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

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This would take a lot less council time and expense if CSEC would just step forward and admit the real reason was overall cost increases, not the extra city costs.

You seem pretty certain about something that is clearly your opinion.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Some of ya'll are absolutely hilarious. The Flames aren't going anywhere.

This is all negotiation tactics and posturing. The Flames need The City and The City needs the Flames.

We will all look back and be glad the original proposal went off the rails, because.. well, it sucked. Extremely confident that something better will come down the pipe after the rhetoric cools down.

So CalgaryNext was a huge fail

This arena deal was a huge fail

What's next then?

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

So CalgaryNext was a huge fail

This arena deal was a huge fail

What's next then?

Outdoor rink without lights for environmental reasons...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You seem pretty certain about something that is clearly your opinion.

Is it not obvious at this point? They already basically said it themselves, without being so direct. And these city costs are so minor and were known about that it doesn't make any sense that that is the main reason. Maybe it had a minor contribution. But no way am I buying that they are the only, or most significant reason. So sure, it's my opinion. As a taxpayer seeing more dollars go to this disucssion, I think I have the right to say it. If they want to come out and say the sole reason they canceled it was some solar panels and sidewalks, they can claim that too, and I'll laugh at the ridiculousness of the statement. But they haven't said that either.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

So CalgaryNext was a huge fail

This arena deal was a huge fail

What's next then?

CalgaryNEXT was a fiasco, but overall I thought the financial structure of this proposal appeared fairly sound.

Ultimately I'm not entirely convinced of any single reason this proposal failed other than general mistrust between the two concerned parties.

The cost increases are substantial but not necessarily deal-breakers.

Right now it looks more to me like the crux of this was 'Death by a Thousand Cuts.'

Between escalating costs, economic uncertainty, pandemic losses and on and on...the inherent lack of trust eroded the foundation to the point where additional hurdles couldnt be surmounted together.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This would take a lot less council time and expense if CSEC would just step forward and admit the real reason was overall cost increases, not the extra city costs.

Honestly, if that is the case (which is pretty obvious it is), then it is not even that bad of an argument to make. CSEC could have easily said "whoa whoa, the costs are getting crazy and maybe we take a step back and wait for supply issues to resolve and see if this thing can get back down to the original estimates." If they don't, CSEC would have a non-horrible argument to make that the city should jump.

instead, they have done this which is petulant and entirely transparent.

[powderjunkie]

Is Councillor McLean drunk, or does he always sound like this?

[powderjunkie]

Great to see City Manager Duckworth jump in to smack down Maclean's BS grandstanding.

[Fuzz]

Oh good, Chu is on...


"What year is this?"

[powderjunkie]

Oh great, Chu gets all of his info from Corbella. Despite having access to all of the actual info.

[powderjunkie]

Heh, Demong making it very clear that the non-moronic councillors were aware of the events before Gondek tweeted.

Also making it very clear through his question that Gondek did not take any actions to cancel the deal.

Also making it adundantly clear through his question that the climate issues had nothing to do with the climate state of emergency.


Nicely done Demong...important info in 2 minutes or less.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Locke

CalgaryNEXT was a fiasco, but overall I thought the financial structure of this proposal appeared fairly sound.

Ultimately I'm not entirely convinced of any single reason this proposal failed other than general mistrust between the two concerned parties.

The cost increases are substantial but not necessarily deal-breakers.

Right now it looks more to me like the crux of this was 'Death by a Thousand Cuts.'

Between escalating costs, economic uncertainty, pandemic losses and on and on...the inherent lack of trust eroded the foundation to the point where additional hurdles couldnt be surmounted together.

CalgaryNEXT is the real reason this recent deal isn't happening. Ken King flubbed that one so badly it set the entire process back years. If they had come out of the gate with something closer to the deal that just fell apart back then it would probably already be built, but King pushed so hard on his badly imagined vanity project it robbed us of what should have been several years of real progress

[powderjunkie]

Lame, Chabot making it harder to any juicy info to leak out of the in-camera session (by excluding staff members from the meeting)

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Locke

CalgaryNEXT was a fiasco, but overall I thought the financial structure of this proposal appeared fairly sound.

It was a hopeless financial structure from the start.

Edmonton used a CRL so they figured a CRL here was a magic bullet, but with the footprint of CalgaryNEXT there wouldn’t have been enough space to develop anything that could have possibly created enough new tax revenue to fulfill its obligation.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Locke

CalgaryNEXT was a fiasco, but overall I thought the financial structure of this proposal appeared fairly sound.

I would disagree with this statement given there was potentially a $1B environmental reclamation of creosote contamination that CSEC wanted the City to take on as part of that proposal. That was an enormous risk for the city financially.

[Jordan!]

Welcome to the fun world of following City Council meetings instead of sports..

I don't get the rising costs concern because in all likelyhood in the next 5-10 years that will be the norm.

[powderjunkie]

Oh man, it's always fun to see how Chu and Wong even bungle the simplest procedural items.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It was a hopeless financial structure from the start.

Edmonton used a CRL so they figured a CRL here was a magic bullet, but with the footprint of CalgaryNEXT there wouldn’t have been enough space to develop anything that could have possibly created enough new tax revenue to fulfill its obligation.

Well thats a whole other conundrum really. The Edmonton structure was partly responsible for the breakdown of the issues here.

That deal was bad for the City. It was just bad all around for everyone not named 'Katz.'

So yeah, competitors see that and they want the same, but its not going to happen.

Originally Posted by kermitology

I would disagree with this statement given there was potentially a $1B environmental reclamation of creosote contamination that CSEC wanted the City to take on as part of that proposal. That was an enormous risk for the city financially.

Sorry, I dont think I'm following you here. I firmly believed that the CalgaryNEXT proposal was preposterously untenable and straight-up fantasy and that was also where the creosote reclamation issues came in.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jordan!

Welcome to the fun world of following City Council meetings instead of sports..

I don't get the rising costs concern because in all likelyhood in the next 5-10 years that will be the norm.

Really hard to say. At the start of the pandemic we all thought it was prime time for capital projects presuming labour and supplies would be cheap. Wrong.

Given the cost increases, it seems prudent IMO to ensure that live event revenue generation will actually return to 'normal' levels in the foreseeable future before plowing ahead with this.


And council meetings are pretty entertaining as long as the subject matter isn't totally boring.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well thats a whole other conundrum really. The Edmonton structure was partly responsible for the breakdown of the issues here.

That deal was bad for the City. It was just bad all around for everyone not named 'Katz.'

So yeah, competitors see that and they want the same, but its not going to happen.



Sorry, I dont think I'm following you here. I firmly believed that the CalgaryNEXT proposal was preposterously untenable and straight-up fantasy and that was also where the creosote reclamation issues came in.

I agree the Edmonton deal was bad, but it has at least catalyzed the clean up of their slum section of downtown...something Calgary has managed to generally achieve in the EV and Victoria Park itself. Of course, both WV and EV are inherently more desirable for development (proximity to river, and a far better downtown core than EDM).

EV and Victoria Park will continue to gentrify on their own...a new arena would help accelerate it in that area a little bit, but there is only so much total demand for development in the city overall.

I guess my point is that Edmonton was at least buying something that would have been much harder for them to achieve otherwise. We were trying to move the north doors of our big arena 3 blocks further north.