Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New arena deal fair for city, on to next steps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by alex69 View Post
    Let's not go to extremes like "all public" or "all private". That's not the point.

    The point is that the public side is not getting enough control based on its investment. And our mayor Mandel is just fine with that. Why?
    Why just point out Mandel? Majority of councilors, the city administration, and the city Manager all are backing the arena as a good for the city type of project..

    But you know, its easy to take potshots at the mayor.

    Maybe you can identify what control based on its investment you would like to see? What's missing?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

    Comment


    • #17
      I'd definitely like to see what will take place at the council meeting on June 22.
      "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doug View Post
        Not enough control???? The city will own the land and the building. The city will have to approve the design before the complex is built. Katz will be responsible for all the upkeep to the facility. How much more control should you expect the city to have???
        I'm just curious, what benefit is there to the city to own the new arena? They'll get no revenue from it for 35 years (other than the 4 weeks a year) and when the 35 years is up, will just end up with another outdated building like the coliseum that may need to be demolished or extensively renovated (ie full circle).

        Do you think we could get more private $$$ if we didn't insist on owning the land and building?

        Comment


        • #19
          Katz should have increase his offer from $ 100 m to $ 200 m by now, then it should start digging in less than 3 months. Problem solved.
          Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

          Comment


          • #20
            very easy to solve problems like that.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bolo View Post
              Originally posted by Doug View Post
              Not enough control???? The city will own the land and the building. The city will have to approve the design before the complex is built. Katz will be responsible for all the upkeep to the facility. How much more control should you expect the city to have???
              I'm just curious, what benefit is there to the city to own the new arena? They'll get no revenue from it for 35 years (other than the 4 weeks a year) and when the 35 years is up, will just end up with another outdated building like the coliseum that may need to be demolished or extensively renovated (ie full circle).

              Do you think we could get more private $$$ if we didn't insist on owning the land and building?
              I believe they currently subsidize property tax of the current building. the arena will pay tax as will the development of the entertainment district. the swing from subsidizing to earning is benefit enough. The city will also own the land. Even if the building is POS in 35 years, the city can still sell the land. it is a low-risk proposition.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by grish View Post
                Originally posted by bolo View Post
                Originally posted by Doug View Post
                Not enough control???? The city will own the land and the building. The city will have to approve the design before the complex is built. Katz will be responsible for all the upkeep to the facility. How much more control should you expect the city to have???
                I'm just curious, what benefit is there to the city to own the new arena? They'll get no revenue from it for 35 years (other than the 4 weeks a year) and when the 35 years is up, will just end up with another outdated building like the coliseum that may need to be demolished or extensively renovated (ie full circle).

                Do you think we could get more private $$$ if we didn't insist on owning the land and building?
                I believe they currently subsidize property tax of the current building. the arena will pay tax as will the development of the entertainment district. the swing from subsidizing to earning is benefit enough. The city will also own the land. Even if the building is POS in 35 years, the city can still sell the land. it is a low-risk proposition.
                If the city owns the new arena, doesn't it end up paying property tax to itself? Or is the Katz group suppose to do that? Yes, we will own the land in 35 years, but that's only after buying it for $20M from the Katz group now.

                Other development generating more property taxes will happen whether or not the city owns the arena, so that's kind of a moot point.

                What is the drawback of having the land and arena owned privately, if that position could help generate more private funding for the project?

                Comment


                • #23
                  It's not really a moot point, how long has that land been vacant around the new proposed arena site? Do you think a new arena will speed up development and bring in tax dollars years ahead of it's current pace? If Katz and friends build $400 million in ancillary developments, won't that bring in new revenue?

                  Public ownership opens the door for other levels of government to help fund the arena as it isn't a private facility.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Hilman View Post
                    It's not really a moot point, how long has that land been vacant around the new proposed arena site? Do you think a new arena will speed up development and bring in tax dollars years ahead of it's current pace? If Katz and friends build $400 million in ancillary developments, won't that bring in new revenue?
                    Did you even read what I wrote?

                    Originally posted by Hilman View Post
                    Public ownership opens the door for other levels of government to help fund the arena as it isn't a private facility.
                    Let's hope so. But I think both the Feds and Province have other priorities (Feds already rejected funding Quebec arena, Alberta needs to help rebuild Slave Lake and other disaster areas).

                    I'm just brainstorming the idea that maybe the project would attract more private dollars if we considered private ownership of the land and building. I don't know if they've seriously considered that approach in the last year or so. It might be a good compromise if it means less upfront tax money and/or if it can help make up the $100M shortfall.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sorry, I misread what you wrote but the comment about the $100 million shortfall still applies. The government said they would not support a "privately owned building", sounds kind of cryptic to me.
                      Last edited by Hilman; 04-06-2011, 05:47 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                        Originally posted by alex69 View Post
                        Let's not go to extremes like "all public" or "all private". That's not the point.

                        The point is that the public side is not getting enough control based on its investment. And our mayor Mandel is just fine with that. Why?
                        Why just point out Mandel? Majority of councilors, the city administration, and the city Manager all are backing the arena as a good for the city type of project..

                        But you know, its easy to take potshots at the mayor.

                        Maybe you can identify what control based on its investment you would like to see? What's missing?
                        a. Mandel's the main cheerleader.

                        b. Here's what "control" I would have liked: -- full control of design, not "input" to be coordinated with the Katz group; -- extras going up simultaneously, liable by the Katz group; -- no land buyout (and no tax breaks after, either); -- no non-compete clause.

                        Yes, I realize the word control doesn't quite describe it. Pick another word, then. I still think it's a raw deal.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Can you tell me why Katz would still want to be a part of this after your "control"
                          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 240GLT View Post
                            This deal gets worse and worse all the time
                            Major props on the Lando quote.

                            The question is, like Lando, do we have no choice?
                            “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by alex69 View Post
                              Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                              Originally posted by alex69 View Post
                              Let's not go to extremes like "all public" or "all private". That's not the point.

                              The point is that the public side is not getting enough control based on its investment. And our mayor Mandel is just fine with that. Why?
                              Why just point out Mandel? Majority of councilors, the city administration, and the city Manager all are backing the arena as a good for the city type of project..

                              But you know, its easy to take potshots at the mayor.

                              Maybe you can identify what control based on its investment you would like to see? What's missing?
                              a. Mandel's the main cheerleader.

                              b. Here's what "control" I would have liked: -- full control of design, not "input" to be coordinated with the Katz group; -- extras going up simultaneously, liable by the Katz group; -- no land buyout (and no tax breaks after, either); -- no non-compete clause.

                              Yes, I realize the word control doesn't quite describe it. Pick another word, then. I still think it's a raw deal.
                              Look who's talking.

                              Diotte, Caterina, and Sloan are the main cheerleaders on the opposite side.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                ^Nemic, you have so much passion to draw up enemy lists, and yet such a poor grasp of the language. Stop drawing up lists of people to tar and feather and crush, and break open a dictionary.

                                Cheerleading is positive. (And types like you who like to call people "haters" should know that.) So you can't cheer against something, only for it.

                                Mandel and a few others are campaigning for. There's no organized campaign against, your thirties-German-style name lists notwithstanding. But even if there were, Catarina and the others would not be cheerleading. They are skeptics.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X