Regina | Capital Pointe | 29F | 11F | 91M | ?M | Cancelled - Page 161

Festivus · #**3201** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 1:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someguy

Because the vote was 6-5, that means council voted 5-5, then Masters made the final decision.

Does the mayor only vote to break a tie?

Draftsman · #**3202** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 2:29 PM**

Is there a need for parking in this area? So many people are working from home. I hope they don't spend tens of thousands of dollars electrifying the stalls, like Namarind did.

yveseluj · #**3203** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draftsman

Is there a need for parking in this area? So many people are working from home. I hope they don't spend tens of thousands of dollars electrifying the stalls, like Namarind did.

No, and most councilors agreed that they didn't like this, but a majority still voted for it.

LittleBoy · #**3204** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someguy

Because the vote was 6-5, that means council voted 5-5, then Masters made the final decision.

“I want to revitalize downtown and increase development in the area” and then this is her first action in office.

Really wish people wouldn’t have just voted for her because they disliked Fougere. It would appear that she is cut from the same cloth, all talk and no action.

HomeInMyShoes · #**3205** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 5:24 PM**

The city could really use the money, I'm surprised it was 6-5. I don't even drive downtown and I would have voted yes.

There is a difference between not liking something and being able to make a difficult choice. I hate all the parking downtown, but Regina has not come close to reaching the critical mass to have projects appear frequently. It doesn't mean that we aren't careful in how we develop and set guidelines, but this was a case where the existing structure probably wouldn't have been knocked down if the development plan wasn't there. Regina was not the only municipality to be sucked in by Fortress. The fact that council has decided to not lose more money on the lot is reasonable. Its not great, but I wouldn't have held it against Fougere if this happened with him either.

The Namerind and the lot on Hamilton are different. The one on Hamilton bugged me a lot because it affected parts of the most vulnerable population in Regina.

LittleBoy · #**3206** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

The city could really use the money, I'm surprised it was 6-5. I don't even drive downtown and I would have voted yes.

There is a difference between not liking something and being able to make a difficult choice. I hate all the parking downtown, but Regina has not come close to reaching the critical mass to have projects appear frequently. It doesn't mean that we aren't careful in how we develop and set guidelines, but this was a case where the existing structure probably wouldn't have been knocked down if the development plan wasn't there. Regina was not the only municipality to be sucked in by Fortress. The fact that council has decided to not lose more money on the lot is reasonable. Its not great, but I wouldn't have held it against Fougere if this happened with him either.

The Namerind and the lot on Hamilton are different. The one on Hamilton bugged me a lot because it affected parts of the most vulnerable population in Regina.

Yes, the city needs money. The sale of this lot will be a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. If you’re not willing to entertain reducing police or roadworks budgets (she isn’t) when we need money, you’re not focusing on the financial needs of the city, but rather protecting the perceived livability and accessibility of wealthy suburbanites.

Did we get absolutely screwed on the whole Capital Pointe fiasco? Definitely. But it’s also very irresponsible to make your decisions just aiming for a net zero on the site rather than the long term potential of the site.

one_brick_at_a_time · #**3207** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 7:04 PM**

I’ve heard that a mixed use project is planned for the Capital Pointe site (including a hotel) but they just need more time to get things in order (planning, financing). Crossing fingers that the parking lot won’t last long.

CCF · #**3208** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

The city could really use the money, I'm surprised it was 6-5. I don't even drive downtown and I would have voted yes.

There is a difference between not liking something and being able to make a difficult choice. I hate all the parking downtown, but Regina has not come close to reaching the critical mass to have projects appear frequently. It doesn't mean that we aren't careful in how we develop and set guidelines, but this was a case where the existing structure probably wouldn't have been knocked down if the development plan wasn't there. Regina was not the only municipality to be sucked in by Fortress. The fact that council has decided to not lose more money on the lot is reasonable. Its not great, but I wouldn't have held it against Fougere if this happened with him either.

The Namerind and the lot on Hamilton are different. The one on Hamilton bugged me a lot because it affected parts of the most vulnerable population in Regina.

It contravenes all policy. That should be reason enough that it shouldn't have passed.

pappcam · #**3209** Posted **Dec 3, 2020, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

I’ve heard that a mixed use project is planned for the Capital Pointe site (including a hotel) but they just need more time to get things in order (planning, financing). Crossing fingers that the parking lot won’t last long.

Is this post satire? lol

Kegger · #**3210** Posted **Dec 10, 2020, 4:32 AM**

https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/exec

The drama at this location feels like it will go on for decades at this rate.

HomeInMyShoes · #**3211** Posted **Dec 11, 2020, 5:11 PM**

Yeah, I read that.

The current developers were not the ones in arrears on the land, but the way things are done is if the previous owner never paid taxes and defaulted then the new owner gets to pay those taxes. Right now, the current developer is not asking for all of the outstanding tax to be written off, just some of it.

Sure this developer is getting away with something, but the only person who is going to pay that kind of money for that land would be the provincial government to build something the GTH in downtown Regina. Haha. I kid, but the point stands that no one is going to buy a piece of land when it's cost is close to 50% more than the going rate for land in the area.

Vacant lot for eternity until the city gets its act together and stomaches the tax loss. In this case the city would be getting 2.2million of the 2.9 owed. That would seem to me to be a pretty good deal, unless I am not reading something correctly in the article (highly probable.) I would hazard a better deal is not coming within thirty years.

Am I misreading something in the article?

one_brick_at_a_time · #**3212** Posted **Dec 11, 2020, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Yeah, I read that.

The current developers were not the ones in arrears on the land, but the way things are done is if the previous owner never paid taxes and defaulted then the new owner gets to pay those taxes. Right now, the current developer is not asking for all of the outstanding tax to be written off, just some of it.

Sure this developer is getting away with something, but the only person who is going to pay that kind of money for that land would be the provincial government to build something the GTH in downtown Regina. Haha. I kid, but the point stands that no one is going to buy a piece of land when it's cost is close to 50% more than the going rate for land in the area.

Vacant lot for eternity until the city gets its act together and stomaches the tax loss. In this case the city would be getting 2.2million of the 2.9 owed. That would seem to me to be a pretty good deal, unless I am not reading something correctly in the article (highly probable.) I would hazard a better deal is not coming within thirty years.

Am I misreading something in the article?

Is the city going to court to get the taxes owed from the failed Capital Pointe owner?

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**3213** Posted **Dec 11, 2020, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Yeah, I read that.

The current developers were not the ones in arrears on the land, but the way things are done is if the previous owner never paid taxes and defaulted then the new owner gets to pay those taxes. Right now, the current developer is not asking for all of the outstanding tax to be written off, just some of it.

Sure this developer is getting away with something, but the only person who is going to pay that kind of money for that land would be the provincial government to build something the GTH in downtown Regina. Haha. I kid, but the point stands that no one is going to buy a piece of land when it's cost is close to 50% more than the going rate for land in the area.

Vacant lot for eternity until the city gets its act together and stomaches the tax loss. In this case the city would be getting 2.2million of the 2.9 owed. That would seem to me to be a pretty good deal, unless I am not reading something correctly in the article (highly probable.) I would hazard a better deal is not coming within thirty years.

Am I misreading something in the article?

The city shouldn't take any of this loss.

If the vendors want to be rid of the liability they should lower the price even if that means going negative.

Tony Merchant doesn't deserve a break.

McBean · #**3214** Posted **Dec 12, 2020, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The city shouldn't take any of this loss.

If the vendors want to be rid of the liability they should lower the price even if that means going negative.

Tony Merchant doesn't deserve a break.

Agreed

Festivus · #**3215** Posted **Dec 13, 2020, 1:22 AM**

Since it's Tony, we should add another $750k just for kicks.

LittleBoy · #**3216** Posted **Dec 17, 2020, 6:30 PM**

https://regina.ctvnews.ca/mobile/cou...site-1.5235561

What are people’s thoughts on this approach? I personally really do not like the secrecy of this, and I fail to see why the developer needs to be so hush hush about their plans. Smells rotten.

jigglysquishy · #**3217** Posted **Dec 17, 2020, 6:33 PM**

The secrecy just leads further credence to the notion that nothing is going to be built.

StealthGirl · #**3218** Posted **Dec 18, 2020, 5:25 PM**

Regina city council rejects developers' request for $700K tax pardon on former Capital Pointe site

StealthGirl · #**3219** Posted **Dec 19, 2020, 12:55 AM**

I think this shows that our newly elected council just might be bringing some new ideas and perspectives to this city. I was happy to see they took admin's recommendation and declined to waive the 700K.

McBean · #**3220** Posted **Dec 19, 2020, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

I think this shows that our newly elected council just might be bringing some new ideas and perspectives to this city. I was happy to see they took admin's recommendation and declined to waive the 700K.

I was very happy to see this new Admin reject that $700k waiver Friday. Good start for this council in Regina.