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

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So if I'm hearing you correctly, Gondek is grossly incompetent and should lose their job?

Lots of folks were calling for a by-election in Ward 4 and maybe we should just scrap this whole previous election and have a do-over.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Anyone that takes offense to such a simple humouristic retort back against an incredibly absurd statement is clearly clouded by bias.

Nowhere did I suggest anyone was on a payroll to post here a la OEG, however it’s certain there are many posters here with ties to the businesses and families of the CSEC owners. There are also many involved in local business immediately up in arms over anything that the City or council does.

You didn’t take offense to someone calling me Jyoti’s lap dog, suggesting that I’m on a payroll.

If someone said that they're equally guilty of not adding much to the conversation.

We all have biases for sure, but I've said over and over again that both sides are to blame. Not sure I could get any more fair than that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Here is this canard again. There's only the indication that one side no longer wanted the deal as it stood.



Here it is again one more time. The actions are not equal, no matter how badly you want them to be.

These are the facts.

Bunk's post literally said "the city asked"

How is that not the city wanting to change the deal?

I even said the Flames took the ask as winning the lottery because they could take the city's commitment and take control.

Bottom line you have two sides that didn't like where costs were going.

Don't think I'm stretching any truths in that assumption.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Lots of folks were calling for a by-election in Ward 4 and maybe we should just scrap this whole previous election and have a do-over.

I don’t think Farkas would give CSEC a deal at all, would he?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Lots of folks were calling for a by-election in Ward 4 and maybe we should just scrap this whole previous election and have a do-over.

What does Chu getting elected have to do with Gondek’s competence? Again, we’re talking about some tweets here, not about their entire elected career.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What does Chu getting elected have to do with Gondek’s competence? Again, we’re talking about some tweets here, not about their entire elected career.

Nothing. I'm just pointing out that many folks are upset with our newly elected officials now and I'm joking that we should scrap the last results and try again.

Holy hell why are you so obtuse?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Nothing. I'm just pointing out that many folks are upset with our newly elected officials now and I'm joking that we should scrap the last results and try again.

Holy hell why are you so obtuse?

I’m obtuse? You quoted me, and then now say your response has nothing to do with my post.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Nothing. I'm just pointing out that many folks are upset with our newly elected officials now and I'm joking that we should scrap the last results and try again.

Holy hell why are you so obtuse?

Many people? Nah.

And no one called for Chu to be replaced over a political/business decision he made in office after being elected. It was over past behaviour which came to light too late to have factored in the vote. You know this.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Nothing. I'm just pointing out that many folks are upset with our newly elected officials now and I'm joking that we should scrap the last results and try again.

Holy hell why are you so obtuse?

People are only upset about one councillor being elected, that’s Chu.

If people are only upset with Gondek because of how this arena deal went down, I don’t think they’d find an ally in Farkas, since all indications are that he would have taken it to a plebiscite.

[Torture]

CSEC taking a pre-planned off-ramp really wouldn't have needed to be controversial if everyone had just been honest and said "we have concerns about cost escalation and we're going to put it on pause for now".

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Torture

CSEC taking a pre-planned off-ramp really wouldn't have needed to be controversial if everyone had just been honest and said "we have concerns about cost escalation and we're going to put it on pause for now".

My thoughts in a nutshell.

Material costs are very volatile right now. Pausing the project would not have been a bad thing and would have been reasonable all things considered.

I don't pretend to know what happened in the room, but construction costs have been high for the last 18 months.

[Wormius]

I have to wonder how this would have proceeded if hypothetically the City ate those costs and didn’t provide CSEC an out.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Lots of folks were calling for a by-election in Ward 4 and maybe we should just scrap this whole previous election and have a do-over.

An elected official being outted as previously using his position of authority as a police officer to engage in sexual relations with a minor wherein thousands of mail in balloters regretted not having said information

=

The Mayor tweeted bad things about the ownership group of my favourite sports team.

Yep

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I haven't been following this.

Did the City of Calgary just buy me more time to save up for one last trek to the Saddledome? I intend to bring the little guy to a game before it's replaced.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I haven't been following this.

Did the City of Calgary just buy me more time to save up for one last trek to the Saddledome? I intend to bring the little guy to a game before it's replaced.

Close. CSEC bought you more time for one last trek to the Saddledome. Possibly even 7 extra years.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I haven't been following this.

Did the City of Calgary just buy me more time to save up for one last trek to the Saddledome? I intend to bring the little guy to a game before it's replaced.

It likely buys you another year.

The new city committee has two months to report back to council on potential options. That will likely identify potential additional partners who want to get involved. This will likely lead to a new deal being negotiated through the spring and summer and a new deal being finalized in the fall.

Since the development permit is already approved and the building is shovel-ready (I don't believe the collapse of the financing deal should change any of that), ground-breaking can go ahead once the new deal is signed, and we're likely looking at a 2025 opening instead of 2024... assuming all the supply-chain nonsense gets sorted out this year and material prices stabilize.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Bunk's post literally said "the city asked"

How is that not the city wanting to change the deal?

I even said the Flames took the ask as winning the lottery because they could take the city's commitment and take control.

Bottom line you have two sides that didn't like where costs were going.

Don't think I'm stretching any truths in that assumption.

IIRC Bunk's post was related to the red herring costs...city asked for ____ to align with existing municipal policy on climate stuff for big buildings...CSEC says okay but let's take some more time to nail down the specific details, city says sure it'll just need to be resolved for occupancy permit then. (I'm paraphrasing what I remember here; may be off on some details).

In other words, standard discussions on building details as the design progressed, no different than exact number/locations of toilets or size of TVs for the concourse...


Again, I'm not sure it's fair/accurate to characterize the July 2021 adjustments as "renegotiations" initiated by one side or the other...more accurate would "further negotiations that were inevitable since the project had already exceeded the terms of the original deal (and were trending to go even further)".

Did we ever hear details of why CSEC wanted to get read of CMLC? With an election only months away, it's probably fair to speculate that the councillors didn't want approve a bunch more cash on their end...

Originally Posted by Wormius

I have to wonder how this would have proceeded if hypothetically the City ate those costs and didn’t provide CSEC an out.

It's a great question...I'd speculate that CSEC would have sought further capitulations (and why not if the city bent easily enough to those ones)...hard to say how much more they'd have needed to want to proceed (I'd imagine at least some backtracking against their sole responsibility for all additional costs as they agreed in July 2021).

IMO most likely we'd have simply seen a mutual agreement to hit pause based on rising costs (without the opportunity to paint classic wedge issues like bike parking and climate change), but CSEC would maintain those concessions whenever it became prudent to resume things (resumption likely involving yet further negotiations...with CSEC perhaps hoping to squeeze even more out of a mostly inexperienced council).

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Did we ever hear details of why CSEC wanted to get read of CMLC?

Billionaires hate any oversight responsible for ensuring the public good and not revenue generation.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So if I'm hearing you correctly, Gondek is grossly incompetent and should lose their job?

Looking like it. Good that you suggested it.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Looking like it. Good that you suggested it.

Suggested what?