Search results

I don't disagree that it would have a better feel... but Calgary needs both more housing and less sprawl so I'm not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I noticed that as well. NIMBY'S NIMBYing... some people will complain about anything other then a bunch of SFDs. Hell there were a bunch of folk complaining about The Nines on Elbow and Southland which is being built on a field of weeds... anything to avoid living near to *GASP* renters I guess.

I don't think the old (original) deal works. The old deal was basically premised on the idea that the City would be made whole on it's investment (more accurately that they would be able to somewhat plausibly claim they were made whole but that's another discussion). If CSEC is willing to abide...

Partially. I think they're an untrustworthy group and their plan is to try and worm their way out of their overrun obligation and maintain the project control they pilfered in the last amendment. They're going to huff and puff for extra benefits, little side deals and additional monies right up...

And it isn't something that will make them money. Having CMLC in charge was a guardrail against the private entity trying to cut out the elements of public value. A guardrail that is now gone. Beyond which CSEC is an entertainment company not a developer. The whole project is now in the hands...

Nope. Don't like CMLC being cut... not one bit.

I disagree, it is a big deal... they are not developers, builders or urban planners. The second anything they want to do becomes complicated they'll turn it into a parking lot. They should have as little input into anything outside of the interior of the building as possible. I wish they didn't...

Well they shouldn't get something for nothing. Frankly they should offer up 70M worth of equity with valuation determined by a 3rd party. With their valuation sure to rise with a new building it wouldn't actually cost them anything in terms of present money. Then they can buy back shares over...

Almost certainly Jeff Davison... who isn't a candidate yet but would obviously be their man in the mayor's office if he were. He used to work for Murray Edwards (well his company anyways).

Considering the Flames apparently want to oust them as the project leads I certainly don't see why they'd want to paint them in any light but negative. I trust them to build an ostensibly public serving structure way more then I'd trust any CSEC approved third party.

CSEC and the City can talk about money... but my expectation would be that by one mechanism or another the City is eventually made whole for any additional monies. The other three are simply out of the question... streets are public realm if CSEC wants to close them down they can get a permit...

It shouldn't be an open question... it was sold to taxpayers as a "50/50" split. Anything less is completely unacceptable. If one or both parties find the resulting number untenable then the project should be suspended pending a change in the underlying fundamentals driving the overrun.