Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 262

Simplicity · #**5221** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

I think the level of political reporting at the civic level is hugely improved over years ago. Now most outlets, including the Free Press, have reporters assigned to that beat who live tweet the council and committee meetings. This gives people a level of access that was uncommon five years ago. That said, the bias and half reporting of stories is nothing new and not limited to any one outlet, even on a global scale.

Yeah, I'd agree that the frequency of reporting is up, but the quality is horrendous. Especially from Aldo Santin who seems to have forgotten that he is a reporter and not a columnist. Given the paper's limitations on space and what the public is willing to read, it'd be nice if they reported on the actual story and associated nuance. Instead, they relay one or two hand-selected points and spend the rest of the report making snarky editorial comments that usually only reveal their ignorance of the story.

Like yesterday's stupid, stupid piece from Aldo Santin. Why on earth would you spend a even a single word talking about how David Sanders was compelling the city to purchase a massive swath of land from CNR at a cost of $226K? There are all kinds of reasons they can't, not the least of which is that the city assesses rail-owned land in a completely different way than the rest of the city. Why even mislead the public like that? Because that's the only point: to set about trying to set yourself up as the 'reporter' who is going to undermine the administration's forthcoming decision. Why not quote somebody who knows what they're talking about and can give a more realistic value of the land? Hell, even David Sanders, who, when not being an obnoxious, pandering malcontent down at city hall, spends his days working for the Altus Group doing property tax appeals could tell you why that's a ridiculous assessment. Instead, it's better copy if everybody is just grandstanding all the time.

1ajs · #**5222** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 5:13 PM**

because he was prolly the only one to talk to them

Simplicity · #**5223** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

because he was prolly the only one to talk to them

He didn't talk to them. They included in the story how 'delegate' David Sanders made a remark at the meeting encouraging the city to purchase the land at its assessed value from CNR and not a penny more.

Property assessment is a complicated business. Those who aren't involved in it can be forgiven for not understanding how those numbers are derived and what they actually mean. On the other hand, a man who is professionally employed in a capacity that requires him to understand absolutely all of the detail and nuance involved in property assessment should not be making misleading statements like that knowing just how ignorant they really are. And he knows how ridiculous that assessment and his commentary is. He's only saying it because he knows the Free Press will report his 'delegate' commentary. As such, Aldo Santin has a duty to either provide it some context or ignore it altogether. It's not suddenly true because David Sanders, Defender of the People, remarks it at a committee meeting.

bomberjet · #**5224** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 8:36 PM**

How is Sanders even involved? Is he just Joe public attending the meeting? Can I go in there and just put my two cents in so Aldo can put me in the paper?

1ajs · #**5225** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 9:48 PM**

you can speak befor councle on issues but u gotta register befor the meeting starts

CoryB · #**5226** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 9:58 PM**

Dave Sanders is basically an in-person version of a frequent forum poster on civic issues.

esquire · #**5227** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 10:37 PM**

I'm neither here nor there when it comes to David Sanders, but why is it such a problem if the guy wants to go before council to express his opinions? It wouldn't hurt if a few more informed critics did just that... maybe the city wouldn't be in such a jam on several different fronts.

Besides, Sanders is not just some yokel entertaining himself for kicks... he's a lawyer and business consultant who used to be Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs... even if he isn't always right, he is still worth listening to.

Simplicity · #**5228** Posted **Jan 14, 2015, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm neither here nor there when it comes to David Sanders, but why is it such a problem if the guy wants to go before council to express his opinions? It wouldn't hurt if a few more informed critics did just that... maybe the city wouldn't be in such a jam on several different fronts.

Besides, Sanders is not just some yokel entertaining himself for kicks... he's a lawyer and business consultant who used to be Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs... even if he isn't always right, he is still worth listening to.

Sure, but he has a very specific political leaning and it informs his worldview. Which would be fine, except that he wasn't elected to represent the citizens. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's great that he sees himself as the arbiter of good sense, but he wasn't given that mandate.

And the media is complicit in this whole thing. It's always presented in the same way: council and the administration are incompetent and said/decided upon one thing, David Sanders stepped in with what should be done. Ergo, council is a pack of fools.

David Sanders is beholden only to himself. The rest of council and the administration have different viewpoints to consider.

1ajs · #**5229** Posted **Jan 16, 2015, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

it's right in behind the Met and near Police HQ, so may get enough business from that. It's the old bookstore/ restaurant

Its 2 blocks from the met actualy and is on garry across from fame and the garrik hotel witch has evolved quite a bit

trueviking · #**5230** Posted **Jan 19, 2015, 5:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Besides, Sanders is not just some yokel entertaining himself for kicks... he's a lawyer and business consultant who used to be Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs... even if he isn't always right, he is still worth listening to.

his opinion is no more worth listening to than the guy outside city hall waiting for the bus on main street....he devoted months trying to convince winipeggers that his opinion was worth listening to and they overwhelmingly rejected it....almost to a laughable degree.

CoryB · #**5231** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 12:39 AM**

CJOB today was talking about the Carlton Inn situation and mentioned how what was SoPo Square is now being planned under the name True North Square. They also hinted strongly the deal is currently based around MLLC becoming the lead tenant if their proposal is selected for the MLLC hq.

Simplicity · #**5232** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

CJOB today was talking about the Carlton Inn situation and mentioned how what was SoPo Square is now being planned under the name True North Square. They also hinted strongly the deal is currently based around MLLC becoming the lead tenant if their proposal is selected for the MLLC hq.

Is there even any doubt at this point?

I hope this all hits at the same time. I'd like for the public to have to digest the endless backdoor, backroom subsidy of the Chipman's in light of what's being exposed over at CV.

Winnipeg Architect · #**5233** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Is there even any doubt at this point?

I hope this all hits at the same time. I'd like for the public to have to digest the endless backdoor, backroom subsidy of the Chipman's in light of what's being exposed over at CV.

When I went to CV last January or Feb 2014 for a meeting I could not believe how nice their new office is. Must have spent $500,000.00 or more on the renos. High rent as well in City Place. Wasteful spending.

They wanted to be beside the Shark Club and the Chipmans.

This relationship was no secret.................ever.

And they had no money to advertise in the Summer 2014 Style Magazine Exchange/Downtown Feature Article.

NUTZ

rrskylar · #**5234** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 4:36 AM**

So Centre Venture loans $1.4 million to Ledohowski (Canad Inns) so he can purchase a portion of two hotels, all interest free of course, and of course none of his own money was used for either transaction and half a million$ in legal fees was picked up on taxpayers dime.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/c...anad-inns-over-winnipeg-hotels-1.2919113

Is anything done in this city by politicians and their minions (Centre Venture) done above board?! Sounding more and more like the other old'boys club the former Winnipeg Enterprises.

Simplicity · #**5235** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 4:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So Centre Venture loans $1.4 million to Ledohowski (Canad Inns) so he can purchase a portion of two hotels, all interest free of course, and of course none of his own money was used for either transaction and half a million$ in legal fees was picked up on taxpayers dime.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/c...anad-inns-over-winnipeg-hotels-1.2919113

Is anything done in this city by politicians and their minions (Centre Venture) done above board?! Sounding more and more like the other old'boys club the former Winnipeg Enterprises.

Yeah, this is done to avoid the loss of the capital gains exemption that goes along with selling the building and not the entire hotel as a going concern. If the building is considered 'active' by virtue of CRA's definition, the capital gains exemption applies. That $1.4MM looks suspiciously like twice the capital gains exemption ($750K) which the owners wouldn't otherwise receive on the initial sale and what Canad Inns won't get when it sells the building to whomever ultimately tears it down, minus some legal fees.

In other words, if the building houses the business and forms part of the assets, it's considered active. If it's just real estate being leased out to another business entity (the new structure of the St. Regis deal), it would now be passive where it wouldn't be granted the capital gains exemption.

Centreventure is paying for that twice. Once to allow the owners to have sold the St Regis building (but not the business), and twice for when Ledohowski sells it. It wouldn't surprise me to know that the owners of the St. Regis paid the capital gains tax to CRA and were refunded by Canad Inns.

But I'm not a tax lawyer. I'd love to hear the breakdown of this from one though.

trueviking · #**5236** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 5:02 AM**

Make it stop. Please. Bowman and Matheison have some kind of task ahead.

There is another clusterf*ck on its way that I know of as well. Not sure when it will surface.

It's all truly unbelievable.

trueviking · #**5237** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 5:09 AM**

It makes no sense to me that they are tearing down two hotels and begging for a new hotel. They could have easily restored and redeveloped both into great boutique hotels at a fraction of the cost. We are so fixated on new everything.

1ajs · #**5238** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 5:11 AM**

think anyones going to wind up being arested in the long term?

1ajs · #**5239** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

Make it stop. Please. Bowman and Matheison have some kind of task ahead.

There is another clusterf*ck on its way that I know of as well. Not sure when it will surface.

It's all truly unbelievable.

100 main street?

Simplicity · #**5240** Posted **Jan 21, 2015, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

It makes no sense to me that they are tearing down two hotels and begging for a new hotel. They could have easily restored and redeveloped both into great boutique hotels at a fraction of the cost. We are so fixated on new everything.

The funding agreement said the hotel that services the convention centre has to be attached to it through a skywalk. That's part of the whole convention center play everywhere.