Sen̓áḵw (Squamish Nation) | 11 Towers | 171m | 58fl | 4M sqft | U/C

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

They got enough of a hand from the taxpayer, shouldn't they be telling us?

No

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

No

I think the fees charged to companies for using park land should be part of the public record. Why would anyone oppose that?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Something tells me people would be outraged if Holborn was allowed to open their Little Mountain presentation centre in Queen Elizabeth Park or Concord was allowed to open their Metrotown presentation centre in Central Park.

It's never a "good idea" for a business to use space they could be renting to others to use but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for others should jump in to help for below market rates or for free (which was apparently an option???)

Same reason they got to build an access road through the park.. Last time I checked Holborn or Concord weren't First Nations..

[officedweller]

Is there much retail space in Phase 1?
If there is any, presumably that means it's already leased, which would be a good thing.
Most developers use their project's retail space for the display centre after completion.

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Is there much retail space in Phase 1?
If there is any, presumably that means it's already leased, which would be a good thing.
Most developers use their project's retail space for the display centre after completion.

Looks like it's 5,303sf in Tower 1 (General Store), 7,507sf in Tower 2 (Bike Store), 7,230sf in Tower 3 (Pet Store/Food Hall/Restaurant), and 1,270sf in the Pavilion (Café / Smoothie Bar) for 21,310sf total:


https://senakwupdates.com/retail

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Is there much retail space in Phase 1?
If there is any, presumably that means it's already leased, which would be a good thing.
Most developers use their project's retail space for the display centre after completion.

20K sq feet. They showed one under contract but not sure if they've updated it since they announced the offering.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
I guess it's safe to assume they are all leased.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Same reason they got to build an access road through the park.. Last time I checked Holborn or Concord weren't First Nations..

I was never particularly fond of that either but according to the service agreement the land is to be leased at market value reassessed every four years and it was argued that the access road would provide better access to the south side of Vanier Park plus access to the public amenities/commercial in Senakw. That's a bit different from subsidizing a private enterprise with reduced/zero fee for leasing public land. The fact is that Holborn, Concord, and Nchkay are all property developers and should be held to the same standard. Would you say that if an indigenous group wanted to open up a car dealership on some of the underutilised land at Brockton Point you'd think it would be reasonable for the Parks Board to approve it?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think the fees charged to companies for using park land should be part of the public record. Why would anyone oppose that?

Sure the Park fees being revealed are valid, but I was disagreeing with this comment from Whatnext:
"So if Senak'w was getting "hundred of calls" a day from potential renters as stated upthread, why do they need to open a "welcome centre" to get units rented? And why isn't it in their retail component rather than Vanier Park?"

As well as responding to their later comment that since they got a CMHC construction loan that they should be obliged to tell the public why they need a "welcome centre".

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Sure the Park fees being revealed are valid, but I was disagreeing with this comment from Whatnext:
"So if Senak'w was getting "hundred of calls" a day from potential renters as stated upthread, why do they need to open a "welcome centre" to get units rented? And why isn't it in their retail component rather than Vanier Park?"

As well as responding to their later comment that since they got a CMHC construction loan that they should be obliged to tell the public why they need a "welcome centre".

Given that you, Chowhou, WarrenC12, myself and all Canadian taxpayers offered the Squamish a low interest $1.4 billion loan (not available to Concord or Holborn BTW) why don't you think we should get an explanation of unplanned expenditures like renting park land?

I'm still very interested that there's been not a peep about occupancy. If it was supposed to be June that seems odd.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given that you, Chowhou, WarrenC12, myself and all Canadian taxpayers offered the Squamish a low interest $1.4 billion loan (not available to Concord or Holborn BTW) why don't you think we should get an explanation of unplanned expenditures like renting park land?

I'm still very interested that there's been not a peep about occupancy. If it was supposed to be June that seems odd.

IDGAF about the presentation center or the low interest loan. Why don't you determine how much taxpayer money will actually be spent on it? Please show your work.

Occupancy is a bit delayed like every other development.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given that you, Chowhou, WarrenC12, myself and all Canadian taxpayers offered the Squamish a low interest $1.4 billion loan (not available to Concord or Holborn BTW) why don't you think we should get an explanation of unplanned expenditures like renting park land?

I'm still very interested that there's been not a peep about occupancy. If it was supposed to be June that seems odd.

Because,.......that's not how loans work(???)
While the lender might be entitled to requesting or demanding a business plan to know how that loan will be used to determine its viability in assessing whether it will be paid back, I don't think I've ever heard of a situation where they've asked for, or are entitled to explanations, updates, or reports on how the loan is actually being spent and whether it meets their satisfaction.

Their only concern would be (should be) that it will be paid back along with any accrued interest. How the borrower does so is entirely up to them.

It would be like getting a mortgage and the bank expecting you to explain why you decided to go with the expensive crown molding ceiling detailing, instead of the less costly mimimalist coffered ceiling design - and also insisting you provide a detailed 10-point plan on how you'll re-pave that driveway.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given that you, Chowhou, WarrenC12, myself and all Canadian taxpayers offered the Squamish a low interest $1.4 billion loan (not available to Concord or Holborn BTW) why don't you think we should get an explanation of unplanned expenditures like renting park land?

The federal apartment construction loan program is available to any developer building a rental project

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given that you, Chowhou, WarrenC12, myself and all Canadian taxpayers offered the Squamish a low interest $1.4 billion loan (not available to Concord or Holborn BTW) why don't you think we should get an explanation of unplanned expenditures like renting park land?

I'm still very interested that there's been not a peep about occupancy. If it was supposed to be June that seems odd.

No, I do not. Under my CMHC loans if I add some signs, decorative lights, or a BBQ I don't have to tell anyone in the Public. All I have to do is uphold my obligation to the loan

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I was never particularly fond of that either but according to the service agreement the land is to be leased at market value reassessed every four years and it was argued that the access road would provide better access to the south side of Vanier Park plus access to the public amenities/commercial in Senakw. That's a bit different from subsidizing a private enterprise with reduced/zero fee for leasing public land. The fact is that Holborn, Concord, and Nchkay are all property developers and should be held to the same standard. Would you say that if an indigenous group wanted to open up a car dealership on some of the underutilised land at Brockton Point you'd think it would be reasonable for the Parks Board to approve it?

I mean it seems like a given that the current stated goals by every level of government and FN reconciliation. Comparing some temporary containers setup next to their driveway to a car dealership in the middle of Stanley Park seems like a tad absurd of a comparison.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Comparing some temporary containers setup next to their driveway to a car dealership in the middle of Stanley Park seems like a tad absurd of a comparison even if you want to make your little point about commercial use of parks.

Okay so if my "little point" example was MST opening a temporary car lot across the street from the Musqueam main reserve in Pacific Spirit Park, would that be a better comparison? Just a temporary one with some containers to sell a few cars. What's your thought?

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The federal apartment construction loan program is available to any developer building a rental project

Yes and no, there's still pretty tight requirements to qualify for an ACLP loan and that program is a bit of a beauty pageant. I have no doubt it being first nations owned contributed to it being successful in its application.

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean it's up to you whether you like or dislike it, I was just stating the fact as a First Nations builder you need to completely ignore the current stated goals by every level of government and FN reconciliation. Comparing some temporary containers setup next to their driveway to a car dealership in the middle of Stanley Park seems like a tad absurd of a comparison even if you want to make your little point about commercial use of parks.

No matter how you spin it, allowing a developer to use public lands for a presentation centre is not a great look. At the very least, they should be charged for the use of space.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by PBlonde

Yes and no, there's still pretty tight requirements to qualify for an ACLP loan and that program is a bit of a beauty pageant. I have no doubt it being first nations owned contributed to it being successful in its application.

It looks pretty broad in terms of the projects already approved...

Bosa BlueSky got loans for Harwood Street
MCYH Multigenerational Housing Society got one for Richards
Marcon got a loan for West 42nd
Wesgroup got loans for several River District buildings, and for the Brewery District
Peterson got a loan for Glen Drive
Rize Alliance Properties and Pioneer Investments got a loan for East 19th
Grosvenor got a loan for Brentwood
Tat Jang got a loan for Shaughnessy Gardens on West King Edward
Intracorp got a loan for Telford on the Walk
UBC Properties Trust got loans for four at least different buildings
Mosaic got loans for Lynn Valley in North Vancouver, and for two buildings on East Hastings
Cressey got a loan for Conrad on East 18th

There may be more. Concord or Holborn should also potentially be able to get a loan, if they met the criteria for getting one.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by PBlonde

No matter how you spin it, allowing a developer to use public lands for a presentation centre is not a great look. At the very least, they should be charged for the use of space.

I mean DRIPA is an actual issue that probably has more significance and is also pretty important to FN as well. That is an actual policy issue that deserves more debate versus this.