how this doesn't make economic sense and all that, but c'mon, this is a slam dunk eventuality. You've just got to sit back and enjoy the posturing for the next few years before ground breaks in the West Village

You're probably right but can we still complain about the general lack of taste and disregard for aesthetics Flames' brass shows? Even if I wanted to be excited, it's difficult with KK's 1st year associate degree level presentations.

[Bingo]

Really hate wading into this topic but does this mean what I think it does?

CTV Calgary Council Questions Olympic Bid

“If the Flames need a new arena, that’s also the same thing that we’d be using for Olympic events,” said Gian-Carlo Carra, Ward 9 councillor. “CalgaryNEXT is in no way driving this, but it’s absurd to think that there isn’t some overlap.”

There are also questions about the economic impact the Olympics could have on the city.

“All the good things that get pitched come with a price because you have to raise prices down the road to pay for them so we don’t see benefits in house prices, we don’t see benefits in housing starts, we don’t see benefits in overall employment,” said Tsur Somerville, a professor with the University of British Columbia.

To make things even stranger, council voted in favour of keeping results of the economic impact analysis confidential until and only if the city is awarded the bid.

Is this as simple as hide the result if they don't go forward because it either might show or is being slanted to show that facilities have a positive effect in legacy on a city, but use it if they do go forward?

Not trying to launch a grenade here, but isn't that what I can take from this?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really hate wading into this topic but does this mean what I think it does?

CTV Calgary Council Questions Olympic Bid



Is this as simple as hide the result if they don't go forward because it either might show or is being slanted to show that facilities have a positive effect in legacy on a city, but use it if they do go forward?

Not trying to launch a grenade here, but isn't that what I can take from this?

I have no idea how they can justify keeping this secret, pending a successful bid. I am one of the few supporters of the CalgaryNext concept, but the parties need to be transparent as to the costs and benefits of the works. Ridiculous.

[Benched]

yeah secret economic analysis......sounds like it can only mean good things right? right?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah it definitely does not look good to try and hide the results until after the bid. People already think the IOC is insanely corrupt, no need for the city to foster that image by hiding pertinent information.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes.

The alternatives simply do not make sense. Now that there's traction behind the project, I don't see any other site going ahead.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Zarley

The alternatives simply do not make sense. Now that there's traction behind the project, I don't see any other site going ahead.

How do they not? The city is going to build a fieldhouse with or without CSEC involved since it's been a top priority before CalgaryNEXT was even announced.

The alternatives is what's gonna happen if CalgaryNEXT isn't approved by council. In the first report overseeing the feasibility, they even recommended alternatives that make sense. CSEC has to build the arena separate, or if they really want it combined, at the recommended foothills location for where the original fieldhouse is planned.

[cam_wmh]

Perhaps related to disclosure in the litigation with the pollutant/creasote company?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really hate wading into this topic but does this mean what I think it does?

CTV Calgary Council Questions Olympic Bid



Is this as simple as hide the result if they don't go forward because it either might show or is being slanted to show that facilities have a positive effect in legacy on a city, but use it if they do go forward?

Not trying to launch a grenade here, but isn't that what I can take from this?

Considering that economic impact analyses aren't worth the paper they're printed on, there's no problem with burying the report. Those type of analyses are not even that, they're deeply politicized documents designed to support investment in a project no matter what.

It's prudent and sound to not let a fake analysis impact the actual evaluation of a project.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Considering that economic impact analyses aren't worth the paper they're printed on, there's no problem with burying the report. Those type of analyses are not even that, they're deeply politicized documents designed to support investment in a project no matter what.

It's prudent and sound to not let a fake analysis impact the actual evaluation of a project.

If the fake impact assessment isn't able to sell the project then the economics must be really bad. Usually the purpose of creating the economic impact propaganda piece is to sell the project.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Considering that economic impact analyses aren't worth the paper they're printed on, there's no problem with burying the report. Those type of analyses are not even that, they're deeply politicized documents designed to support investment in a project no matter what.

It's prudent and sound to not let a fake analysis impact the actual evaluation of a project.

Would you have anything to prove this? What is your expertise to make this this claim? Very strange comment considering these documents are used as support to move forward or bury projects all the time.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Really hate wading into this topic but does this mean what I think it does?

CTV Calgary Council Questions Olympic Bid



Is this as simple as hide the result if they don't go forward because it either might show or is being slanted to show that facilities have a positive effect in legacy on a city, but use it if they do go forward?

Not trying to launch a grenade here, but isn't that what I can take from this?

Maybe if it is indeed slanted to show the facilities having a positive effect it's something they don't want the Flames getting their hands on to use in CalgaryNEXT negotiations.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Maybe if it is indeed slanted to show the facilities having a positive effect it's something they don't want the Flames getting their hands on to use in CalgaryNEXT negotiations.

Does anyone have a transcript of the vote and any discussions that took place explaining why they voted to keep the results secret?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Maybe if it is indeed slanted to show the facilities having a positive effect it's something they don't want the Flames getting their hands on to use in CalgaryNEXT negotiations.

That's what I was thinking.

If they have to sell the Olympics let it loose. If they have to hammer the CalgaryNext project better to keep it under wraps.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by New Era

Would you have anything to prove this? What is your expertise to make this this claim? Very strange comment considering these documents are used as support to move forward or bury projects all the time.

I'm not making a bold claim here. EAI's are a laughing stock among economists and people who do cost-benefit analysis for a living.

The basic problem with EAI's is that anything shows positive economic impacts using their methodologies. Dig a big enough hole in the ground and you have $1 billion in economic impact.

The key issue is not whether you're having an impact, it's whether you're having a NET impact. As has been gone over time and time and time again in this thread, sports stadiums have little, no or negative NET economic benefit. This fact has not been dislodged so far in this thread.

[Enoch Root]

Studies that agree with my opinion: good!

Studies that support the opposite opinion: bogus!

[nik-]

Both the Olympics and CalgaryNEXT will be economic losers.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Studies that agree with my opinion: good!

Studies that support the opposite opinion: bogus!

If that's what you think you can boil my point down to then you're debasing youself.