Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

South LRT | Health Sciences to Century Park | Completed

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ChrisD
    Umm, no they shouldn't.
    Why not? Give me one good reason why they shouldn't be revelling in this development and doing everything they can to make THEIR stop the most important and valuable one on the route? Southgate has the potential to make themselves the premier transit focused shopping center in the city - giving DT residents access to stores they may or may not be able to get DT. Folks along the line now get a full Sears, not just a DT Bay. They have the ability now to expand the mall and be even bigger and better. All for the cost of a park and ride....

    Short term bickering avoids the potential for long term gain for the mall's owners. Don't you think Kingsway and WEM are salavating at an LRT link? WEM was even going to kick in for the station and a P&R in the 80's.

    If there is another side of the story, then Southgate's managment now has the opportunity to make it so. So far, no letters to the editor or nothing to dispute the article's claim. If you know something, then invite them to speak their mind here on C2E - it is what we are here for.

    C'mon, the budget is 30 million...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RichardS
      Originally posted by ChrisD
      Umm, no they shouldn't.
      Why not? Give me one good reason why they shouldn't be revelling in this development and doing everything they can to make THEIR stop the most important and valuable one on the route? Southgate has the potential to make themselves the premier transit focused shopping center in the city - giving DT residents access to stores they may or may not be able to get DT. Folks along the line now get a full Sears, not just a DT Bay. They have the ability now to expand the mall and be even bigger and better. All for the cost of a park and ride....

      Short term bickering avoids the potential for long term gain for the mall's owners. Don't you think Kingsway and WEM are salavating at an LRT link? WEM was even going to kick in for the station and a P&R in the 80's.

      If there is another side of the story, then Southgate's managment now has the opportunity to make it so. So far, no letters to the editor or nothing to dispute the article's claim. If you know something, then invite them to speak their mind here on C2E - it is what we are here for.

      C'mon, the budget is 30 million...
      First off, who said that Southgate isn't revelling over the LRT? Anyone who believes that Southgate doesn't know how much they'll benefit from the LRT is just plain ignorant. They are a business and know where their customers come from and how they get there.

      Why shouldn't they pay, well first off they pay property taxes. These taxes are collected by the City and portions are allocated towards capital projects. Unless mandated by a statutory act or bylaw, a business owner should not have to fork out extra money for public infrastructure.

      I know the other side of the story. However, its the forumers who are making assumptions based on information disclosed in a newspaper article, which really doesn't tell the whole story. Trust me when I say that the City is also digging their heels in the dirt.

      Comment


      • #18
        ^ Everyone wants to see the whole story, we're not foolish enough to blindly trust anybody.
        Edmonton first, everything else second.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ChrisD
          Originally posted by RichardS
          Originally posted by DanC
          Hey Southgate...get bent.
          Couldn't have said it better. Southgate stands to do nothing but gain traffic EXPONENTIALLY with this LRT service. They should be kissing the sLRT's a.....
          Umm, no they shouldn't.

          Like I said before, the issue is not as transparent as the news article made it seem. There is plenty of complex issues to figure out on this one.

          So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate
          Sorry, but no.

          Southgate is not more important than city transportation, and who on earth believes that being located right beside a huge transit hub would be bad for business?

          I agree with everyone else who says Southgate can afford to give a little parking space.
          Let's make Edmonton better.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JayBee
            Originally posted by ChrisD
            Originally posted by RichardS
            Originally posted by DanC
            Hey Southgate...get bent.
            Couldn't have said it better. Southgate stands to do nothing but gain traffic EXPONENTIALLY with this LRT service. They should be kissing the sLRT's a.....
            Umm, no they shouldn't.

            Like I said before, the issue is not as transparent as the news article made it seem. There is plenty of complex issues to figure out on this one.

            So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate
            Sorry, but no.

            Southgate is not more important than city transportation, and who on earth believes that being located right beside a huge transit hub would be bad for business?

            I agree with everyone else who says Southgate can afford to give a little parking space.
            Who claimed that Southgate was more important than City transportation??? I know I didn't.

            Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.

            Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ChrisD
              Originally posted by JayBee
              Originally posted by ChrisD
              ...So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate
              Sorry, but no.

              Southgate is not more important than city transportation, and who on earth believes that being located right beside a huge transit hub would be bad for business?

              I agree with everyone else who says Southgate can afford to give a little parking space.
              Who claimed that Southgate was more important than City transportation??? I know I didn't.
              Not to sound flippant or anything, but I didn't say you did. I just thought a tad of perspective was in order. And besides, don't you think Southgate would be capable of taking advantage of the greater reach of LRT users who could suddenly pop down from the University or downtown to take advantage of a unique shop or atmosphere at Southgate? Give Southgate some credit, they would have to be really incompetent if they couldn't find a greater positive in having an LRT station on their doorstep. Imagine 1800 extra commuters a day going right past your business every single evening. Would it really be that hard to get a couple percent of them to stop in for supper or to pick something up? Cater to them, and they might even make it a regular trip.

              Originally posted by ChrisD
              Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.
              Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

              Originally posted by ChrisD
              Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
              Airport users "forfeit" $15 dollars per flight for the right to use a nice airport. Swimers "forfeit" $5 per session for the right to use the excellent Kinsmen pool. Southgate's "compensation" in having an LRT station connected to them is blatently obvious, so why shouldn't they chip in?
              I am reminded of CP Rail trying to sell the High Level Bridge to the city for millions and millions. They must have thought the city had no choice for putting the LRT over the river. After the city built the Menzies Bridge directly to the University (for better and worse) CP ended up basically giving the High Level to the city for "free" so they wouldn't have to pay for renovations on it (which the city then paid for anyway.) Then it became fair to ask how much it was really worth in the first place.
              I get the impression we're being offered another bridge here.

              Who was it that suggested we go right past Southgate and build the station at Harry Ainly or wherever? That might not be the best solution, but there's somewhat of a precedent, and you could guarantee that Southgate would be kicking themselves if the city did it. I just think Southgate would be crazy not to try integrating as closely as possible with the LRT rather than playing chicken for some extra cash.
              Let's make Edmonton better.

              Comment


              • #22
                Could you imagine if the city of Edmonton announced that because a great deal with Harry Ainley school they decided to move the LRT station there. How quick do you think that Southgate would backtrack to change that and bring the LRT to the mall and fix all parking issues??
                Because if the LRT station was at Harry Ainley the most sensible thing would be to also move the bus terminal to Harry Ainley work along side the LRT station.
                LRT is our future, time to push forward.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ChrisD
                  Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.
                  Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
                  What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

                  Originally posted by ChrisD
                  Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
                  Airport users "forfeit" $15 dollars per flight for the right to use a nice airport. Swimers "forfeit" $5 per session for the right to use the excellent Kinsmen pool. Southgate's "compensation" in having an LRT station connected to them is blatently obvious, so why shouldn't they chip in?
                  Once again, the ERAA have been granted the powers to establish these types of charges. Policies are in place to support this charge. Municipalities can also establish bylaws that can require developers to pay for certain infrastructure. The City has these bylaws in place and they apply to all new developments. However, there are no current policies or bylaws that apply to this situation.

                  I am reminded of CP Rail trying to sell the High Level Bridge to the city for millions and millions. They must have thought the city had no choice for putting the LRT over the river. After the city built the Menzies Bridge directly to the University (for better and worse) CP ended up basically giving the High Level to the city for "free" so they wouldn't have to pay for renovations on it (which the city then paid for anyway.) Then it became fair to ask how much it was really worth in the first place.
                  I get the impression we're being offered another bridge here.
                  Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ChrisD
                    Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.
                    Isn't the CPR a private corporation as well? The bridge fiasco cost the CPR a million or two and the city tens of millions. Nobody wants to see that lose-lose situation repeated. Some compromise on both sides is probably in order but from the information we have it looks like most of it needs to come from the mall side.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Titanium48
                      Originally posted by ChrisD
                      Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.
                      Isn't the CPR a private corporation as well? The bridge fiasco cost the CPR a million or two and the city tens of millions. Nobody wants to see that lose-lose situation repeated. Some compromise on both sides is probably in order but from the information we have it looks like most of it needs to come from the mall side.
                      Back then CP was a crown corporation. Although CN and CP are private corporations, they are regulated under Federal statute and do not have to adhere to Municipal bylaws in certain cases.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

                        I'm stunned that you are going so easy on Southgate. Did we not have a discussion a couple weeks ago at starbucks where you ripped up 555 for not increasing the value of their mall including better integration with the transit stop? Whats the difference between investing in a parkade or renovating the outside? Neither is mandated and both increase the value and increase traffic benefiting them in the long run.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Lindsay, I have actually noticed that a lot more people are willing to bash WEM and 555 than many other malls. The bigger the size--the bigger the bashing? wonder what's the reason

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ChrisD
                            Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
                            I would be celebrating if the city wanted to take away a piece of my backyard to build a park with a creek running though it.
                            Edmonton first, everything else second.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ChrisD
                              Originally posted by ChrisD
                              Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.
                              Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
                              What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

                              Originally posted by ChrisD
                              Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
                              Airport users "forfeit" $15 dollars per flight for the right to use a nice airport. Swimers "forfeit" $5 per session for the right to use the excellent Kinsmen pool. Southgate's "compensation" in having an LRT station connected to them is blatently obvious, so why shouldn't they chip in?
                              Once again, the ERAA have been granted the powers to establish these types of charges. Policies are in place to support this charge. Municipalities can also establish bylaws that can require developers to pay for certain infrastructure. The City has these bylaws in place and they apply to all new developments. However, there are no current policies or bylaws that apply to this situation.
                              Alright then, I agree, if the city is forced to mandate that Southgate allow park and ride on a portion of their precious lot, then I support mandating it. It's still a better solution than going to Ainly, but why should it have to come to that? Southgate should be welcoming this with open arms and doors and everything else. They should extend the mall or at least a heated walkway right up to the Park 'n' Ride before the station is even completed. This isn't a case of government being unfriendly to business, this is a case of business being unfriendly to itself!

                              Originally posted by ChrisD
                              I am reminded of CP Rail trying to sell the High Level Bridge to the city for millions and millions. They must have thought the city had no choice for putting the LRT over the river. After the city built the Menzies Bridge directly to the University (for better and worse) CP ended up basically giving the High Level to the city for "free" so they wouldn't have to pay for renovations on it (which the city then paid for anyway.) Then it became fair to ask how much it was really worth in the first place.
                              I get the impression we're being offered another bridge here.
                              Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.
                              CP has been a 100% private entity since 1880 (that is not a typo.) In exchange for building the railway across Canada, they were given a credit of $25 million plus a tidy 25 million acres of land which they've been slowly divesting ever since (that's about half the size of Great Britain.)

                              You may have been thinking about CN. It was privatised recently. Also you may be thinking about the CP conglomerate's recent breakup. CP Rail is now unrelated to CP Hotels(i.e. Fairmont), for example. But no part of what is/was CP has ever been a crown corporation.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_Rail

                              Anyway, the comparison is perfectly valid. CP had a bridge, Southgate has a parking lot, both adaptable to city transportation needs. Both the city and the private entities had/have a chance for mutual benefit, yet both private entities seemed/seem unwilling to persue said benefit.

                              Others here have brought up another excellent comparison between WEM and Southgate. WEM has always been very vocally supportive (this is huge understatement) of the West LRT concept. They have for years been offering the space for a station and park and ride. They have almost literally been begging to give away their land to get a station. And I support them 100% in that endevour as well. I think it could spark much greater investment in the mall in renovations and additions, which will in turn benefit the city again. As should be the case with Southgate.
                              Let's make Edmonton better.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LindseyT
                                What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

                                I'm stunned that you are going so easy on Southgate. Did we not have a discussion a couple weeks ago at starbucks where you ripped up 555 for not increasing the value of their mall including better integration with the transit stop? Whats the difference between investing in a parkade or renovating the outside? Neither is mandated and both increase the value and increase traffic benefiting them in the long run.
                                Whoooooa, biiig difference here. Southgate are the ones who are pushing for the park n' ride to be integrated with their expansion. If they were telling the City to take their parkade idea away from the mall then it would be a different story.

                                It's not like Southgate doesn't want the park n' ride, both the City and Southgate have itineraries and have been unable to come to an agreement with how to deal with the situation. That's it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X