Calgary Construction XXVI - Page 176

milomilo · #**3501** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

This is not connected to CSEC.

I have to side with suburbia here, how could it not involve CSEC? They're not going to sit idly by while their property, The Stampeders, is moved around.

I'm intrigued the stooge Bill Smith has popped up again. What is his actual job?

topdog · #**3502** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rotten42

Don'tt forget the construction mafia. Cal Wenzel is lurking!!!!!!

lol. Forgot about the construction mafia.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

topdog · #**3503** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:12 PM**

Definitely, and I bet the construction mafia is also behind it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's part of Post Media's strategy. If they mentioned the discussions between Smith and the Flames, it would be seen as more negative. The Stampeder Owners cannot not be part of this discussion. The fact they are not mentioned by Post Media (surprise surprise) is a hallmark of cherry picking biased media.

Can you tell me in what universe a professional sports franchise would not be part of an article about a new arena / stadium for their team? It can only be explained by the fact that Post Media ownership is part of the Flames billionaires network (which includes developers and home builders for the most part). Think about it. Would any article about a new Flames arena make sense without the Flames owners? If that were pushed by someone, say Smith, any legit and unbiased news organization would ask that question and then independently approach the owners with questions IE what are you putting into this. This proposal actually reminds me of the Ottawa proposal for a new arena in downtown (which just broke down a few months ago, because the developer in that case revealed that in effect, the owner of the franchise that would most benefit from a new arena basically wanted the city and the developer to pay for their arena, and wanted to contribute zero themselves). The Ottawa owner and Flames ownership are business partners and so am not surprised of the same thing proposed here.

Still, like I said earlier, I'm curious about this and feel it has more potential than the west village proposal.

As a reminder of the parallel project in Ottawa that broke down, here is what I had shared on that earlier:

Now clearly, the Flames have learned something from the failed Ottawa experience. Here they have put up a front man - Bill Smith - and are doing things in a fashion that almost makes them invisible.

Suburgatory · #**3504** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I have to side with suburbia here, how could it not involve CSEC? They're not going to sit idly by while their property, The Stampeders, is moved around.

I'm intrigued the stooge Bill Smith has popped up again. What is his actual job?

CSEC doesn't own McMahon either so it's not improbable that a couple of PBA guys came up with this idea a few days ago and hacked this together. There's no evidence in this that any of the affected parties have been included yet. They could just be out on a very very long limb hoping that if the City allowed this plan to proceed, CSEC would have no choice but to let the Stampeders play in their building.

Or you're right and CSEC is secretly behind this whole thing in effort to get the field house funding put towards a new stadium just like they did with CalgaryNext.

topdog · #**3505** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I have to side with suburbia here, how could it not involve CSEC? They're not going to sit idly by while their property, The Stampeders, is moved around.

I'm intrigued the stooge Bill Smith has popped up again. What is his actual job?

CSEC has nothing to do with McMahon other than renting the stadium.

suburbia · #**3506** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by topdog

CSEC has nothing to do with McMahon other than renting the stadium.

Same as their relationship with the Saddledome. They want a fantastic venue so they can make more money, and they want the citizens of Calgary to pay for it. They'll corndogger you if they can.

What would the value be of all that prime land (athletic park area as well as very prominent south end of the massive plot), which undoubtedly the deal stipulates will be given up for free?

dg66 · #**3507** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by topdog

Definitely, and I bet the construction mafia is also behind it.

dg66 · #**3508** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:53 PM**

Thanks for getting these. It doesn’t look like much has changed since the last pics. Anyone know what’s happening behaviour bd the white tarp?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemon

Large mansion

milomilo · #**3509** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Or you're right and CSEC is secretly behind this whole thing in effort to get the field house funding put towards a new stadium just like they did with CalgaryNext.

Woah, woah, I never went that far. Just saying that it seems likely CSEC would at least know about this, but even if they didn't until now I'm sure they are going to have an opinion on it.

I also have 'nothing to do' with a certain house. Other than the fact I rent it and live in it, which makes it fairly important to me and I'd have fairly strong opinions on whether I would want to keep paying rent if the owner decided to demolish it.

Deepstar · #**3510** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 8:08 PM**

So what if the Stamps have an opinion on it? Everyone and their dog is entitled to an opinion. Nothing in the article makes it look like they’re part of the ‘conspiracy’.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Woah, woah, I never went that far. Just saying that it seems likely CSEC would at least know about this, but even if they didn't until now I'm sure they are going to have an opinion on it.

I also have 'nothing to do' with a certain house. Other than the fact I rent it and live in it, which makes it fairly important to me and I'd have fairly strong opinions on whether I would want to keep paying rent if the owner decided to demolish it.

Deepstar · #**3511** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 8:09 PM**

Ps, you forgot to mention PPAlands. Apparently they’re part of the conspiracy also. Lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by topdog

lol. Forgot about the construction mafia.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Suburgatory · #**3512** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg66

Thanks for getting these. It doesn’t look like much has changed since the last pics. Anyone know what’s happening behaviour bd the white tarp?

Some type of stone work.

suburbia · #**3513** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Ps, you forgot to mention PPAlands. Apparently they’re part of the conspiracy also.

PBA's role would be similar to that of Trinity Development in the Ottawa scenario that went south once the sports team's owner started squeezing everyone's peanuts ...

https://ottawacitizen.com/business/local...r-eugene-melnyk-and-developer-john-ruddy

Quote:

Ruddy asserts, “Melnyk’s true aim is to have the City of Ottawa and Trinity fund and build the $500 million U.S. ($675 million Cdn.) event centre for the Ottawa Senators hockey, with the Senators getting 30 years free rent."

Basically how it will work is this. City give up Burns stadium (which will not be replaced), the land it sits on, and the lands currently occupied by the Foothills track. The city also contributed several hundred million - some level higher than the $200M that was unfunded for the stand-alone field house). City give up other dollars, such as taxes that would normally have paid for things like roads and utilities required for the stadium. Then, City give up the south portion of the very high value lands to the developer, to build on. For this the city gets a stadium that must be rented to the Flames Billionaires for free. The developer will also be squeezed to fund any parts of the construction the city does not cover, and in return, the middlemen squeeze the City to release the developer the high priced lands.

In my opinion, giving up the $200M that would have built a stand alone field house is okay, if the funds are matched by the Stamps ownership. Giving up burns stadium without a replacement is okay. Giving up lands that Burns sits on as well as the Foothills track is okay. These things cumulatively are of massive value. That land is very highly valued.

Giving up any more than $200M is not okay. Giving up taxes on the facility is not okay. Providing prime free land to the developer is not okay.

Smith will say that the developments will generate tax revenue, but that is neither here nor there as tax dollars would be required to facilitate those buildings and manage roads for it and get the utilities done, etc. It doesn't subsidize anything.

Suburgatory · #**3514** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 10:04 PM**

Pba

milomilo · #**3515** Posted **Jan 29, 2019, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepstar

So what if the Stamps have an opinion on it? Everyone and their dog is entitled to an opinion. Nothing in the article makes it look like they’re part of the ‘conspiracy’.

I'm not claiming any conspiracy here but it is pretty obvious that the owners of one of the primary users of that facility are going to have some major input on what happens to it. It's not like they can just go lease another stadium.