Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 278

CoryB · #**5541** Posted **Mar 9, 2015, 9:02 PM**

The part I love most about that Kickstarter was the "goal" is listed as $30,000

pegcityfan · #**5542** Posted **Mar 9, 2015, 10:17 PM**

Dreamscape failed vision:

bomberjet · #**5543** Posted **Mar 9, 2015, 10:20 PM**

I'm pretty sure the Simpsons have an episode plot that fits about 99.9% of situations. Mid-late 90's are the best.

rrskylar · #**5544** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 3:32 PM**

Lets rename this city Incompetence already! Does this city not pay their legal team enough or what?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/c...land-it-sold-off-inadvertently-1.2987922

esquire · #**5545** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Lets rename this city Incompetence already! Does this city not pay their legal team enough or what?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/c...land-it-sold-off-inadvertently-1.2987922

It's OK, I'm sure Shindico will be richly compensated for the inconvenience this causes them.

rrskylar · #**5546** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It's OK, I'm sure Shindico will be richly compensated for the inconvenience this causes them.

No doubt, anyone who still admits voting for Katz put up their hand!

PS remember when some in the media were even calling him a saviour shortly after he was elected!

Biff · #**5547** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 3:51 PM**

This all sounds like a planned kickback scheme. The City should have known before selling property (Polo Park, Fire hall, Parker Lands etc) if there would be a need in the immediate future to acquire back portions of the property for City services. It takes months and years to come up with these plans like roadwork or retention ponds. It all seems too convenient on the sale of property to turn around and say, oops we need some back now....

bomberjet · #**5548** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 3:57 PM**

That article doesn't say anything. The Cities a shit show, no doubt. But most of the land to be expropriated has to do with the St. Matthew's extension/connection. I'm guessing they need some strips of land back along St. James and St. Matthew's from the stadium site? Whoopty do. Things get blown out of proportion. Also I believe the Polo Park road works came about after the stadium was sale was completed.

steveosnyder · #**5549** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Lets rename this city Incompetence already! Does this city not pay their legal team enough or what?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/c...land-it-sold-off-inadvertently-1.2987922

The whole legal team is working in a different department to ensure vacancy management numbers get reached. Lawyers can do anything (this is meant to include a bit of sarcasm), so they put them in all the Directors/Officer positions when someone "retires".

rrskylar · #**5550** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That article doesn't say anything. The Cities a shit show, no doubt. But most of the land to be expropriated has to do with the St. Matthew's extension/connection. I'm guessing they need some strips of land back along St. James and St. Matthew's from the stadium site? Whoopty do. Things get blown out of proportion. Also I believe the Polo Park road works came about after the stadium was sale was completed.

So it's just an oversight even though the cities done about 19 studies on the transportation mess around Polo Park.

bomberjet · #**5551** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 4:39 PM**

As far as I know they've done one study recently. Either way, I don't care. The press is just having a field day with every thing the City does now. No matter how small the issue.

Same goes for the Parker land swap. Part of the deal was they would purchase any land back they required at the same market price as 2009. GEM doesn't like that or course, but sounds like it was agreed upon. So is there really a huge issue in that?

Simplicity · #**5552** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

As far as I know they've done one study recently. Either way, I don't care. The press is just having a field day with every thing the City does now. No matter how small the issue.

Same goes for the Parker land swap. Part of the deal was they would purchase any land back they required at the same market price as 2009. GEM doesn't like that or course, but sounds like it was agreed upon. So is there really a huge issue in that?

You can pay anybody to screw something up repeatedly. The real niggling aspect to running an enterprise is hiring somebody who doesn't repeatedly screw things up. Just like if you repeatedly screwed up and told your boss it was no big deal, you'd rightfully be unemployed. It may not be your money, but it's somebody's.

19 acres in the Parker wetlands is not an oversight - it's just negligence. When you sell things without a plan, it's exactly what happens. On the other hand, if you planned and then sold, you may actually know what you require saving yourself protracted and hugely expensive expropriation processes. And, as a bonus, you wouldn't look like a bumbling fool wandering through land and transit development backwards with your feet tied together.

This sort of incompetence wouldn't be accepted in the private sector and it shouldn't be accepted in the public one either.

bomberjet · #**5553** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 5:36 PM**

Welcome back.

You're right, and I'm not just bending over and accepting it. But I'm saying the press is blowing everything out of proportion these days. I don't mind that the press is actually doing some work. But they're on a witch hunt for everything the City does. They do actually do some things right. Large projects have been the issue lately.

That CBC article on the Polo Park thing provided zero actual information on the issue. Except for a 98 court document which didn't exactly say how much land it was from what I read (skimmed it, no time to read it). If they would say in the article what land and how much land. How much did the City sell it for and how much is it going to cost to get it back (said the land ahas not been valued yet). Then maybe we can discuss if it's actually a huge issue. From what I seen, the City has some pissed of property owners on the west side of St. James and are hung up in expropriations there.

Riverman · #**5554** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Welcome back.

esquire · #**5555** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 6:10 PM**

^ I second that

For what it's worth, reporters and opposition parties are ALWAYS in favour of audit reports for just about anything since it gives the former an easy story to milk for weeks, and the latter some political ammunition to use against the government.

Simplicity · #**5556** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I second that

For what it's worth, reporters and opposition parties are ALWAYS in favour of audit reports for just about anything since it gives the former an easy story to milk for weeks, and the latter some political ammunition to use against the government.

Yeah, the failure is really at the planning stages. Regardless of the outcome or the size of what's in play, the issue is that the city's administration is failing to properly plan their steps; they're nearly always reacting to something they call unforeseen because they didn't take any steps to foresee anything. So while the media might be blowing things out of proportion based on something small in this case, they're right to harp on the lack of processes that nearly always result in the same ham-handed appearance of conduct.

We wouldn't need audits if it was clear cut the issue was beyond the city's control. But just as an example, in the case of the Parker wetlands, the land was sold as TOD lands. So they knew what they were planning around. And it's been longer than 50 years that the Calrossie/Cockburn drainage issue has been at play. Why there wouldn't have been a master plan including both of these proposals in advance of selling off 'surplus' lands can only be ascribed to negligence, ignorance, or malfeasance, none better than the other.

Labroco · #**5557** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 8:23 PM**

Welcome back Simplicity...

yellowghost · #**5558** Posted **Mar 11, 2015, 12:20 AM**

Is there anyway to accurately guess how much this city has spent on "traffic studies"? And why can't the city just find a competant crew to simply spend a day or two in the area and observe the situation and find a solution?

cllew · #**5559** Posted **Mar 11, 2015, 12:37 AM**

The Calrossie sewer district at one point was being investigated for inline underground storage, they had two or three city owned sites identified.

I don't know what killed that (cost?) and the focus shifted to a retention pond on the Parker land site

Tacheguy · #**5560** Posted **Mar 11, 2015, 1:01 AM**

Nice to see you back Simplicity. Wonder if you saw the Free Press article on the redevelopment of the Galpern building, and what your take is on it?