Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[killer_carlson]

I think there is a dispute on whether the City should be funding cleanup through a CRL.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I think there is a dispute on whether the City should be funding cleanup through a CRL.

Because it's outside the mandate of a CRL?

[Tinordi]

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.

*clink clink*

"Is this thing on?"

For the hundredth time: no it was not a viable project to clean up the land for all of the reasons mentioned.

My god.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

*clink clink*

"Is this thing on?"

For the hundredth time: no it was not a viable project to clean up the land for all of the reasons mentioned.

My god.

Your mic is on, you just happened to miss the entire point. "it", which I assume is CalgaryNEXT may not have been viable economically. But that's based on the City's numbers, not the Flames. And it is also based on opening positions, which didn't advance any further. Did any side ever say "let's talk about how we can make this happen in a way which will include a means of cleaning up the area"? Nope. Complete failure to discuss.

The cleanup has to happen regardless of economic viability of any particular project. It is civic negligence to simply ignore it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your mic is on, you just happened to miss the entire point. "it", which I assume is CalgaryNEXT may not have been viable economically. But that's based on the City's numbers, not the Flames. And it is also based on opening positions, which didn't advance any further. Did any side ever say "let's talk about how we can make this happen in a way which will include a means of cleaning up the area"? Nope. Complete failure to discuss.

The cleanup has to happen regardless of economic viability of any particular project. It is civic negligence to simply ignore it.

Go pull the flames rebuttal to the cities report and use those numbers and present the entire project cost to the flames and the city. Those are the flames numbers. The project was not economical using the flames numbers and required a 900 million dollar spend by the city.

Once you run the scenarios of field house elsewhere, arena elsewhere, develop the west village you come out with the city paying 500 million for an arena. So not a good value compared to other options and carries way more risk and wastes premium riverfront land with a concrete wall.

The math and analysis is posted by be multiple times in this thread if you would like to go look for it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The cleanup has to happen regardless of economic viability of any particular project. It is civic negligence to simply ignore it.

Regardless of disagreement on any other point, this rings true to me. So the question is how best to go about funding that cost - or at least, taking a big chunk out of it. Could it be the location of infrastructure related to a winter olympics, for which funding could be secured from other levels of government?

I do think people need to stop looking at this from the perspective of "what will cover the costs of cleanup". Probably no project for that area will do that. But the cleanup still has to happen, and delaying increases those costs. So if we're agreed that leaving that area undeveloped indefinitely is not an option, what is the best option to deal with it?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

Go pull the flames rebuttal to the cities report and use those numbers and present the entire project cost to the flames and the city. Those are the flames numbers. The project was not economical using the flames numbers and required a 900 million dollar spend by the city.

Once you run the scenarios of field house elsewhere, arena elsewhere, develop the west village you come out with the city paying 500 million for an arena. So not a good value compared to other options and carries way more risk and wastes premium riverfront land with a concrete wall.

The math and analysis is posted by be multiple times in this thread if you would like to go look for it.

If the contributions remained as proposed. Not if they changed with the Flames putting up more.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Regardless of disagreement on any other point, this rings true to me. So the question is how best to go about funding that cost - or at least, taking a big chunk out of it. Could it be the location of infrastructure related to a winter olympics, for which funding could be secured from other levels of government?

I do think people need to stop looking at this from the perspective of "what will cover the costs of cleanup". Probably no project for that area will do that. But the cleanup still has to happen, and delaying increases those costs. So if we're agreed that leaving that area undeveloped indefinitely is not an option, what is the best option to deal with it?

I think they should tear the bandaid off, clean it up and move on. The revenues form the land will at least increase from what I believe are bottom level rental deals from the car dealerships.

I suspect that, despite the assurances about containment, the nearby communities and the watershed are going to find themselves affected by creososte, and the City may be facing lawsuits at that point.

[Bill Bumface]

I love how no one gave a crap about creosote for their entire lives until it meant it served their side in the arena debate.

[Incogneto]

Anyone heard anything lately about Ken King's health. I heard rumours lately that he was having some medical issues.....Thus the reason we have not heard a peep out of him recently. Also may have something slightly to do with the lack of communication with the city.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I love how no one gave a crap about creosote for their entire lives until it meant it served their side in the arena debate.

To be fair, I think most people and companies didn't give it a thought because the idea of cleaning it up was a pipe dream, with no plan at all for remediation. Been that way for decades. Hence why you have a terrible use of that space with the Greyhound station and car dealerships.

[Toonage]

He was seen on TV last week during a Flames intermission, footage of him presenting Gio with an honor of some sort. Looked healthy to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I love how no one gave a crap about creosote for their entire lives until it meant it served their side in the arena debate.

It was pretty newsworthy in 2009. It turns up every so often when a test is done on the other side of the river, too.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I love how no one gave a crap about creosote for their entire lives until it meant it served their side in the arena debate.

Its been an issue with mayors and council going back well over 30 years.

It's a political hot potato that mayor after mayor has avoided addressing because of the cost associated and then having to find the capital to remedy the situation.

It's prominent again now only because of the NEXT project and its desire to use the affected land.

If nothing else comes from that proposal, at least the conversation has been brought back to prominence. The actual addressing of the problem will most likely fall on the next version of council because the existing one certainly isnt going to tackle it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think they should tear the bandaid off, clean it up and move on. The revenues form the land will at least increase from what I believe are bottom level rental deals from the car dealerships.

I suspect that, despite the assurances about containment, the nearby communities and the watershed are going to find themselves affected by creososte, and the City may be facing lawsuits at that point.

They will do it when it makes sense. It doesn't make any sense right now becuase the city has no shortage of easily develop-able land in the downtown area. It would reduce the value of East Village, and Victoria park. Not to mention all the empty parking lots downtown. It makes zero sense for the city to throw a boatload of money at reclamation and road re-alignment when their is no shortage. It would quite literally be a waste of money at this point.

[Frequitude]

The creosote problem will fall to whatever future council is in power when cleaning it up and developing the land makes economic sense for the city. I suspect that won't be until either one or both of the following occur: Economic boom, East Village filled out.

[Tyler]

Smart move would be to leverage a successful Olympic bid for environmental cleanup dollars and just put the Olympic Village in the West Village.

Those units then provide substantial ongoing future tax revenue, as opposed to a monolith arena/stadium.

Similar thing Toronto did for the PanAm games, I believe.

Edit: on second thought, nah. Build the Olympic Village in Victoria Park where the new development needs to happen sooner. Proximity to the grounds/Olympic venues would be way better suited there than the WV. WV might be a better 2030-2040 project for Calgary.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your mic is on, you just happened to miss the entire point. "it", which I assume is CalgaryNEXT may not have been viable economically. But that's based on the City's numbers, not the Flames.

Why should the Flames numbers matter, or be considered? They don't own the land, don't have any experience with reclamation or development, and couldn't even add up their own numbers in their own Plan B proposal.

The cleanup has to happen regardless of economic viability of any particular project. It is civic negligence to simply ignore it.

The city has many areas in need of cleanup, including other ones along rivers. . Why should this one be given priority when there is no economic case to do so?

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Why should the Flames numbers matter, or be considered? They don't own the land, don't have any experience with reclamation or development, and couldn't even add up their own numbers in their own Plan B proposal.




The city has many areas in need of cleanup, including other ones along rivers. . Why should this one be given priority when there is no economic case to do so?

A new arena is economically relevant I think.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

A new arena is economically relevant I think.

Most things are economically relevant.

It isn’t economically viable at that location. There isn’t the money to pay for it. If there was or it was deemed cost doesn’t matter just get it done, then all the affected areas would get the same treatment.