Evan Woolley's motion to reconsider Flames Arena funding fails 4-11

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Haha its honestly so sad how the 3 of them constantly try to pull this #### year after year and SOMEHOW get re-elected.

I cant think of a more "dim jim" 3 in the history of this city.

I'm going to throw this out again because I just don't get the takes:


these councilors don't have a history of voting together on very many things (Farkas and Farrell are pretty much as far apart on the municipal political spectrum as it gets). Two are rookie councilors and one is a second term councilor.



Year after year? Re-elected? Do you even know what people you're talking about?

[GGG]

This actually should be viewed as council being successful. They choose to be consistent in the decisions they previously made.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What a weird take.

Woolley, Farrell and Farkas are rarely on the same side of anything for this to be usual . Woolley and Farrell being on the side of something without Carra is unusual, Farkas being on the side of something without Magliocca or Chu is unusual.

But aside from that, Farkas and Chahal are both first term councilors, and Woolley is a second term councilor, so what good would term limits do in this case?

Obviously speaking about the Farrel and Chu there. They're terrible

Guess I shouldn't care, I don't live there anymore

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The arena reconsideration FAILS 4-11
Keating no
Demong no
Gondek no
Davison no
Colley-Urquhart no
Sutherland no
Woolley yes
Carra no
Chu no
Maglioccaa no
Chahal yes
Farrell yes
Jones no
Farkas yes
Nenshi no

Ahh how did I know Druh Farrell would vote this down. "Revitalize downtown, just dont put anything fun there!"

[Manhattanboy]

The whole motion charade was embarrassing.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

I have a questions, once a motion is defeated, it's dead permanently? This Woolley guy or any other guy cannot bring the same motion again, right?

They could, but it would be pointless to do so since literally no one changed their vote from last time. Once the actual contract is signed, it would make it much harder to cancel the deal without significant penalties (so far they only have an agreement in principle and the final agreement was expected to be completed earlier this month).

By the time the members of Council will be changed (October 2021 is the next election), construction should already be well underway.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off don't know what a "regular" fan is ... but I guess as an Oiler fan you're taking some queues from Lowe (yeah I'm kidding)



But I'm not sure I'd call it bells and whistles.



Having been in 9-10 NHL rinks in the past 5 years or so the Saddledome is the only place I've been where simple things are a no go



- can you go see a buddy at the other side of the arena at an intermission? No

- can you go to the bathroom and still have time to pick up a beer? No

- should you leave early every game to avoid getting stuck in a cattle gate? Maybe



These aren't bells and whistles. The building has great sight lines, but the social aspect of going to a hockey game is almost rendered impossible with the design.



Do I want to spend double to go to a game? Probably not, but I'd certainly pay more.

Up in PL it is possible to go to the can and then get a beer, which would be the ideal order.

However, elsewhere, forget about it.

Two years ago I went to the last game of the season against Vegas and met up with some buddies at each intermission. By fluke we were all in the same block. We had a great time.

I took it for granted we could meet when we all went last season for the first game against the Avs in the playoffs. I can’t remember the logistics, but i remember it was impossible to meet between periods.

The social aspect is important, particularly when the game itself isn’t up to much.

I’m a convert. We need a new arena.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dino7c

4 morons who dont understand business or the economy

Such a wonderful post for a corporate welfare situation with consistently debunked economic benefits.

Even the most ardent arena-opposers (myself included) will acknowledge that the civic 'pride' (for lack of a better word} part is real, as is the potential catalysis for continued area redevelopment. I'll never like the process or the price tag, but it's a done deal, so here's to hoping they they do a good job!

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Such a wonderful post for a corporate welfare situation with consistently debunked economic benefits.

Even the most ardent arena-opposers (myself included) will acknowledge that the civic 'pride' (for lack of a better word} part is real, as is the potential catalysis for continued area redevelopment. I'll never like the process or the price tag, but it's a done deal, so here's to hoping they they do a good job!

Exactly my point...it's a done deal

A city can't go back on an approved deal...the time for debate was months ago so like the four guys from the city you can take the debate an park it.

How can you expect future investment if you are bailing on deals already approved and started (hiring ect.). That is the part about business and the economy they don't understand.

[heep223]

Green line is dumb anyways, build a train from downtown to the airport like any real city on this planet holy hell

[GGG]

Originally Posted by heep223

Green line is dumb anyways, build a train from downtown to the airport like any real city on this planet holy hell

This actually isn’t a very good investment. Business travellers have expense accounts therefore don’t need the train.

Train use to an airport is mostly used by workers.

[Joborule]

Yeah. Train to the airport isn't necessary, and shouldn't be built within the near future unless airport chips in. Green Line, 8th Ave subway for Red Line and maybe even LRT from downtown to Chestermere should be built first before that.

[getbak]

A while ago, I got annoyed by people acting like Calgary is the only city in the world without a rail link to its airport, so I did some research. This post is almost 2 years old now, so I don't know if any of the information has changed or not, but it still gives you an idea of how (un)common it is to have rail links to a city's airport in North America...

Originally Posted by getbak

For some reason, people love to throw around this idea that Calgary is out of touch because we don't have a public rail link to the airport. Chahal even says it in the story: “It’s also the quickest and most efficient route into the airport and it will provide an opportunity, just like every other major metropolitan city in North America, for a direct connection to the airport.”


That idea simply isn't true. Here are the 15 busiest airports in North America (in 2015) and what they have for public rail connections at their airports (plus the year those stations opened).

On the list, a Metro/LRT/Commuter station is one that is directly part of the city's main transit system. A Connection is a short "people mover" type service that carries passengers from the airport to a nearby transfer station, where they can board the city's main transit system. (This list is based on information from Wikipedia, so it might have some errors, feel free to correct anything)

1. Atlanta (ATL) - Yes (1988 Metro)
2. Chicago (ORD) - Yes (1984 Metro)
3. Los Angeles (LAX) - No (Connection under construction for 2021 opening)
4. Dallas (DFW) - Yes (2000 Commuter / 2014 LRT)
5. New York (JFK) - Yes (2003 Connection)
6. Denver (DEN) - Yes (2016 Commuter)
7. San Francisco (SFO) - Yes (2003 Metro)
8. Las Vegas (LAS) - No
9. Charlotte (CLT) - No
10. Miami (MIA) - Yes (2012 Metro / 2015 Commuter)
11. Toronto (YYZ) - Yes (2015 Commuter)
12. Phoenix (PHX) - Yes (2013 Connection)
13. Houston (IAH) - No
14. Seattle (SEA) - Yes (2009 LRT)
15. Orlando (MCO) - No

Only the two busiest airports on the list have airport stations that were built before the year 2000. 5 of the airports listed don't have any stations (one is under construction). 5 of them have stations that are less than 10 years old.


Each of these airports handle well more than double the number of passengers as YYC and all serve cities with significantly larger populations than Calgary. Orlando airport handled 38.7 million passengers in 2015. Calgary is 36th in North America with 15.5 million passenger in 2015 (just behind Montreal, which also doesn't have rail service to the airport, despite a much larger population and significantly older and more developed metro system).

[Aarongavey]

Thank god. To get rid of this deal would be wholly inconsistent with Alberta values. What is the point of the provincial government giving a 4.7 billion dollar handout to big corporations if the city did not follow that up with a 300 million dollar handout to billionaires. Too many people care about the working person who needs to get to work and forget about the plight of billionaires in London, England.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Thank god. To get rid of this deal would be wholly inconsistent with Alberta values. What is the point of the provincial government giving a 4.7 billion dollar handout to big corporations if the city did not follow that up with a 300 million dollar handout to billionaires. Too many people care about the working person who needs to get to work and forget about the plight of billionaires in London, England.

This is a terrible argument. This subsidy of billionaires should stand on its own or not.

A 4.7 billion tax break to corporations (effectively a dividend to everyone who has a retirement plan of some sort) is a completely different discussion from what is the correct amount for the city to pay for an arena for the civic pride and other intangible benefits the flames bring.

This idea that everything should be compared back to a particular project or policy is awful and adds no value.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a terrible argument. This subsidy of billionaires should stand on its own or not.

A 4.7 billion tax break to corporations (effectively a dividend to everyone who has a retirement plan of some sort) is a completely different discussion from what is the correct amount for the city to pay for an arena for the civic pride and other intangible benefits the flames bring.

This idea that everything should be compared back to a particular project or policy is awful and adds no value.

The reason there is no money for the green line is because the money was spent on the corporate tax cut (I would agree that it is effectively a dividend to shareholders of those companies, most of whom are fairly well off, highly unlikely the cut will lead to job growth, mainly share buybacks and the like). I am just saying it would be completely inconsistent with provincial policy if cities starting giving money to projects that helped working people as opposed to projects that prove the worth of trickle down economics.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I've only been to a few. Certainly couldn't do that at MSG, which is often regarded as the pinnacle of Arena experiences.

I hit up games at MSG whenever I’m in NYC and you can easily meet up with friends on the opposite side during intermission. By far the most efficient arena I’ve been to in terms of moving around, getting food/drinks and bathrooms.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The reason there is no money for the green line is because the money was spent on the corporate tax cut

The reason the Green Line is in dire financial straits is that it has gone massively over-budget. If it was even remotely close to the original plans and cost, the Province delaying its funding wouldn't be a big issue; it's only crippling because it needs all of the initially promised $4.9B just to build a barely useful line that still doesn't solve the bus capacity issues on Centre Street N or reach the Deep SE communities.

[The Familia]

Any other updates in regards to final renderings being released? I thought I remember after Christmas sometime.

[Freeway]

Contracts in January, public consultations in Q1, renderings and selection of architect in Q2 potentially.