New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The six councillors who voted against the postponement included councilors Jeff Davison, Jyoti Gondek, Ray Jones, Joe Magliocca, Ward Sutherland and Sean Chu — the majority of whom are on the record as supporting the most recent proposal.

Looks like the Jay Westman slate!

In all honesty, given that the billionaire owners are looking for a reported $750M to sell the flames, you'd think they'd be okay to put in a better contribution amount so that they can subsequently sell out.

[Rollerstud98]

Source for your bullshit? Fuckin bottom feeding troll suburbia.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Source for your bullshit? Fuckin bottom feeding troll suburbia.

I was tempted to ask the same thing but he'll wait and then come back with a series of links from a few years ago when there were rumors of the Flames moving to Houston. If a new arena is a license to print money for the owners why would they want to sell the team after getting a deal to build one? Suburbia's in such a tizzy trying to discredit anything conservative that he can't keep track of his own bullshit. He either needs to be banned or at least suspended until after the federal election.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Source for your bullshit?

An NDA is in place. Cannot say more.

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Fuckin bottom feeding troll suburbia.

This type of belligerence is disgusting and this type of crude language unacceptable.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

An NDA is in place. Cannot say more.



This type of belligerence is disgusting and this type of crude language unacceptable.

An NDA that you just happened to have seen? You seem to have inside knowledge about everything happening in this country. If stopped trolling us constantly then maybe people wouldn't tell you to fuck off.

[MacLac]

Originally Posted by suburbia

An NDA is in place. Cannot say more.



This type of belligerence is disgusting and this type of crude language unacceptable.

Heard the same thing....it was signed in May last year....

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by suburbia

An NDA is in place. Cannot say more.



This type of belligerence is disgusting and this type of crude language unacceptable.

Normally yes, but not when it is so accurate. Your construction mafia, Cal Wenzel, Jay Westman bullshit is so annoying. It makes everybody dumber just for reading it.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Your construction mafia, Cal Wenzel, Jay Westman bullshit is so annoying. It makes everybody dumber just for reading it.

What are you talking about exactly? That fact that the Jay Westman slate, which he e-mailed out to all his staff, friends, contractors and subcontractors, all votes together in a block? If you cannot see this, it begs the question if you are being even-keeled.

If knowledge makes you feel dumber, you have a problem my friend. There are numbers you can call.

[suburbia]

Update on a tangential project in Ottawa ...

Many of you will recall that the Ottawa Senators' owner's plan to plunk a new arena in prime nations capital land using a scheme where a developer and the city would end up paying full price for his team's arena had fallen through. Eugene Melnyk, the Sens owner, also happens to be owner of Calgary's International Hotel, purchased from one of the Flames Billionaires.

Anyway, the national capital commission has made the correct decision to go ahead and look for proposals to develop that prime land without Melnyk being a part of it. In the mean time, the Sens owner and the developer are suing each other for about $1.7B. Good reason not to have an NHL owner as part of your development!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...d-on-lebreton/

“We recognize that we need to move ahead with this project regardless if there is a major events centre or an arena there,” National Capital Commission CEO Tobi Nussbaum told reporters Thursday.

“This is an important site and we feel the conditions are such that we can succeed without (an arena). That said, we’ve learned that there were some wonderful capital-building elements that we saw in the previous process, and we’re determined to maintain that sense of vision, of ambition, of boldness.”
<>
The Ottawa Senators’ owner, Eugene Melnyk, had joined with land developer John Ruddy to come up with a $4.1-billion plan for the federal land that included a new hockey arena, but the partnership soured and finally ended last week after weeks of mediation talks led by a retired judge.

Both partners have launched lawsuits against one another, claiming more than $1.7-billion in damages between them.

[craner]

craner
If the City is going to spend north of $400 million on a field house and BMO with or without an Olympics bid, why not try to get an additional $2.2 Billion from the other two levels of goverment to upgrade the other Olympic facilities ?
As I said, I don't see a downside.

A lot of people in Calgary complain that we send so much $$ to Edmonton & Ottawa and never get our fair share back. Here is a chance to get $2.2B back.

With the announcement this week that the City is funding 4 projects I thought I would re-post this made during the Olympics debate.

[milomilo]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but people didn't trust the city and bid corporation, and don't like the IOC. Sure we might have got extra money from the government, but it's a virtual guarantee that the Olympics will go over budget, and we'd have spent extra money on an Olympics people didn't want. A bargain basement Olympics, for that matter, that no one could get excited about.

I also expect many people care far more about the arena that wasn't funded in the bid to than the other projects that were.

[MalcolmTucker]

“but it's a virtual guarantee that the Olympics will go over budget”

But what goes over budget is the capital projects, and if we are going to build the capital projects anyways...

And the arena was funded in the bid, just officially since a deal wasn’t signed, couldn’t say it. The exact same situation we are in right now with an arena deal popping up would have happened had the bid been going forward.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

“but it's a virtual guarantee that the Olympics will go over budget”

But what goes over budget is the capital projects, and if we are going to build the capital projects anyways...

And the arena was funded in the bid, just officially since a deal wasn’t signed, couldn’t say it. The exact same situation we are in right now with an arena deal popping up would have happened had the bid been going forward.

The security costs would have gone way over budget. They were really lowballed in the bid.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by rotten42

The security costs would have gone way over budget. They were really lowballed in the bid.

When the security agencies revise down their budget, when they know they could have kept the original one, that signals that they have a high degree of confidence in their proposal. Also, all the budget lines had huge contingencies built in.



Anyways, not to relitigate, but the complaints about the Olympics were mostly about trust on the government to properly manage large projects. Now we are delivering largely the same large projects, without an extra special pot of money, suddenly there is trust in the government's ability to deliver the projects? I just don't get the cognitive dissonance going on.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

... the complaints about the Olympics were mostly about trust on the government to properly manage large projects. Now we are delivering largely the same large projects, without an extra special pot of money, suddenly there is trust in the government's ability to deliver the projects? I just don't get the cognitive dissonance going on.

The arguments against the Olympics were nonsensical, and were based instead on the UCP and their minions looking to capitalize on ensuring our city was not successful. If you look down the list even on this forum of those who vehemently opposed this city getting a massive infusion of external dollars for the Olympics, they are the same ones now pumping for city dollars to go towards a new arena. It is a real shame, but at least we have the ability to review and analyze, and call out this sad gamesmanship.

You're bang on MalcolmTucker.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The arguments against the Olympics were nonsensical, and were based instead on the UCP and their minions looking to capitalize on ensuring our city was not successful. If you look down the list even on this forum of those who vehemently opposed this city getting a massive infusion of external dollars for the Olympics, they are the same ones now pumping for city dollars to go towards a new arena. It is a real shame, but at least we have the ability to review and analyze, and call out this sad gamesmanship.

You're bang on MalcolmTucker.

You've clearly jumped the shark with this one.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

When the security agencies revise down their budget, when they know they could have kept the original one, that signals that they have a high degree of confidence in their proposal. Also, all the budget lines had huge contingencies built in.



Anyways, not to relitigate, but the complaints about the Olympics were mostly about trust on the government to properly manage large projects. Now we are delivering largely the same large projects, without an extra special pot of money, suddenly there is trust in the government's ability to deliver the projects? I just don't get the cognitive dissonance going on.

Are all the capital projects we would have built for the Olympics the same as the ones we will build without it? Sure, we would have got more stuff paid for, but was it stuff we actually need or want? Who knows? The people definitely didn't, given the terrible presentation given by those promoting the Olympics.

You're not wrong that we would be in the same situation with the arena, but the people voted with the knowledge they we're given. They had the choice to spend lots of city money on an uninspiring Olympics which didn't include the one thing many of them actually wanted.

If you're going to give the people the right to make a decision, they have to be given all the information. And since the information they were given was so untrustworthy (oh we don't have enough money? No problem we'll just change the price!) and incomplete, it's no surprise they voted it down. Even though I actually voted yes, I'm pretty happy with a no vote, especially after the over the top reaction of the yes side once it was rejected.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The arguments against the Olympics were nonsensical, and were based instead on the UCP and their minions looking to capitalize on ensuring our city was not successful. If you look down the list even on this forum of those who vehemently opposed this city getting a massive infusion of external dollars for the Olympics, they are the same ones now pumping for city dollars to go towards a new arena. It is a real shame, but at least we have the ability to review and analyze, and call out this sad gamesmanship.

You're bang on MalcolmTucker.

Aside from the ridiculousness of the rest of this post, I'd love to see your analysis of the bolded.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Are all the capital projects we would have built for the Olympics the same as the ones we will build without it? Sure, we would have got more stuff paid for, but was it stuff we actually need or want? Who knows?

Over 1200 low income housing units, field house, modernizing of legacy Olympic venues (such as the bobsleigh track that has since announced it will be boarding up), BMO events centre, etc.

BTW - I acknowledge you are not a UCP minion. I shouldn't be categorical with my statements.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Anyways, not to relitigate, but the complaints about the Olympics were mostly about trust on the government to properly manage large projects. Now we are delivering largely the same large projects, without an extra special pot of money, suddenly there is trust in the government's ability to deliver the projects? I just don't get the cognitive dissonance going on.

Who's to say that we trust the government to build large projects now? If we are going to be spending money on an arena, then absolutely I'd rather any risk of cost over run would be covered by the private sector and not by the City.

I think it's fair to say that an arena has lower risk of cost over run than an Olympics also. Not only is it a less complicated project, but there is not the same time constraint. An Olympics absolutely must be completed by a certain date, no matter the cost, whereas if there are delays on an arena, it's not as big of a deal.