Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cappy

For a development this important to the city, i wouldn't want to find out.

But you have to look at the motivations here. What do the Flames want in the area vs what the city would want.

In other words, you've got nothing. You're just certain that CSEC is the Boogeyman.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is based on what exactly? Please, tell me where else CSEC has done a major property development and turned it into a massive strip mall.

Project finance, particularly debt will be priced and structured based on the credit quality of the counterparties to the lease agreements. Having smaller businesses as counterparties will likely lead to increased financing costs, assuming they can even find small businesses willing to commit that far out.

Conversely, CMLC has effectively the power of taxation so their credit worthiness is top tier and they don’t need to pre sign leases.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Loyal and True]

Ken Campbell at Hockey News is not a reliable source. He has no business acumen whatsoever. He is certainly opinionated and clearly believes the owners and NHL are crooked liars. In many articles he repeated referred to an arena as a "monument to the rich". But he has no knowledge to base his opinion on.

As a columnist he does well to pick one side and throw everything he can behind it. But I don't trust a word he says.

[Loyal and True]

edit - double post

[Ryan Coke]

It is equivalent to a loan because the Flames do not currently pay property tax on the dome. So the city proposal gave money up front, and along with that would reinstate charging the team property tax.

So they gave something but took away something else so that it was closer to zero sum on the cities contribution.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Project finance, particularly debt will be priced and structured based on the credit quality of the counterparties to the lease agreements. Having smaller businesses as counterparties will likely lead to increased financing costs, assuming they can even find small businesses willing to commit that far out.

Conversely, CMLC has effectively the power of taxation so their credit worthiness is top tier and they don’t need to pre sign leases.

In other words, unlike CSEC, CMLC has the luxury of being able to lose unlimited amounts of our money, so they can build whatever crap they want and subsidize it to keep it afloat. And this is a good thing, amirite?

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

People who believe in trickle-down-economics.

Which has repeatedly proven to only consolidate wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

In New Zealand, Labour Party MP Damien O'Connor has, in the Labour Party campaign launch video for the 2011 general election, called trickle-down economics "the rich pissing on the poor".

A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:

If the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Not sure this was posted yet, but Kent Wilson has a response to Francis on his column.

Free on the Athletic for the time being:

https://theathletic.com/182400/2017/...oking-houston/

Thankfully, Francis' incessant one liners makes it the perfect piece to rebut.

That's a pretty perfect takedown of Francis' article. The local newspapers ought to be ashamed they give Francis a platform. It's not even anything against stirring the pot which I get is the job, he just writes and thinks like a 12 year old. They can do better.

Even worse having him on Sportsnet doing Flames games. A guy who has no hockey background who tries to do the "hot takes" thing and constantly embarrasses himself.

[monkeyman]

I think CSEC has certainly demonstrated enough incompetency to warrant scepticism. There’s absolutely no way id trust them to a: develop something of this scope well. b: do so in the best interest of the city and citizens.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In other words, unlike CSEC, CMLC has the luxury of being able to lose unlimited amounts of our money, so they can build whatever crap they want and subsidize it to keep it afloat. And this is a good thing, amirite?

What am I supposed to say to this? This is not what I said at all.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Not sure this was posted yet, but Kent Wilson has a response to Francis on his column.

Free on the Athletic for the time being:

https://theathletic.com/182400/2017/...oking-houston/

Thankfully, Francis' incessant one liners makes it the perfect piece to rebut.

That is a fantastic article. It encapsulates why Francis again is a fool by writing another garbage column. It uses coherent thought to counter Francis' inane ramblings. It shows Francis, doing the best he can, probably hurts the owners' chances of getting a publicly built arena.

Well done Mr. Wilson.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In other words, you've got nothing. You're just certain that CSEC is the Boogeyman.

Well, are you looking for evidence that the CSEC has done this in the past. there isn't because they haven't. Is that a good thing? I don't have any development experience either, so is it right for me to veto stuff in this area?

I don't think CSEC is a boogeyman at all, but their motivation for development would be entirely different than the city's.

The city would want to build a district with a mix of commercial and residential. A place where people can live/work/play. They have a trusted vehicle for that with a proven track record in East Village. The city wants this area to benefit the people that live there and the people that travel there to work/shop/watch hockey.

The Flames would effectively want to monopolize the entertainment of the space. Lets assume the CSEC doesnt have any development interest in the area, why would they care how the area functions when the Flames aren't playing? they care about maximizing their revenue during game day. Getting people into the arena and spending money there.

This isn't unlike the way the Stampede treats the area.

What motivation looks better to you?

Who has a track record to actually produce an area that works within the city framework?

what exactly is the motivation for having a veto on what goes into this area?

Im not saying CSEC is a boogeyman by questioning whether it is a good idea to give them some power over the way the city constructs a large part of its inner-city.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What am I supposed to say to this? This is not what I said at all.

Actually, it is, just reworded. You said that CMLC can afford to operate with tenants that are not sufficiently credit-worthy to get leases in a private-sector building.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Ken Campbell at Hockey News is not a reliable source. He has no business acumen whatsoever. He is certainly opinionated and clearly believes the owners and NHL are crooked liars. In many articles he repeated referred to an arena as a "monument to the rich". But he has no knowledge to base his opinion on.

As a columnist he does well to pick one side and throw everything he can behind it. But I don't trust a word he says.

Unlike noted economist Eric Francis of course.

[Flash Walken]

Jay Random is losing his mind in this thread.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The city would want to build a district with a mix of commercial and residential. A place where people can live/work/play. They have a trusted vehicle for that with a proven track record in East Village.

This would be the East Village that is a massive sink of tax dollars, but for the arbitrary decision to redraw the boundaries to include the Bow building and take its taxes out of general revenue to mask the deficit? The East Village where the National Music Centre was supposed to be a big draw, and has turned out to be a white elephant? The East Village that is still unfinished after how many years, even while development on a far larger scale continues all over the rest of the city?

OK then.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Jay Random is losing his mind in this thread.

According to you, I never had a mind. I'm perfectly calm. But thanks for the gratuitous personal insult, and consider yourself reported.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

That is a fantastic article. It encapsulates why Francis again is a fool by writing another garbage column. It uses coherent thought to counter Francis' inane ramblings. It shows Francis, doing the best he can, probably hurts the owners' chances of getting a publicly built arena.

Well done Mr. Wilson.

Francis is such an easy target because his columns are always such garbage. We agree that he is a massive liability to CSEC in this issue.

Wilson takes all the easy softballs and hits them out of the park, as he should. But Wilson is another example of an entrenched position and frankly I disagree with a lot of his opinions.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Unlike noted economist Eric Francis of course.

How is that a valid counter argument? Is anyone here really defending Francis? He is a moron. Campbell isn't much better.

Two morons don't make an Einstein

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This would be the East Village that is a massive sink of tax dollars, but for the arbitrary decision to redraw the boundaries to include the Bow building and take its taxes out of general revenue to mask the deficit? The East Village where the National Music Centre was supposed to be a big draw, and has turned out to be a white elephant? The East Village that is still unfinished after how many years, even while development on a far larger scale continues all over the rest of the city?

OK then.

You expect the East Village, a 20-30 year project, to be fully built out although it has only started 10 years ago? If at that? Especially in an area that everybody wanted to avoid beforehand? And what larger scale development has been done in a quicker fashion?

I'm not gonna get into a debate with you about this since I don't care either way, but I will say that I believe it makes most sense for CMLC to essentially manage development in that whole entire area, since they already are, and are going to release the master plan for the area surrounding the arena and Stampede Park within the next several weeks.

They have the experience of East Village which has been a big success up to this point, and complete transformed that area. No reason to believe they can't achieve the same here. Whereas CSEC has no experience whatsoever when it comes to real estate and community development. They could, and they could be successful in doing it, but I figure it would be better for them to partner up with CMLC on this, rather than try to do it solo.