Well it's hit council floor now, only 4 months later. Chipman's are to buy the land as assessed by a real estate appraiser. So basically the value of the land, which is around $2-2.5M IIRC. Take the $3.75M from Stuart Olsen and we're getting closer to the $6.5M CV paid for it.

Demo?

^ I guess. Anyone know what's going on with the other MPI lots. On Donald?

This city is laughably bad at handling the sale of any parcel of land that has value. We've seen this with the former arena site, Winnipeg Square parkade, former stadium site and now in this debacle.

I'm not against subsidizing when there is little value to spur development, but cripes we've gotta take advantage when there is value.

Chipman's aren't buying anything at the moment. It's going to an RFP.

The issue is a little broader than just making up the money. CV's been insisting they were left with no option but to give it to True North after Matthews Southwest - in their words - abandoned the project. It was said they weren't prepared to kick in for demolition costs and they weren't prepared to split carry costs on a pro rata basis (they only wanted and needed 2/3rds of the site). CV is also implying they received no 'credible' overtures based on some subjective set of criteria nobody but they know. And irrespective of that criteria, I don't doubt they're telling the truth. Nobody in their right mind was going to pay $6.6MM plus demo, plus finance costs, plus carry costs, plus everything else for that site. Ever. And True North wouldn't either, which is why they aren't.

But it's not credible to say somebody abandoned the site when that's only half the story. The people that abandon the site at say $7.5MM because CV fucked up the valuation probably don't do it at $2-$2.5MM if there's government incentive (which CV let slip this afternoon, True North will be seeking lots of it). And that's been the issue all along. Everybody knew the site was undevelopable at that value. That doesn't make everybody but True North derelict. It means CV was only prepared to fold that tent when Chipman asked them to. And given there were multiple responses to the RFP on the MPI lot across the street, there's no reason at all to believe there isn't still interest from the same groups, especially at a more reasonable land valuation.

And if anybody wants to believe a word out of anybody at CV, months after this True North option was already contemplated and signed, McGowan was still out promising a developer was lined up to pay full freight including demolition.

............

You are correct Simplicity. I should have said whomever is developing the land will not be given the site. Rather they need to purchase it at market rate.

As I understand it, the convention centre already paid Stuart Olsen 18 million to build a hotel. Getting 3.75 million back doesn't put anyone closer to even. The city's out another 14 million on this project.

I'm not quite sure that's the case. I think the hotelier was required to pay for and build their own hotel, no? This was just the site and a requirement of Stuart Olson getting the contract to build the convention centre. If so the City is just being completely fucking dumb.

There was a hold back built into the contract stipulating that if Stuart Olson doesn't build the hotel, they forfeit $16MM of the total $180MM contract value. Matthews Southwest was to be the hotelier, Stuart Olson the contractor on that portion. They identified the Carlton Inn site as being the most realistic given that Lakeview - who owns the surface lot kitty-corner across York - was planning on a hotel at the time and thus wasn't interested in putting their site up for sale (and they'll probably never be). They tried to negotiate with the owners of the Carlton Inn and weren't successful. CV got involved and overpaid for the site expecting Matthews Southwest to take it off their hands. They didn't. Along with waning hotel demand and a land value that blew the project, they bolted. Stuart Olson then had to find another party and contracted Colliers to do it. The word publicly was that anybody who was even looking at the site was to pay both full value ($6.6MM) plus demo and make CV whole. CV then sent a cease and desist to Colliers telling them they had no right to market the land on behalf of Stuart Olson and in the meantime had already signed an option with True North at what they're calling a 'fair market value' - an obvious discount to what they've paid.

Two reasons that $16MM is now completely unenforceable: 1) CV never told Stuart Olson the land was now being sold off at 'fair market value' and not what they paid plus costs. That changes things immensely. 2) CV actively undermined Stuart Olson's ability to market the site with nothing in writing they were done with it. In fact, Bob Silver said that the WCC and Stuart Olson were still actively seeking a hotelier up until a month ago. But it's a moot point anyway; the site had effectively been under a binding option contract to True North as of June 12th. Even if Stuart Olson had brought somebody, there was nothing left to be had. The land was already effectively sold. No amount of Vossen trying to rationalize CV's actions by insisting Stuart Olson wouldn't have brought a 'credible' developer to the table or that they would have brought a '2-star' hotel to the site changes these facts.

CV cost the city the money and they're lucky the $3.75MM is coming at all. There's no doubt in my mind that CV frustrated Stuart Olson's ability to carry out their obligation enough that the courts would likely both leave them without liability, but perhaps even with damages. It's not worth going there.

We're lucky we're getting anything.

^ I thought the lot on the corner across from the Carlton Inn was owned by the church.

Sorry, should've clarified. Kitty-corner to the east. Directly across the street from 155 Carlton.

I hear that. But in a strictly hypothetical way, if centreventure hadn't tried to get a hotel going as part of the convention centre expansion, the convention centre could have paid 16 million (or something) less than the 180 they are paying Stuart Olsen?

The way I see it. Convention centre cost $180M. Then they placed a $16M holdback on that project to ensure that Stuart Olson worked out a deal to get the hotel built. If they didn't get that part of the project done, they would lose out on $16M from the convention centre contract (which was never signed I guess). So now since they worked out a deal for $3.75M in penalties, since CV got there dirty mitts allover everything. I think the City gave up on that because they would likely get torn a new hole if this went to court, with Stuart Olson walking away scott free and the City picking up the tab for legal fees and the rest.

But maybe I'm wrong and the City really is getting the shaft on the $16M. I'm not privy to any of the cost estimates, contracts or the like. So can't really say.

...

This is my understanding of the situation:

The contract with Stuart Olson for the entire project is still unsigned and any portion of the contract, including the holdback and requirement to build a hotel, could still be disputed. This potential dispute could place the entire project in a state of limbo. Rather than deal with a questionable enforceable contract they settled.

I think you're right that 3.75 is the best the city could hope to get back at this point. It's just looking like even with that, this whole stupid endeavour has cost the city close to 20 million between the Carlton Inn purchase and paying Stuart Olson to do something, then later telling them to fuck off.

Marriott buys Delta
 

Interesting, Marriott has bought the Delta chain:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1477...ls-and-resorts

It is therefore less likely that any new hotel in the SHED would be a Marriott

It goes beyond this a little. The city wanted the hotel because the taxation that would eventually arise would be used to underwrite a portion of the $33MM the city had committed to the WCC - an arm's length division of the city. When Stuart Olson couldn't close on the site at a reasonable cost, CV got involved to put the deal together with money that was loaned to it by the city in the form of a line of credit because that's what CV does for the city. They're an arms length development bank (or at least that was their original mandate). And the development agreements with the province and feds had stated that the hotel was to be attached to the WCC because that's the convention centre model and that was the basis under which their funding came. So it's not quite true to say they wouldn't have had to spend the money because it's questionable as to whether there was any expansion at all without that 2nd and 3rd level funding that was at least partially dependent on a hotel.

You're right in that CV ultimately screwed it all up. But that also doesn't mean you'd see $16MM from Stuart Olson. You're better off settling than having the land tied up in a protracted legal battle where the terms of the deal are at issue. Nobody could force the family to sell the hotel. They took what they wanted. The question is really about, as a Winnipegger, you think the Carlton Inn was such a derelict nuisance that taking it out at nearly any cost was worth it.

I'm on the fence about that. Either way, CV should've conceded they were trying to socially engineer an area, taken the writedown and political lashing that went with it, and allowed Stuart Olson to continue at the discount True North was getting. If they were still unable to proceed, then you put it out for RFP. CV didn't quite cost the city $12.75MM like it would appear on the surface. It's far more nuanced than that, unfortunately...

As for the Carlton Inn itself, I really don't think it was that bad. Sure it wasn't a Delta/Radisson/Alt/Etc, but compared to many of the other hotels like it in the city, it was at least fairly clean outside and didn't look too bad, and there wasn't too many problems there. It had at least been painted recently.

It had more to do with its proximity to the WCC expansion and MTS Centre in light of its more recent transition to housing for displaced flood victims. Same went for the St. Regis which is why they were both more or less purchased at the same time.

Sounds like a great plan! Smart guy. We should get the pitch forks out and go after him for being a smart businessman and providing services that we all seemingly desire. :cheers:

Lol. You're a very rude and aggresive person. Grow up. Or get laid. But wow, bitter much? HAHAHAHA!

No ya I get that, it's kind of a whole different issue though. It's the same thing with The Malbrough (which is bizarre because of the money going into it). The St. Regis was just as bad before, however.

Yeah, exactly. And as anybody who's been thinking this through, you aren't going to solve this problem by tearing down hotels. They'll just go to another one. There are too many services in the area that the very people you're trying to displace count on. You can't shut down entire commercial buildings on your way to the fulfillment of this ridiculous Jets theme park designed to bring the suburbs downtown. It won't work.

dont get into personal attacks guys

Exactly.

But it's the same person that seems to be alone with his pitchfork on here. :koko:
I am happy with True North. They make money yes. Smart guys. They will be the ones that keep the Jets here with no bail outs. How many cities can claim that. We are actually very envied for what True North has accomplished. And other cities would give their left and right nut to have a group like this.

The fact that you somehow fail to see the $15-20 million (approx) in tax payer subsidies that True North receives as being a bailout just further drives home Simplicity's point. Every NHL team receives some sort of concession from their local governments. Why you think the Jets and True North are any different is beyond me. Can you say Shark Club?

The glass wall is up on the overhead walkway, looking nice

Brilliant Drew! The Great Satan Chipman is reigning his hellfire down on Winnipeg!

I think we will soon also learn that the water sampler with all the failed tests has ties with True North...;) They have been laying down a very impression diversionary smoke screen as of late.

Apparently someone from True North also torched a hydro pole at Kingsbury and McPhillips last night which caused a power outage from Garden City to North Kildonan.

Anything to keep the heat off I guess. :haha: :runaway:

True North Square
 

Watch video proposal here.

Video

I'll vote for that.

Same. Those terrible chipmans making Winnipeg a better place. LoL

Simplicity. I await your in depth negative write up at how this is bad for Winnipeg. You can also tell me how the parking lot is good. Sorry for calling you out. But no matter what happens in this city. You find something wrong with it. :shrug:

So that amount is chump change for the amount that has been invested.
Bettman doesn't give the Jets anything. That was part of the deal to get them here. So yes the city helped out. I guess you would prefer the MOOse back.

Trust me if the jets did not come back I could see a wrecking ball on the Met theatre by now. The Alt wouldn't have been built either. And the now mega million dollar true north square would be proposed in another city.

So yes I fail to see the issue. The return outweighs the $12 million.

You all want the downtown revitalized. But you want it done for free ???

As for subsidies. Better dump on every single city funded public building from schools the museums to parks to skating rinks. No of these make money. Oh yes the Wag is also subsidized. The RWB is subsidized. But ya, let focus on Chipmans :koko:

The difference seems very loud. Under the previous mayor this whole situation would have been stick handled a lot better.

My personal impression is under the old mayor the whole "plan b" deal done by CentreVenture would have been kept silent. All the parties would have been called to a meeting without the media present. With Bowman's push for "transparency" they then could have done the public Express of Interest for 220 Carlton. To no insiders surprise they would receive a bid from True North Square that we see now. It would quickly be deemed the best of the proposals and move forward. Instead we have two prominent public figures feuding and using the media to push their own side of the story.

Separately, my observations from the video are that it heavily played up the MI parking lot while really downplaying the role the 220 Carlton site had in the project. The purposed building at 220 Carlton also seems significantly larger than what had previously been discussed for that site as the initial hotel plan talked of splitting the lot. The planned parking structure for the MPI lot also appears to have disappeared unless it is part of the podium we see. No obvious branding for the hotel project in that video. A new walkway is also pictured from Hydro to the Tavern United building. It is interesting that the video would highlight a possible wine store in the plaza suggesting that Winnipeg still has to learn lessons from the 2010 Vancouver riot.

Overall, the project seems extremely ambitious for Winnipeg regardless of the details. True North though is well positioned to have a sense of demand for residential in downtown Winnipeg.

Maybe Bowman was just drunk when he saw the video. Afterall, it was after a Jets game.

I am still not sure why it matters who saw the video and when.

The video tells you nothing about how the development came to be. This is really a weak argument on Chipman's part. Visually effective, but that's it.

Yeah, I don't get it. The video is basically a rendering that shows nothing but a dreamscape of new buildings. Chipman is apparently suggesting that Bowman was completely in the know as to a very complicated development deal and subsidy arrangement and how it all works because he saw a glossy 2 minute video?!? Bowman says he can't get a copy of the contract and related documents... that's what matters here.

If Chipman and the Free Press want to crucify Bowman for insisting on transparency, I'd say that's to Bowman's credit. I'm sure Katz would have worked out a hush hush backroom deal but look where 10 years of that approach got us.

Chipman's point is they did see the video. Mayor is denying he saw the video, so lying. Maybe it was an informal, come to my office after the game thing. Still seen the video.

Of course the video does not talk of all the details of how it came to be. But they're still lying in saying that they didnt see the video. Or they did see the video, but it didnt show any details as to where the project was.

I'm not sure what difference it makes either way whether or not Bowman saw the video. Does anything turn on this point? It's not like the video explains the relevant machinations behind the deal, unless maybe there is a special team owner extended cut that only Chipman has access to...

No, but Chipman's getting thrown under the bus in the papers. So he's standing up for himself, which he has a right to do. Bowman et all are calling him a liar, so he threw it back in their face. That's all.

Has all of the back room talks been above board, I don't know. Not really defending anybody in that sense. Just laying out the facts.

The issue is what I had originally suspected and that is that True North got involved to kill a hotel deal on the 220 site.

The rest of it is nonsense. The city is littered with the ghosts of renderings and proposals past. Winnipeg - on the downside of the real estate curve and with our national economy slowing - cannot house three more towers. Everybody knows this. Maybe with MLL moving into the building and a more upscale hotel that takes the NHL room nights you have the beginnings of one, but three? CentrePoint still has vacancy. Glasshouse still isn't close to sold out. Maybe you convince a couple tenants to leave 360 Main and 201 Portage, but of what benefit is this to the city? There isn't one. Has the Hydro building fundamentally changed the way people interact with downtown? Has is spurned all sorts of follow-on economic development? No. Has the MTS Centre? Not even close.

Mark Chipman knew exactly the sort of ignorance he was pandering to when he showed a video some kid could've thrown together in 20 minutes and had everybody fawning. This is beginning to remind me of the Trizec debacle. It was ridiculous to see him trying to pretend like there are always this begrudging group of negative people trying to stand in the way the altruistic things they're trying to accomplish like he's completely deaf to why. And you saw the real Mark Chipman yesterday which is a petulant, petty, self-absorbed little man-child lucky his father came first who's going to lash out publicly at anybody who calls out his publicly funded empire building for what it is and threaten to take his toys home.

If Mark Chipman wants to build his empire, he can do it without repeatedly sloughing off the risk on the public and taking all of the upside home with him.

If you want to turn this into a semantical argument at the risk of losing the forest for the trees, Bowman said he didn't have all the details regarding a hotel on the site. What he also said was that he had heard rumor of one but saw nothing concrete. And that's still true.

As it turns out, there isn't a hotel on 220 Carlton anymore. And that didn't come out until yesterday's press conference. Just some fancy graphic Perkins & Will hammered out so everybody who owns a Jets jersey would see it and slink back into where Mark Chipman sees their rightful place.

Being that Chipman is a lawyer, there's an old saying in the legal world. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. And if you have neither, pound the desk. Yesterday Mark Chipman did a lot of breathless desk-pounding about being impugned. An irrelevant sidebar issue that distracted from the real issue which is that we're left with nothing more than some glossy renderings and everybody's insistence we take their word for everything.

Believe me, I appreciate the things he has done for this city but let's not pretend that it's all a selfless act of altruism. Whoever at TNSE thought it would be a good idea to put Chipman on a podium and let him rant about the mayor's questions was, to be frank, an idiot. Chipman looked awful... simultaneously defensive and accusatory, and basically making veiled threats to kill a nonexistent development because the mayor is asking too many questions. Probably the first time Chipman has ever looked downright ugly in public. No small feat for The Man Who Brought the Jets Back to Winnipeg.

I'd ask why the Free Press is taking his side so vociferously, but I guess you only have to look at page after page of Birchwood car ads and Jets coverage to know why.

True North got involved to kill a hotel deal? What nonsense is that? Such egos around the anti-Chipman crowd. Its pathetic.

SOD wanted out of their obligation to find a hotel because they had no one who was interested in doing it. It was after that that True North looked at 220.

Besides which, CV has no obligation to request RFP's. They owned the land and they made a deal where apparently there was only one interested party. The deal is legally binding and TN could sue if they wanted to (I dont think it will come to that).

Bowman saw the video, lied about seeing it (or for some "reason" cant remember seeing it). The video clearly identifies 220. Whats more, and I think this is Chipman's point, this was so NOT a backroom secret deal that he showed Bowman and Chief the video in a casual way after a Jets game and thus, any questions Bowman had, he was free to call Chipman...just as easily as he texted Chipman to say "hey we're at the game, lets hang out after" which led to him seeing the video.

There should not be an expectation that every detail of every business dealing is made public at every step. Is that how you'd want to operate your business? There is NOTHING to indicate that True North's option on 220 was anything but above board other then the Mayor trying to frame it that way and lying about what he knew.

Now please save the anti Chipman rhetoric.

Your perspective is opinion and one not shared by many other people. I'd say that public opinion is strongly on the side of Chipman. If people call his honesty and integrity into question over a $400 million downtown investment, then good for him for firing back. He didnt look ugly at all. Looked like a businessman who was angry at his integrity being questioned.

Not that the Free Press really had any credibility remaining, but this is pretty incredible stuff.

I can't remember a time when somebody's been able to use a local media source with this sort of ease and bluntness. The paper spent 3 years dismantling the credibility of Shindico and Katz and everybody else over precisely these sorts of issues. The moment a Chipman is involved they attempt to walk back their entire topic's work by claiming the mayor - somebody elected in a landslide on a central tenet of doing away with these sorts of shenanigans - is being overly officious and that we need to accept these sorts of deals as the reality involved in municipal development.

We're witnessing a paper completely beholden to its shareholders and largest advertisement and content providers. And nobody should be surprised.

Here's what you need to understand. And I've tried to tell you this before so I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but not everybody is as ignorant as you. Some of us have spent many years in the development world and know how it works. Because you can rattle of the Jets top two lines does not qualify you to speak on anything. Can we finally be clear on this?

The vast majority of the world thought the earth was flat and put people to death over speaking otherwise. You'd be among those. I'm sure you'd have been very proud at the time too.