[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[nik-]

Sorry but infrastructure costs are part of the project and paid for by the citizens whether you think it's lame or not. True cost is what matters here.

Again, it's not the city's job to do the Flames work for them. They did what the proposal warranted.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think we'd all love politicians with substance over style. But that simply doesn't win elections. I believe this is known as a classic case "Don't hate the player, hate the game". When they get the chance to grandstand on issues they know they have strong public support for, it's just how they do.

which is fine when you're waffling in a debate.

not good when you're just thumbing your nose up at a proposal that could solve a contamination issue with no other option in the works, and could be a fit for an olympic bid that tax payers supported by way of his summer vacation.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry but infrastructure costs are part of the project and paid for by the citizens whether you think it's lame or not. True cost is what matters here.

Again, it's not the city's job to do the Flames work for them. They did what the proposal warranted.

so the project takes up x% of the space in west village but all the costs should be assigned 100% to Calgarynext?

Every other development near it gets free infrastructure paid by Calgarynext?

And if you want the Flames to do the the work here's a secret! Let them know what they have to do! Works wonders.

[Dr. Pepper]

With respect to the West Village and CalgaryNEXT, one of the key elements was to find out the costs to remediate the contamination. Not sure if this has been posted before - but the CMLC report has now come out on it. Here's the exec summary:

-------------------------

Expedited approach: $140 Million, 6-8 years
Measured approach: $85 Million, 8-10 years

The expedited approach is represented by excavation and disposal of all impacted areas, where as the measured approach is represented by excavation and on-site biostabilization and reuse.

-------------------------

Here's the link to the full report: http://www.calgarymlc.ca/westvillage

[nik-]

If your proposal is rejected and you still wanted to build an arena shouldn't the obvious conclusion be that you still have work to do?

You're so deep into the assumption that there was zero discussion that frankly it's shocking.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

You're so deep into the assumption that there was zero discussion that frankly it's shocking.

The need to tell me what I'm thinking is beyond belief.

I saw most of the Ken King discussion in city hall. The whole process went into a wait from there with Plan B being suggested.

King has said they've met every Thursday since on Plan B, and that's the only quote I've seen to that effect. His comments yesterday suggested they were told to pause the CN plan for the time being.

So if there's a clandestine CalgaryNext meeting being held at James Joyce every Wednesday at noon, you're right I'm unaware.

Only going off of what I've read and heard.

Originally Posted by nik-

If your proposal is rejected and you still wanted to build an arena shouldn't the obvious conclusion be that you still have work to do?

I've been in negotiations. I'd find it pretty shocking if the other side just said nope and didn't detail the issues with a proposal. If you want them to do the work, give them a hint and what needs to be done.

[KingMoo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pepper

With respect to the West Village and CalgaryNEXT, one of the key elements was to find out the costs to remediate the contamination. Not sure if this has been posted before - but the CMLC report has now come out on it. Here's the exec summary:

Expedited approach: $140 Million, 6-8 years
Measured approach: $85 Million, 8-10 years

Wow that's a long time. City of Calgary should get on that. It's their problem now, regardless of who moves onto the land down the road

[Tyler]

Some good points and perspective from Andre Chabot's election blog:

The misunderstanding between the current Mayor and Ken King, CEO of the Calgary Sports and Entertainment (Corp.), is unfortunate, and it was entirely preventable. The current Mayor violated disclosure terms of an in-camera meeting. Regarding the arena project, I have a hard time reconciling significant amounts of public money unless a project demonstrates major public good. I am sympathetic to the argument that a new arena complex will bring big economic benefits, as it has to Edmonton, and that is good for the city.

But there needs to be a balance. There had been an agreement to set CalgaryNEXT to the side while a Victoria Park option was examined. That made sense to me. Suddenly, without advising City Council, or anyone else who was party to the discussion, the current Mayor decided to announce CalgaryNEXT is dead. Who’s to say its proponents won’t come back with a version that’s more palatable to City Council? Certainly not the current Mayor. And before the current Mayor stood up to trumpet his position, there should have been communication with the CalgaryNEXT group. Not doing so is disrespectful, and not how things should be done.

Edit: Kinda missed this but this is important - looks like Chabot is accusing Nenshi of violating in-camera rules here

[Senator Clay Davis]

Apparently there's a debate tonight on CalgaryNEXT

Esmahan‏ @esmahanyyc Mar 28
Tomorrow night @ucalgary debate society will be hosting a debate on #CalgaryNEXT @ John Dutton Theatre. @nenshi @WBrettWilson #yyc #yyccc

https://twitter.com/esmahanyyc/statu...21872129916928

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Some good points and perspective from Andre Chabot's election blog:



Edit: Kinda missed this but this is important - looks like Chabot is accusing Nenshi of violating in-camera rules here

The first part of these comments are precisely the type of measured response I would expect from our mayor.

[calgaryblood]

If Nenshi's words aren't pleasing the people, then stop listening and start paying attention to the great things he's actually physically doing and has done for the city.

Nenshi might sometimes come off as a colourful dbag but you can't deny every single defision he makes is done with the best interests of Calgary in mind.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

so the project takes up x% of the space in west village but all the costs should be assigned 100% to Calgarynext?

Every other development near it gets free infrastructure paid by Calgarynext?

CalgaryNEXT wants to be funded by the tax from all the development near it, so why does this 'counter-offer' sound so ridiculous?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

CalgaryNEXT wants to be funded by the tax from all the development near it, so why does this 'counter-offer' sound so ridiculous?

If a facility takes up 40% of the area, you don't assign it 100% of the infrastructure costs that the city will need to expend in order to develop the whole area.

Why? Because without CalgaryNext they'd have 100% of the infrastructure.

Its disingenuous and frankly deceitful to show otherwise.

[codynw]

Have I missed something? What's with the relocation threat talks in multiple threads?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If a facility takes up 40% of the area, you don't assign it 100% of the infrastructure costs that the city will need to expend in order to develop the whole area.

Why? Because without CalgaryNext they'd have 100% of the infrastructure.

Its disingenuous and frankly deceitful to show otherwise.

Without CalgaryNEXT the city would use the CRL to fund that infrastructure.

With the proposed funding model they need to pay for the infrastructure from the general coffers and use development to fund CalgaryNEXT when the property tax from CalgaryNEXT should be funding the CRL that is paying for the infrastructure to encourage development (like was done for the East Village).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Without CalgaryNEXT the city would use the CRL to fund that infrastructure.

With the proposed funding model they need to pay for the infrastructure from the general coffers and use development to fund CalgaryNEXT when the property tax from CalgaryNEXT should be funding the CRL that is paying for the infrastructure to encourage development (like was done for the East Village).

Well I'm certainly not looking to defend or argue down CRLs for tax collection. I've certainly seen the logic in the CalgaryNext project taking up too much tax collecting property space.

Once again I'm not in favour of CalgaryNext.

But I still think it stands that a project that takes up 40% of the space shouldn't be assessed at 100% of the infrastructure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I'm certainly not looking to defend or argue down CRLs for tax collection. I've certainly seen the logic in the CalgaryNext project taking up too much tax collecting property space.

Once again I'm not in favour of CalgaryNext.

But I still think it stands that a project that takes up 40% of the space shouldn't be assessed at 100% of the infrastructure.

The project relied on the entire CRL area to be developed in order to fund it. Therefore the full costs of achieving that goal should be included in the project costs. The flames didn't want to do that because if you compare building a fieldhouse, and using a CRL to develop the west village independent of the CalgaryNext you find that the city would be paying 500 million towards an arena /stadium and getting only 90% of a fieldhouse and a smaller tax base.

So there are two ways to price the project One is to include all costs to realize the tax gains required for the project the other is to compare it with or without the subsidized piece. The flames did neither because it looks bad optically. Though asking for a 700 million dollar handout doesn't look to great either.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by codynw

Have I missed something? What's with the relocation threat talks in multiple threads?

King's comments on 960 today:

"...we've always said, by the way, if the world doesn't want us around, or doesn't care where we play, or anything else, then just say so..."

Sounds like an implied relocation threat to me.

[Cappy]

Why argue CalgaryNEXT. It's dead, regardless of what King and even Nenshi think.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb...lb-conditions/

This is how you handle arena/stadium locations:

The source said the investors have a solid financial set-up, support from two levels of government, various potential locations for a stadium as well as at least five different designs for the venue.

"We are not going to say we favour one site or another," the source said. "But it’s crucial for the (eventual) site to be well served by public transit."

As for what the stadium would look like, the person said there is a lot of flexibility.

"We can choose the version we want," the source added. "There are five. They are preliminary plans and we could easily rework them once the project has been launched."

They don't even have a team yet, but they have multiple locations and designs.

Ken King = no good

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is how you handle arena/stadium locations:

No, this is how you handle applying for a franchise when you haven't already got a stadium. MLB has a lot of conditions that must be met before it will give a city a team, especially a city that has lost one already. Building a new venue for an existing franchise is a different matter entirely.