CFL in Ottawa: Ottawa RedBlacks - Page 2

isaidso · #21 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 5:12 AM**

How do you spell dysfunctional? O-t-t-a-w-a C-i-t-y C-o-u-n-c-i-l

Both groups have a reason to be frustrated. City council had 2 proposals before them. They were asked to pick one. That they weren't capable of this basic task sends a very worrisome message about doing business in Ottawa.

Ottawa has been presented with an opportunity to develop key city infrastructure, but city council seem ill equipped to process the information put forth. This isn't a transit or stadium proposition. It's not a $100 million liability for the city either. Some of the comments being made by council suggest a shocking level of incompetence in this important branch of government.

If I were a business owner thinking of expanding to Ottawa, this would give me great reason to reconsider. Ottawa, the city that can't? It's the good people of Ottawa that will suffer in the end, but not over this one issue. It points to a deeper problem; Ottawa City Council are stuck in neutral. They don't seem able to get it done, so should make way for people that can.

YOWflier · #22 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 1:08 PM**

^ This is nothing new for Ottawa. It's business as usual on Laurier Ave.

See my post in the MLS thread advising Melnyk not to waste any more time and money in this town. The same advice goes for Hunt et al.

isaidso · #23 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 2:32 PM**

I've always had it stuck in my head that Ottawa was this bastion of sophistication and worldly people. I viewed it as a magnet for intellectuals and academics due to its status as a national capital. I've spent about 10 hours in Ottawa in total so I just assumed it was filled with people like in London or Washington.

All the indications and commentary regarding Ottawa over the last year has led me to conclude quite the opposite. My bubble has been burst. Have all these years as a capital not produced better than this? Good grief!

lrt's friend · #24 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 4:01 PM**

Exciting cities getting exciting things done depends on visionary entrepreneurs. Capital cities further depend on a federal government who specifically wish to portray them as world class so that their nation's population can take enormous pride in their capital. Unfortunately, Ottawa loses out on both accounts. Ottawa has mostly been dominated by a bureaucratic class trained to study and restudy instead of taking action. The Canadian federal government has also been inconsistent in developing the city in a manner that the whole country can take pride. This is a reflection of the regional nature of Canadian politics, which has resulted in federal politicians trying to deflect blame onto 'Ottawa' for its unpopular actions. It is 'Ottawa' that is doing this or that, trying to get away from having it pinned entirely on the Conservative or Liberal government. This all results in mixed reaction towards the city from the nation's population that further discourages the federal government from wanting to make it great. Then you have the federal ownership of land and their own planning processes which are often at odds with the city. The result is a city that can't make decisions, dependant on the federal government, which only has a lukewarm desire to make it great.

YOWflier · #25 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 4:13 PM**

^ And here we have two separate sets of visionary entrepeneurs who want to invest in our city, and our civic leaders have effectively told them BOTH to piss off.

And you place no blame on those who actually deserve it. The absolute ineptitude of our civic leaders, from the mayor down to the councillors down to city management, is to blame for the sad state of affairs in this town.

Great cities don't miraculously develop themselves. Hopefully the general population will some day realize that apatheticness toward civic affairs and civic government is no way to build a city they can be proud of.

TransitZilla · #26 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I was a season ticket holder for Rough Riders and Renegades. I never had a problem getting to Lansdowne Park and I always looked forward to the walk before and after the game to where my car was parked. The best experience of all was for the last Grey Cup and the transit setup was excellent. It was fast and efficient.

On the other hand, going to Scotiabank Place is always a pain. I takes so long to get there and back, the traffic is almost always lousy, and for the privilege of getting trapped in one of those parking lots, you have to pay a large fee. I have tried all sorts of alternatives, whether OC Transpo or restaurant shuttles and the experience is no better.

So much for the "small bore local road network" that always worked better for me when compared to the disaster of trying to use the Queensway to Scotiabank Place.

The atmosphere around Lansdowne Park is also far better and it provides a great walking environment. Imagine a Grey Cup victory by the local team at Lansdowne Park versus a Stanley Cup victory at Scotiabank Place. That says it all.

Remember the Red Mile from 2007 and having to locate it half way across the city from where the games were actually taking place. It would have been nice to have those actually attending the games being able to participate in the Red Mile events following a team victory.

Totally agree.

Even though the #402 from South Keys to SBP worked out well the last time I used it, having to bus or drive across town to join in the post-victory celebrations really SUCKS.

lrt's friend · #27 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac888yow

^ And here we have two separate sets of visionary entrepeneurs who want to invest in our city, and our civic leaders have effectively told them BOTH to piss off.

And you place no blame on those who actually deserve it. The absolute ineptitude of our civic leaders, from the mayor down to the councillors down to city management, is to blame for the sad state of affairs in this town.

Great cities don't miraculously develop themselves. Hopefully the general population will some day realize that apatheticness toward civic affairs and civic government is no way to build a city they can be proud of.

Ah, but the allure of 'zero means zero' appeals to the cheapskate in all of us. Doesn't this kind of thinking make every project seem like a waste of tax money especially when the time comes to actually spend the money? The entrepreneurs have done something very dangerous by pushing for a fast decision to spend money, and we are now seeing the results. 'Zero means zero', absolutely not.

Bob Chiarelli may have been far from a great orator, but at least he had a grand vision for transit, intensification and planning in this city and he wasn't afraid to push it forward. The problem, we didn't want him to actually be able to leave a visible 'legacy' to this city, which so many considered a monument to himself. Isn't that a pathetic way of looking at things, and yet, so many voters look down at a politician who might leave something tangible for the future. The question, why would anybody else with a grand vision want to run for office when so many are very petty?

jitterbug · #28 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 7:34 PM**

While I can understand the frustration of many folks on this board, it's also important to consider the ramifications of making a snap decision on such an important issue. A mistake now will be one that Ottawans will have to live with for decades - like the Palladium mistake (and yes, it was a mistake) of 10 years ago.

While I favour the Lansdowne proposal, it's far from perfect and the City should play hardball with the developers to ensure WE the Citizens of Ottawa get a good deal (for example, not being stuck with costly renovations of ageing buildings 30 years from now). One thing we should avoid is being bamboozled by private land developers who, at the end of the day, are only interested in making money for themselves. City councillors, on the other hand, are supposed to balance city priorities and make informed decisions in the interest of the common good. And if a pro-sports stadium doesn't make it on the list, well, maybe the rest of us need to move on as well. As for the developers leading the two competing proposals, they won't be happy but that doesn't mean they'll quit Ottawa. There's lots of land out there waiting to be developed and money to be made.

As for the Kanata proposal, I believe it's already dead. Melnyk and Leeder should lick their wounds and focus on developing their land without the help of public money to build a stadium that no one really wants or needs.

waterloowarrior · #29 Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 7:57 PM**

I don't think we should be limited to these two options... it's our money that's paying for the stadiums, not Melynk or the other ownership group.. if we think we need to build a stadium to replace Lansdowne it should be on our terms. If they want to build a stadium for their team, why aren't they putting up more money? MLSE paid for almost 1/3 of their field; Whitecaps were planning to pay $70 million for theirs all privately funded IIRC (although now they are going to be at GM Place at least for the first while). Most MLS stadiums (at least in this report) are at least 50% privately funded, many are funded 100% from private sources.

The way I see it:

Kanata: Taxpayers pay $100 million, Melnyk builds a mixed use area that was already allowed and planned for, and that he probably was going to build anyways, and gets a free stadium for his team that's better than the Toronto FC's BMO Field, the proposed Whitecaps Stadium, and the Impact's stadium (and he pays less than them). We are still left with the Lansdowne/Civic Centre problem and we have a huge stadium far from most of the city that we need to fill (only 16 home games per year in the MLS, events can't happen in SBP and the soccer stadium at the same time)

Lansdowne: Taxpayers pay $100 million plus all the amenities, extra civic facilities, parking garage etc; developers skip the competitive bidding process and get to build on one of the best sites in the city. 12 home games per year for a team that already failed twice... a winter of indoor golf (could be good practise for the Sens

)

isaidso · #30 Posted **Apr 15, 2009, 1:26 AM**

I wish the football proposal was for LeBreton Flats instead. If Ottawa is going to fund a stadium, they should have it built where it makes most sense, not where business owners want it built.

A centrally located stadium is best, but Lansdowne Park might be best left as a market, entertainment/recreation area with no stadium. Doesn't Hunt's hockey team play out of an arena on that site? This shouldn't be decided by variables like that.

Build a football stadium with room for tailgating, and have it built on the Le Breton Flats. What a dynamite football setting that would be!

lrt's friend · #31 Posted **Apr 15, 2009, 1:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

I wish the football proposal was for LeBreton Flats instead. If Ottawa is going to fund a stadium, they should have it built where it makes most sense, not where business owners want it built.

A centrally located stadium is best, but Lansdowne Park might be best left as a market, entertainment/recreation area with no stadium. Doesn't Hunt's hockey team play out of an arena on that site? This shouldn't be decided by variables like that.

Build a football stadium with room for tailgating, and have it built on the Le Breton Flats. What a dynamite football setting that would be!

Come on! First, it will be at Bayview, not on federally owned Lebreton Flats. If it goes there, most people will have to arrive by transit, and we need to get our act together concerning rapid transit before this will be successful. Second, tailgating is not a Canadian tradition, and with limited parking, it is not likely to occur anyways.

I also think we have to remember that Lansdowne Park has always been used for city-wide events, whether sporting events, the exhibition and trade shows. It is sounding more and more like we want to convert into a deluxe facility mainly used by people living in the Glebe. What else will it be once we dump most of its current uses?

isaidso · #32 Posted **Apr 20, 2009, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Come on! First, it will be at Bayview, not on federally owned Lebreton Flats. If it goes there, most people will have to arrive by transit, and we need to get our act together concerning rapid transit before this will be successful. Second, tailgating is not a Canadian tradition, and with limited parking, it is not likely to occur anyways.

I also think we have to remember that Lansdowne Park has always been used for city-wide events, whether sporting events, the exhibition and trade shows. It is sounding more and more like we want to convert into a deluxe facility mainly used by people living in the Glebe. What else will it be once we dump most of its current uses?

People will have to arrive by transit no matter where you build a stadium. Le Breton Flats is centrally located, and has room to build some parking. If you look at aerial shots of the area on Google, there's considerably more room here than at other central locales. It's a suitable area to develop this way, and is located close to Parliament Hill with Quebec just across the river.

Tailgating isn't an Ontario tradition is a more accurate statement. There's a big ole country beyond the Ontario line. Making a day of it is a football tradition in other parts of the country. There's a reason people make a day out of a football game with half time shows, marching bands, tailgating, pep rallies, etc: it's fun. Maybe Ottawans/Ontarians will begin to realize that if they partake in it.

Lansdowne may be the traditional grounds for Ottawans to meet, but should that dictate that other areas can't be developed also? All places evolve as cities grow. Keep Lansdowne as a place where people congregate for city wide events, but by encouraging the farmer's markets, adding an aquarium, and using it for other recreational pursuits. How about an aquatics centre with a proper Olympic sized pool?

Ottawa is big enough to have two places like this. It's not a small pokey little town any more, even though some people still think of Ottawa in those terms.

I'm not discounting Bayview, but would you make your case for it. I'm open to it.

KHOOLE · #33 Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 7:41 PM**

Hundreds of pages for the Lansdowne Partnership Agreement has been released (see Ottawa.ca)

In it, there is a separate partnership for the stadium with the Lansdowne Stadium Limited Partnership registered in Manitoba. Why Manitoba?

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...um%20Lease.pdf

Are the Blue Bombers involved? That's David Asper, isn't it?

waterloowarrior · #34 Posted **Sep 30, 2012, 8:07 PM**

this article talks about some benefits of a limited partnership in Manitoba
http://www.tdslaw.com/newsletter/201...rtnerships.pdf

phil235 · #35 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

this article talks about some benefits of a limited partnership in Manitoba
http://www.tdslaw.com/newsletter/201...rtnerships.pdf

Not that I've looked at this in any depth, but the information in that article would imply that the Manitoba registration is for the benefit of the City as a non-active partner, not OSEG.

KHOOLE · #36 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil235

Not that I've looked at this in any depth, but the information in that article would imply that the Manitoba registration is for the benefit of the City as a non-active partner, not OSEG.

Is the City of Ottawa a partner in the Lansdowne Stadium Limited Partnership? Who are the partners anyway?

If the City is a shareholder in a business operation registered in Manitoba, that information should be out in the open and freely available. It would be similar to the City, registered under the Ontario Municipal Act, operating under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

I will certainly stand for correction but, from what I understand from the Primer on Manitoba Limited Partnerships cited above, a Limited Partnership is a partnership that operates like a Limited Company.

That is , if a partner deals with a third party in the name of the partnership (for example, borrowing money) and such partner defaults, the other partners are not liable for his debts. This way, the one with the least assets can borrow for everybody else and these would not be liable if he defaults.

For example, Jeff Hunt could borrow a bundle for the partnership's new CFL team. If the team folds after a few years, only Jeff Hunt would be liable ???

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an accountant. Please tell me I'm wrong.

LeadingEdgeBoomer · #37 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 4:40 PM**

if Jeff Hunt borrows a lot of money and the team folds , only Jeff hunt would be liable for the money?

If that is the reason for registering the limited partnership in Manitoba , then it would reduce the risk for the taxpayers of The City of Ottawa . They would not be stuck with OSEGs debts if it ever came to that. Sounds like a good reason why the City would want to register it in Manitoba instead of Ontario.

KHOOLE · #38 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

if Jeff Hunt borrows a lot of money and the team folds , only Jeff hunt would be liable for the money?

If that is the reason for registering the limited partnership in Manitoba , then it would reduce the risk for the taxpayers of The City of Ottawa . They would not be stuck with OSEGs debts if it ever came to that. Sounds like a good reason why the City would want to register it in Manitoba instead of Ontario.

If Jeff Hunt folds and his partners walk away from the football venture, what happens to the two stadia that will remain empty and unused all over again?

Ottawa is paying the bill for the renovation of the Frank Clair Stadium and building a new one on the South side. Apparently, that's $300 millions of taxpayers dollars over 30 years.

These are high-end legal and accounting manoeuvres done by experts.

Most of us are probably out of that field. How about our elected representatives sitting at City Council? What's their level of expertise?

LeadingEdgeBoomer · #39 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

If Jeff Hunt folds and his partners walk away from the football venture, what happens to the two stadia that will remain empty and unused all over again?

Ottawa is paying the bill for the renovation of the Frank Clair Stadium and building a new one on the South side. Apparently, that's $300 millions of taxpayers dollars over 30 years.

These are high-end legal and accounting manoeuvres done by experts.

Most of us are probably out of that field. How about our elected representatives sitting at City Council? What's their level of expertise?

That is another issue . Registering in Manitoba is probably just meant to address the debt by one of the partner iisues. it is what it is and not meant to solve all potential issues.

About the level of expertise of City council--pretty low, always has been and always will be. One can not expect city councillors to be experts in all fields. The electorate could choose to elect 24 twenty years olds , all with a grade 10 education and work experience as fast food servers only. It would be perfectly legal and democratic under our system.

Only if we could handpick councillors for thier various expertise will this change. I suppose council is supposed to rely on experts like the City Solicitor for guidance.

Certainly not perfect, but what other method should we use? Is perfection in our governemnt actually attainable?

phil235 · #40 Posted **Oct 1, 2012, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

Is the City of Ottawa a partner in the Lansdowne Stadium Limited Partnership? Who are the partners anyway?

If the City is a shareholder in a business operation registered in Manitoba, that information should be out in the open and freely available. It would be similar to the City, registered under the Ontario Municipal Act, operating under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

I will certainly stand for correction but, from what I understand from the Primer on Manitoba Limited Partnerships cited above, a Limited Partnership is a partnership that operates like a Limited Company.

That is , if a partner deals with a third party in the name of the partnership (for example, borrowing money) and such partner defaults, the other partners are not liable for his debts. This way, the one with the least assets can borrow for everybody else and these would not be liable if he defaults.

For example, Jeff Hunt could borrow a bundle for the partnership's new CFL team. If the team folds after a few years, only Jeff Hunt would be liable ???

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an accountant. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Good point. I don't know if the structure has changed, but the City was a partner in the first iteration.

Limited partnerships are not like limited companies. Shareholders have no liability for the company's debts in a limited company. A limited partnership needs a general partner who is fully liable for debts. Then again, the general partner can be a limited company, so the end result is largely the same. This may be an LLP, which is more like a limited companies, but I'm not sure on that.

In any event, if the City is a partner, it is certainly in its best interests to limit its legal liability. There is nothing stopping it from putting in money to cover a loss if it chooses to do so. It just doesn't want to be legally compelled.

Those advocating for taxpayers' rights (personally I prefer being referred to as a "citizen" rather than a "taxpayer") should be all in favour of this type of limitation of the City's liability.