Flames Arena, the Saga Continues

[Ace Rimmer]

I just randomly saw your username pop up, so I had to say- props on the username. I created mine for the exact same reason. I used to love those commercials!

Yeah, and it really helped having a Dube on the roster too.

 

[CamPopplestone]

This is the best possible news for Calgary taxpayers this Christmas!

This was a hideous deal from the start and one of the worst decisions made by our previous city council (Gondek was one who voted for the deal).

Maybe now the Flames will do the right thing and build their own privately funded arena. The owners can definitely afford it and they have contacts who can be financial partners.

Billionaires don't stay billionaires by spending their own money. They won't, they'll wait until they can rally a pissed public that wants the arena.

I hope the city doesn't give in. Of course costs have gone up in the pandemic. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the owners don't want to commit any money at all given the revenue losses of the last two years and the uncertainty around the bear future with the virus.

 

[Kg810]

Lol you guys love shitting on Edwards but as far as I can tell he isn't the one trying to alter agreed upon deals.

Instead you have Gondek pushing him to cater to her "climate mitigation" demands so she can tell you the new Flames Arena is saving the planet, hilarious.

I mean if she wants to implement whatever the hell "climate mitigation" measures to a sports arena, then she should be the one footing the bill because that was not part of the agreed upon deal. It's cute that she'll pay a portion for roadways but not her climate mitigation demands.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Yes, how "awful" that she will be holding this project to the same criteria of any other development project in Calgary.

To be honest, a two or three year delay to allow the supply chain issues to get sorted out is not the worst thing to happen. Costs will be higher than expected if they start construction in 2022.

 

[Mike Jones]

Yes, how "awful" that she will be holding this project to the same criteria of any other development project in Calgary.

To be honest, a two or three year delay to allow the supply chain issues to get sorted out is not the worst thing to happen. Costs will be higher than expected if they start construction in 2022.

When it does come time to build the Flames are more than welcome to build their own arena as long as they and their partners pay for everything. Seattle owners managed it and Vancouver's arena was built with private money - the Flames can too.

 

[Mike Jones]

The city should then call their bluff and say go ahead - we need this thing buried.

 

[Kg810]

Yes, how "awful" that she will be holding this project to the same criteria of any other development project in Calgary.

To be honest, a two or three year delay to allow the supply chain issues to get sorted out is not the worst thing to happen. Costs will be higher than expected if they start construction in 2022.

Lol I can see you've never made any level of deals in your life before. I'm sure you'd be thrilled and accepting if the other party made last second demands not originally agreed upon and the end result is you pay more.

Who knew all it took to alter deals last second in your favor was to say "it's okay, I do this every deal, it's a criteria of mine."

 

[Mike Jones]

Someone just sent me a note saying that this looks like a ploy to get more money out of taxpayers. If this is the case the city should, as I said above, call the bluff and burn the agreement.

 

[Sparky93]

If the cities new administration wants to alter a pre existing deal, in the name of climate change, they should 100% be on the hook for it. My understanding is that CSEC is solely on the hook for any construction overages and since next to nothing comes in on budget, these days, costs will almost surely balloon. The city stands to benefit from this deal as much or more than the organization and its clearly a necessity, in order to stay relevant as a major Canadian destination.

Broken down, over the likely 4 years of construction, its less than double the annual snow removal budget. If you want something to complain about, as a Calgary taxpayer, try starting with the nearly $40 million that disappears every year in the name of "Snow Removal"

 

[DFF]

What is there to doubt, honestly? This is a very obvious tactic by Edwards to push City Council and see if he can get them to bend on things like this. f*** Murray Edwards and his shitty negotiation tactics.

He can’t push unless they are trying to alter something. The mayor is a politician, lying is part of the job. Both parties are involved. She is not as innocent as she presented. That’s all I am saying. I have the same trust in politicians as some people apparently have in billionaires.

 

[Mike Jones]

He can’t push unless they are trying to alter something. The mayor is a politician, lying is part of the job. Both parties are involved. She is not as innocent as she presented. That’s all I am saying. I have the same trust in politicians as some people apparently have in billionaires.

People should also know that this current Mayor voted in favor of the original deal. This is one reason why I think and feel that she is unsuitable for the job. Nobody who sells taxpayers out like that should be brought back and given even more responsibility and power.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

I can see you've never made any level of deals in your life before. I'm sure you'd be thrilled and accepting if the other party made last second demands not originally agreed upon and the end result is you pay more.

Right, because that has never happened in the history of making deals.
Also, it's a framework that they had agreed on, which is basically an agreement to agree.

The city should then call their bluff and say go ahead - we need this thing buried.

The City has basically done just that - by saying they need $4 million for climate stuff and $12 million for road/sidewalk/right of way - and that the City is prepared to contribute an additional $6 million. Gondek just got out in front of it with the tweets. That said, the devil is in the details and it's tough to provide any meaningful judgement on that without knowing precisely what that additional work entails.

If CSEC is not prepared to accept the revised framework and is ready to stay at the Saddledome for the near future, great - the current plan in the current timeline has cost overrun stamped all over it.

I am not opposed to public funding going towards a project that is a public benefit, however I think the current proposal is shitty anyways, and that land would be better suited to intensify residential density, diversify, and provide affordable work/live opportunities in the downtown area.

At the very least, CalgaryNEXT would have provided a benefit to the community overall by removing blight and significant pollution, and created a necessary transit hub for transit oriented development on the west side of downtown. For roughly the same financial contribution.

 

[Nanuuk]

Gondek has been an unmitigated disaster since she took over. And that's the operative word here. Took over. And I thought his Royal Purpleness was an ideologue.

You don't change the scope of an agreement after an agreement has been reached and voted on by both sides. If Gondek and the City want to virtue signal that they're saving the planet they can pay for it.

 

[Some Other Flame]

Gondek has been an unmitigated disaster since she took over. And that's the operative word here. Took over. And I thought his Royal Purpleness was an ideologue.

You don't change the scope of an agreement after an agreement has been reached and voted on by both sides. If Gondek and the City want to virtue signal that they're saving the planet they can pay for it.

Like how CSEC demanded the CMLC be removed as project manager back in July?

And LOL at took over. How do you live in Calgary and not realize the major is just one vote on the council?

 

[Kranix]

Gondek has been an unmitigated disaster since she took over. And that's the operative word here. Took over. And I thought his Royal Purpleness was an ideologue.

You don't change the scope of an agreement after an agreement has been reached and voted on by both sides. If Gondek and the City want to virtue signal that they're saving the planet they can pay for it.

Okay, grandpa. She didn't change the scope of the agreement. CSEC already agreed to pay the majority, and cover escalating costs. This last $19 million was a bridge too far apparently, but that's not changing the scope.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Right, because that has never happened in the history of making deals.
Also, it's a framework that they had agreed on, which is basically an agreement to agree.


The City has basically done just that - by saying they need $4 million for climate stuff and $12 million for road/sidewalk/right of way - and that the City is prepared to contribute an additional $6 million. Gondek just got out in front of it with the tweets. That said, the devil is in the details and it's tough to provide any meaningful judgement on that without knowing precisely what that additional work entails.

If CSEC is not prepared to accept the revised framework and is ready to stay at the Saddledome for the near future, great - the current plan in the current timeline has cost overrun stamped all over it.

I am not opposed to public funding going towards a project that is a public benefit, however I think the current proposal is shitty anyways, and that land would be better suited to intensify residential density, diversify, and provide affordable work/live opportunities in the downtown area.

At the very least, CalgaryNEXT would have provided a benefit to the community overall by removing blight and significant pollution, and created a necessary transit hub for transit oriented development on the west side of downtown. For roughly the same financial contribution.

Word. This is how I feel as well.

 

[Mobiandi]

CSEC wants to take their ball and go home over the equivalent of 1 Blake Coleman

 

[Nanuuk]

Okay, grandpa. She didn't change the scope of the agreement. CSEC already agreed to pay the majority, and cover escalating costs. This last $19 million was a bridge too far apparently, but that's not changing the scope.

Adding in climate mitigation in the way of solar panels is changing the scope of the project. Not a major scope change relative to the overall cost, but an unnecessary one given the cost escalation already being seen as detailed planning progresses.

 

[Nanuuk]

Like how CSEC demanded the CMLC be removed as project manager back in July?

And LOL at took over. How do you live in Calgary and not realize the major is just one vote on the council?

CSEC and the City were still negotiating the scope at that time and also realized that the City's project management skills were insufficient. The City was also asking them to absorb more of the cost and therefore introduced more risk to the owners if the project is poorly managed.

If I were an owner I'd want control over the project management if I'm footing more of the bill than the City.

 

[Sparky93]

Personally, I hope they just scrap the whole plan. I really hate the idea of spending $650 million, to still have the 2nd best arena in Alberta. If you want to be a top 5 city in Canada, you don't "Dollar Store" the centerpiece. Wait out the City of Calgary cheapskate administration and build Next or leave, watching the city eventually pay double for a new arena, buying for expansion. The city has no leverage and the stalling is really quite ridiculous, looking at a nearly condemned Saddledome.

 

[DoyleG]

Right, because that has never happened in the history of making deals.
Also, it's a framework that they had agreed on, which is basically an agreement to agree.


The City has basically done just that - by saying they need $4 million for climate stuff and $12 million for road/sidewalk/right of way - and that the City is prepared to contribute an additional $6 million. Gondek just got out in front of it with the tweets. That said, the devil is in the details and it's tough to provide any meaningful judgement on that without knowing precisely what that additional work entails.

If CSEC is not prepared to accept the revised framework and is ready to stay at the Saddledome for the near future, great - the current plan in the current timeline has cost overrun stamped all over it.

I am not opposed to public funding going towards a project that is a public benefit, however I think the current proposal is shitty anyways, and that land would be better suited to intensify residential density, diversify, and provide affordable work/live opportunities in the downtown area.

At the very least, CalgaryNEXT would have provided a benefit to the community overall by removing blight and significant pollution, and created a necessary transit hub for transit oriented development on the west side of downtown. For roughly the same financial contribution.

The City didn't want CalgaryNEXT either.

 

[Mike Jones]

Personally, I hope they just scrap the whole plan. I really hate the idea of spending $650 million, to still have the 2nd best arena in Alberta. If you want to be a top 5 city in Canada, you don't "Dollar Store" the centerpiece. Wait out the City of Calgary cheapskate administration and build Next or leave, watching the city eventually pay double for a new arena, buying for expansion. The city has no leverage and the stalling is really quite ridiculous, looking at a nearly condemned Saddledome.

I have no problem with the city being cheap here. They have a responsibility to spend our tax dollars wisely. Gifting hundreds of millions of our hard earned dollars to rich people who can pay their own way is not spending wisely. The city, for the sake of taxpayers, needs to say no to future negotiations unless the Flames come to the table with a fair offer this time (Including meaningful revenue sharing and the paying of a fair amount of taxes). Not everyone in Calgary is a fan (In fact, most of us aren't) and many of us taxpayers want our money going to other, higher priority areas. The previous council was scared of us and that's why they wouldn't put this deal to a vote - which, like the failed winter Olympic proposal, they should have.

If the Flames want a centerpiece arena they can pay for it themselves. If the poor billionaires who own the team can't afford it they can secure private funding from willing individuals or other corporate entities. It shouldn't be too hard to create a funding partnership whose members would help pay for and run the arena. Seattle and Vancouver groups built and rebuilt arenas with private funding - the Flames can do the same thing. In fact, all Calgarians should expect them to do the same thing.

 

[Sparky93]

I have no problem with the city being cheap here. They have a responsibility to spend our tax dollars wisely. Gifting hundreds of millions of our hard earned dollars to rich people who can pay their own way is not spending wisely. The city, for the sake of taxpayers, needs to say no to future negotiations unless the Flames come to the table with a fair offer this time (Including meaningful revenue sharing and the paying of a fair amount of taxes). Not everyone in Calgary is a fan (In fact, most of us aren't) and many of us taxpayers want our money going to other, higher priority areas. The previous council was scared of us and that's why they wouldn't put this deal to a vote - which, like the failed winter Olympic proposal, they should have.

If the Flames want a centerpiece arena they can pay for it themselves. If the poor billionaires who own the team can't afford it they can secure private funding from willing individuals or other corporate entities. It shouldn't be too hard to create a funding partnership whose members would help pay for and run the arena. Seattle and Vancouver groups built and rebuilt arenas with private funding - the Flames can do the same thing. In fact, all Calgarians should expect them to do the same thing.

You make it sound like you believe that your taxes won't be going up regardless. You either pay for a new arena or you pay to supplement the loss of revenue from a crumbling infrastructure and departing franchise. It's as simple as that.

 

[Mike Jones]

You make it sound like you believe that your taxes won't be going up regardless. You either pay for a new arena or you pay to supplement the loss of revenue from a crumbling infrastructure and departing franchise. It's as simple as that.

False comparison. The franchise doesn't really contribute that much to our tax base (Except the players who actually own homes here - and that's probably not that many) so we're really not missing a lot if they leave. Because they don't spend that much in taxes our infrastructure will be the same as always.

Lots of cities lose teams and find a way to power through. Calgary's not that fragile that it can't figure out a way through the experience and challenges.

 

[Sparky93]

False comparison. The franchise doesn't really contribute that much to our tax base (Except the players who actually own homes here - and that's probably not that many) so we're really not missing a lot if they leave. Because they don't spend that much in taxes our infrastructure will be the same as always.

Lots of cities lose teams and find a way to power through. Calgary's not that fragile that it can't figure out a way through the experience and challenges.

Exactly, thanks for agreeing. The real value is in the building and separate events, as well as the inflex of development dollars, which is why the city should pay their fair share. The city of Calgary has no intention of taking a step backwards. It's just a ruse, wasting time and costing taxpayers more in the end.