Quote:
Originally Posted by pspeid
There seem to be developers who are quite able to work with CV and follow their guidelines to get structures built that meet CV's goals of developing the downtown with an eye towards public as well as private benefits.
I wonder how many fly-by-night "developers" have come to CV with pretty renderings of their proposals and oodles of "guarantees" that yes, by jove we have the money and we'll definitely build this wonderful structure, only to turn around and say "oopsie, we don't actually have the "money", but we could build this scaled down thingie that doesn't meet CV's mandate"?
I believe the proper parlance is "bait & switch", and I would not be surprised to find out there is a cadre of "developers" who look at public funding for projects, lick their lips and start counting their profits, all due to their conviction that fooling the ignorant slobs at CV will be like taking candy from a baby.
My impression of CV is that their "caveat" is the core reason for their existence. I think any organization can encourage "development" by offing buckets of public money with no rules as to how it gets used. Fortunately, CV's mandate is to encourage development that actually benefits the downtown and the city overall, not just the pockets of developers.
|
As the former chair of CV for 8 years, I can tell you that no developers bait and switch them. They do significant amounts of research and have a deep understanding of the development players and landscape. They always protect themselves with hard deadlines and buy back clauses.
They also don’t have buckets of money to give developers. The do sometimes administer TIF programs for the city. They have a bit of heritage money. But they don’t give money directly to developers as a rule.
There is always another side to the story. The Mayor at the time ordered CV to purchase the St. Regis and Carlton Hotels under pressure from True North after the Jets came back and the SHED District was being implemented. Both were significant hotbeds of crime. Closing them was an effort to improve the area. Obviously this is flawed because it just moves the problem and doesn’t fix it, but the immediate goal was to improve the area and to amalgamate land for True North Square.
The Carlton became part of that development but there is no stampede of developers for the St Regis site. One did come forward. They were not well regarded by CV so they created several backstops to the process. They forced the developer to do the remediation and demolition. They had a buy back clause with a penalty if the development didn’t happen within certain timelines. In the end CV made money on it and got the demo for free. The second scheme was similar. CV was careful with the developer because they knew the proposal was a long shot. It again failed but CV and the city were protected. Hopefully at some point a developer comes forward but CV can not be blamed for both buying the hotel and the lack of desirability of the site.
The waterfront sliver mentioned above is similar. If I recall correctly, a neighbouring property owner wanted the site for parking. CV said no.
The Duncan property is not being held up by government red tape as the poster likes to opine. He has always had a grudge against CV (and they against him) so don’t take his theories as truth. It is not a desirable site. The Calgary company that built The Bend had an option on it but after completing their first project, better understood the challenges of the area and walked away. CV doesn’t own it. They have tried to use their platform to help the private owner market and find private developers for it. The property owner set the price.
Prev
Hybrid Mode