SkyCity Centre Winnipeg | 45F | 575 Ft | 175.26 M | Cancelled

[urbandreamer]

It's April Fool's day so buyer beware.

[windypeg]

I think we're all well aware that SkyCity is a little shaky but this constant spreading of unverified rumours from unnamed sources, and vague references to other undisclosed info is getting old. If you actually have some concrete evidence then by all means, have at it.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by windypeg

I think we're all well aware that SkyCity is a little shaky but this constant spreading of unverified rumours from unnamed sources, and vague references to other undisclosed info is getting old. If you actually have some concrete evidence then by all means, have at it.

That seems perfectly reasonable. Here you go, with citations:

- In 2015, Fortress informed CentreVenture that it will not be able to meet the construction deadline for a $14.5 million downtown housing-stimulus grant. The city refused to grant an extension.

- In March 2016, Fortress submitted a letter to the City of Winnipeg to warn the project was in jeopardy without the public money. According to Fortress, "To be clear, SkyCity Centre is not a feasible project without the [housing] program grant." The city refused to budge.

- As for NorthStarsProject besmirching their honesty toward buyers and tenants: SkyCity's termsheet (marketing materials) dated July 2016, was still telling potential buyers and tenants that the public funding was in place. That material remained online and in use until October 2016, when the CBC asked about the discrepancy.

- Though to be fair, they had distractions from other tenants and buyers in October. Like three proposed multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits over overvaluation of land used to back projects in Ontario. And Fortress's two executives, Rathore and Petrozza, had to pay $3M to "investor victims" of their former company. The settlement banned Rathore and Petrozza from trading in securities for 15 years, but allowed them to continue trading in mortgages. ​Rathore was also banned from selling mutual funds in 2005.

Hope This Helps!

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

That seems perfectly reasonable. Here you go, with citations:

- In 2015, Fortress informed CentreVenture that it will not be able to meet the construction deadline for a $14.5 million downtown housing-stimulus grant. The city refused to grant an extension.

- In March 2016, Fortress submitted a letter to the City of Winnipeg to warn the project was in jeopardy without the public money. According to Fortress, "To be clear, SkyCity Centre is not a feasible project without the [housing] program grant." The city refused to budge.

- As for NorthStarsProject besmirching their honesty toward buyers and tenants: SkyCity's termsheet (marketing materials) dated July 2016, was still telling potential buyers and tenants that the public funding was in place. That material remained online and in use until October 2016, when the CBC asked about the discrepancy.

- Though to be fair, they had distractions from other tenants and buyers in October. Like three proposed multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits over overvaluation of land used to back projects in Ontario. And Fortress's two executives, Rathore and Petrozza, had to pay $3M to "investor victims" of their former company. The settlement banned Rathore and Petrozza from trading in securities for 15 years, but allowed them to continue trading in mortgages. ​Rathore was also banned from selling mutual funds in 2005.

Hope This Helps!

All fake news, everything is fine with SkyCity, I'm sure it's 51% sold by now!

[trueviking]

Again. Sky City is not alone in its challenge meeting the deadlines for the grant program. In this market the timeline is difficult to meet. Many others face the issue.

Also. every single residential project has received the same grant over the last ten years, and none of them would have been viable without it. This is not unique to Sky City.

I'm not defending them but those two issues were poorly reported and should not be used as evidence that Sky City is not viable. It may not be but those reasons are not why.

[Finessing]

Heh, unfortunately I don't subscribe to the Globe and can't read the full article.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I'm not defending them but those two issues were poorly reported and should not be used as evidence that Sky City is not viable.

It's Fortress themselves who told the city that "To be clear, SkyCity Centre is not a feasible project without the [housing] program grant." It's hard to blame that direct quote on "poor reporting."

Should we not declare anything to the contrary to be, as windypeg says, "rumours from unnamed sources, and vague references to other undisclosed info?"

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Finessing

Heh, unfortunately I don't subscribe to the Globe and can't read the full article.

The article has just the one Fortress reference: "Fortress Real Developments, another firm involved in syndicated mortgages, is facing legal battles with some investors over developments that have run into delays or financial problems."

The article is about the problems of mortgage-investment corporations (MICs) in general.

[YWG-RO]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

The article has just the one Fortress reference: "Fortress Real Developments, another firm involved in syndicated mortgages, is facing legal battles with some investors over developments that have run into delays or financial problems."

The article is about the problems of mortgage-investment corporations (MICs) in general.

I still don't understand how these MICs are allowed. To me, it's too similar to a Ponzi Scheme. Great if you're first in; tough luck if you're late to the game and all the funding doesn't come through.

Buyer beware.

[NorthStarsProject]

I will have a major update in the next coming days.

Interesting story. Friend was at a downtown party Friday night at one of the hotels. A Sky City staffer was telling people that Sky City though there are skeptics including that person and many others part of the project still suggest that Sky City is s on schedule and expect a Spring start for construction.

A person quirked Spring started 2 weeks ago.

And the response was ''I didn't say what spring''




So that sums up what the level of enthusiasm is now amongst Sky City and others as they know the situation is not looking good and how these real estate folks like to throw terms out loosely just for the sake of making other people happy to get others all-in to their project.

[jmt18325]

That's not evidence. That's another unsourced rumour.

[DLLB]

Originally Posted by NorthStarsProject

I will have a major update in the next coming days.

Interesting story. Friend was at a downtown party Friday night at one of the hotels. A Sky City staffer was telling people that Sky City though there are skeptics including that person and many others part of the project still suggest that Sky City is s on schedule and expect a Spring start for construction.

A person quirked Spring started 2 weeks ago.

And the response was ''I didn't say what spring''


So that sums up what the level of enthusiasm is now amongst Sky City and others as they know the situation is not looking good and how these real estate folks like to throw terms out loosely just for the sake of making other people happy to get others all-in to their project.

After all the delays and controversy, I just don't see this ever happening.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Again. Sky City is not alone in its challenge meeting the deadlines for the grant program. In this market the timeline is difficult to meet. Many others face the issue.

Also. every single residential project has received the same grant over the last ten years, and none of them would have been viable without it. This is not unique to Sky City.

I'm not defending them but those two issues were poorly reported and should not be used as evidence that Sky City is not viable. It may not be but those reasons are not why.

The 2 condos on Waterfront that are for sale for over $1 million each received
a grant? And they would be unviable without the grant?

[Wolf13]

In slight defense of SkyCity, or perhaps just to provide context, I wouldn't consider them "liars" regarding their claims to locking down public money.

A process like qualifying for the tax abatement takes some time. By all accounts, it may have appeared, whether obviously qualifying for the criteria, or assured conversations with city reps, that there would be no issue. Based on what they'd known at the time, they may have been telling the complete truth.

However, it is not unlike politicians to seize moments to make examples of people. If for whatever reason somebody felt slighted by Rathore and Co., they could have just reversed their word on funding; perhaps SkyCity was told that they get an extension earlier, behind closed doors. It's no secret that Bowman probably "liked" a few larger projects, as he delayed the implementation of his development tax, gave TNS a ton of money, etc. Perhaps SkyCity, given its potential impact was assured that its construction timeline would be no issue.

Until someone got mad reversed their stance.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

A process like qualifying for the tax abatement takes some time.

This wasn't a case of a premature announcement based on an assumption that they'd get the grant. Nor was it merely a tax abatement; they wanted a grant, $14.5 million in public money.

They knew in 2015 that they wouldn't meet the deadline, and they were told in 2015 that the city wouldn't extend it. The grant remained in their marketing materials until October 2016, taken down only when the CBC pointed out the contradiction.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Based on what they'd known at the time, they may have been telling the complete truth.

So, much like how Fortress's executives paid a $3-million settlement to the Ontario Securities Commission to compensate "investor victims" of their former companies under Civil Remedies Act. They admitted that they contravened Ontario securities law and engaged in "conduct contrary to the public interest." The court noted that the $3 million "constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity," and will be used to compensate "victims of unlawful activity."  

When asked about the settlement by CBC News, Rathore said "There was no findings of guilt or wrongdoing or anything else like that, so we are happy to have made a settlement on that non-related business."

Sounds like they might have been "telling the complete truth based on what they'd known at the time" there too, and also in the other cases.

C'mon.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Until someone got mad reversed their stance.

The only thing we're seeing is that the city HASN'T reversed it's stance, and has simply stuck to the conditions of the funding when Fortress applied for it in April 2013.

[tree]

Is this thing even going to happen? They still show ads on Facebook for this stupid thing. If SkyCity isn't happening their social media team sure doesn't know that.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

This wasn't a case of a premature announcement based on an assumption that they'd get the grant. Nor was it merely a tax abatement; they wanted a grant, $14.5 million in public money.

They knew in 2015 that they wouldn't meet the deadline, and they were told in 2015 that the city wouldn't extend it. The grant remained in their marketing materials until October 2016, taken down only when the CBC pointed out the contradiction.


So, much like how Fortress's executives paid a $3-million settlement to the Ontario Securities Commission to compensate "investor victims" of their former companies under Civil Remedies Act. They admitted that they contravened Ontario securities law and engaged in "conduct contrary to the public interest." The court noted that the $3 million "constitutes proceeds of unlawful activity," and will be used to compensate "victims of unlawful activity."  

When asked about the settlement by CBC News, Rathore said "There was no findings of guilt or wrongdoing or anything else like that, so we are happy to have made a settlement on that non-related business."

Sounds like they might have been "telling the complete truth based on what they'd known at the time" there too, and also in the other cases.

C'mon.



The only thing we're seeing is that the city HASN'T reversed it's stance, and has simply stuck to the conditions of the funding when Fortress applied for it in April 2013.

That's the story the public is being told. I'm merely suggesting that conversations behind closed doors may have gone differently and provided the assurance needed to claim "secured" funding. In the past they may not have struggled to get these grants.

That said, they would obviously claim to have funding secured. I just don't know enough to call them liars on THAT front.

[NorthStarsProject]

Been told a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT has taken place with Sky City. Expect the major announcement in the next coming days.

[mitchellk12]

Originally Posted by NorthStarsProject

Been told a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT has taken place with Sky City. Expect the major announcement in the next coming days.

not at you...but at fortress lol

[Urban recluse]

Almost spit out coffee Hahahahahaha.