Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Who will show some leadership and reach out?

Given the repeated public stance of the Calgary (we closed that file and destroyed the cabinet) Flames, I guess (hope) it will be the City although of course logically it should be CSEC.

I believe I read the city doesn't expect the Flames to reach out to them for at least a year after the November election

[Locke]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I believe I read the city doesn't expect the Flames to reach out to them for at least a year after the November election

Really? Why?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I believe I read the city doesn't expect the Flames to reach out to them for at least a year after the November election

My guess is the flames will wait until the 2026 olympic host city is named.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I believe I read the city doesn't expect the Flames to reach out to them for at least a year after the November election

Well maybe the release of the vision from Corporate Properties will result in some dialogue.

In addition to the potential Olympic bid from current ownership’s perspective I wonder if the timing of the renegotiation of the CBA might factor into things.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Locke

Really? Why?

The silent treatment has a 1 year expiry.

[oldschoolcalgary]

RE: Bettman intermission interview during All-Star game

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

He said that the CIty of Calgary wanted the Flames to pay for the whole arena. Which completely untrue. Completely.

he also pumped up the idea of how great the west end development would have been... completely ignoring the additional costs of creosote cleanup and the additional football stadium...

1.2-1.7 Billion dollars? How much of that burden was going to be put on the taxpayers?

Thankfully city voters sided with financial prudence during the last civic election

EDIT - the MSG Renovation was a billion dollar project, all privately funded...however, NYC by its very nature, doesn't have many centrally located options anymore...

a renovation to the dome would probably get to the point where you might as well do a new building...

for example, one of the challenges is that the cable roof system, that was once considered innovative, is under designed for today's travelling concerts and even some of the equipment used in some of the big name concerts... once you are dealing with major structural changes, the cost savings you have going with a renovation compared to a new building are getting to be a saw off

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

RE: Bettman intermission interview during All-Star game



he also pumped up the idea of how great the west end development would have been... completely ignoring the additional costs of creosote cleanup and the additional football stadium...

1.2-1.7 Billion dollars? How much of that burden was going to be put on the taxpayers?

Thankfully city voters sided with financial prudence during the last civic election

The city will end up paying for cleanup no matter what happens.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The city will end up paying for cleanup no matter what happens.

But might actually have a mechanism to recoup those costs, unlike the case with CalgaryNEXT.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

But might actually have a mechanism to recoup those costs, unlike the case with CalgaryNEXT.

Like what?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Like what?

Selling the reclaimed land to developers who will pay property taxes on it.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The city will end up paying for cleanup no matter what happens.

The argument even for the taxpayers paying 1/3 of a 400-500 million dollar hockey arena is barely palatable to the majority of taxpayers.

what would that split be with a 1.2 -1.7 billion construction fee for CalgaryNext? is the Flames ownership group still chipping in a 1/3? how about season ticket holders? Also a 1/3?

or would the City be paying an even bigger % of that?

thankfully, the west end project is dead...i'd be shocked if they developed it in the 20- 25 years

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

Selling the reclaimed land to developers who will pay property taxes on it.

CalgaryNext had residential and commercial development which would have paid property tax. You are confusing the two proposals.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

The argument even for the taxpayers paying 1/3 of a 400-500 million dollar hockey arena is barely palatable to the majority of taxpayers.

what would that split be with a 1.2 -1.7 billion construction fee for CalgaryNext? is the Flames ownership group still chipping in a 1/3? how about season ticket holders? Also a 1/3?

or would the City be paying an even bigger % of that?

thankfully, the west end project is dead...i'd be shocked if they developed it in the 20- 25 years

That completely ignored my comment about the cleanup. There is simply no option but for the city to pay for it. The polluter is dead, no one will buy it as is.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

CalgaryNext had residential and commercial development which would have paid property tax. You are confusing the two proposals.

Victoria Park will also have developments that will be paying property taxes.

In the CalgaryNext proposal, the arena/stadium/fieldhouse building would have occupied a significant percentage of the contaminated land and the Flames didn't want to pay any property taxes for it. That's the problem. If it's only economically viable to develop the land if all the land is generating tax revenue, you can't take 1/3 of the land to build something that won't generate anything.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That completely ignored my comment about the cleanup. There is simply no option but for the city to pay for it. The polluter is dead, no one will buy it as is.

that's not ignoring that comment what so ever; the cleanup will take place when its going to benefit the City...

in reviewing the proposal, it didn't make financial sense to do it when you add the burden of building two arenas on top of that.

The City builds infrastructure all the time - however, one still needs to be sure that the conditions are right for that to happen.

all you have to do is look to the East Village and how long that took to actually get developed... With the amount of inventory in the East Village coming up currently, adding even more development to the West End hardly seems like smart growth to me esp with all the other projects being developed.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

CalgaryNext had residential and commercial development which would have paid property tax. You are confusing the two proposals.

The property tax from those developments would have to pay for CalgaryNEXT and wouldn't be available for reclamation.

And due to the large footprint of CalgaryNEXT, there wouldn't be enough development to even pay for that, never mind going above and beyond.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

Victoria Park will also have developments that will be paying property taxes.

In the CalgaryNext proposal, the arena/stadium/fieldhouse building would have occupied a significant percentage of the contaminated land and the Flames didn't want to pay any property taxes for it. That's the problem. If it's only economically viable to develop the land if all the land is generating tax revenue, you can't take 1/3 of the land to build something that won't generate anything.

The point to it was that there wouldn't be any development at all without the proposal. And the property tax dollars from adjacent development would simply be added to city coffers, which would be used for cleanup.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The point to it was that there wouldn't be any development at all without the proposal. And the property tax dollars from adjacent development would simply be added to city coffers, which would be used for cleanup.

NO!

Stop with this. That isn't how it was set up. It has been explained to you multiple times now.

NEXT would be funded by a CRL, which means the property tax from the adjacent zone would be going to fund NEXT, not cleanup.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

NO!

Stop with this. That isn't how it was set up. It has been explained to you multiple times now.

NEXT would be funded by a CRL, which means the property tax from the adjacent zone would be going to fund NEXT, not cleanup.

A. There would be associated development in the surrounding area which would be expected. Did you not read the proposal?

B. Part of the NEXT funding was in fact the cleanup. Did you not read the proposal?

Of course, the main dispute was on whether the CRL could cover the cost. Nenshi said it couldn't, King said it could.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. There would be associated development in the surrounding area which would be expected. Did you not read the proposal?

For ####'s sake.

A CRL works by deferring property tax dollars from new development in the specified zone.

Under the CalgaryNEXT proposal, the CRL zone would use those property taxes to repay the city's contribution to construction costs. Meaning the associated development's property taxes would go to funding NEXT, so there wouldn't be any more property taxes to use elsewhere.

What about this aren't you getting?

B. Part of the NEXT funding was in fact the cleanup. Did you not read the proposal?

No, it didn't. It covered the funding model for the arena and fieldhouse. That's it.

Did you read it?