View Single Post
Old
07-21-2011, 11:26 PM
  #114
pepty
Let's win it all
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
It means they agreed to a deal that would see $120+ million of tax payer dollars being spent (mostly by taking on debt) without doing their due diligence on what they were signing and were later "surprised" with the news that the deal involved an exclusive clause where the city wouldn't be allowed to fund any other major projects of this kind. Again, we find out that the city didn't realize that there was a calculation mistake in how much of the tax payer's money they would get back as part of the deal by a total of $60 million, leaving a margin of only $13 million in terms of how much money the city will make.

While there's no doubt the main opponents who are fighting this are a classic case of NIMBYers, it doesn't mean that none of their objections are invalid. Every major projects like this will have its opponents who will use whatever means possible to stop it from happening (such as with Scotiabank Place). At least with SBP, it was entirely funded by private investments leaving the entirety of the risks at the hands of the people who stood to profit from it (and they nearly sank because of it). Now the city carries a large amount of risk related with the construction of the stadium, while having shown to be sloppy with the numbers already. And that doesn't take into account the fact that as reported in the independent auditing of the deal, there are many risks to the construction costs that are not included into the costing of the project, and suddenly that $13 million margin could very easily evaporate.
The city already has a stadium at Lansdowne, they will pay for the refurbishment of that stadium which will still belong to the city.

OSEG will pay the cost of running the stadium and all cost overruns
They will provide the major tenants a CFL team and a soccer team.

OSEG are paying a large share of the money that is going into the project as a whole and assume a lot of the risk.

It is not a one sided deal at all.,

It is relatively common to have a clause in such a public/private partnership that, having agreed to rebuild a stadium with one group of partners they will not immediately upon completion agree with another group of partners to build another stadium in competition with the first, nothing nefarious about that.

Regarding the "miscalculation, it did not figure into the final amounts presented to council as has been explained to but ignored by the friends.

The auditing of the deal by the firm hired by the Friends was shown in court to be anything but independent, in fact the firm that was retained by the friends was given figures, arguments and charts etc wholesale by the lawyer of the FoL and any argument that they were independent has been completely discredited.

The city used Price Waterhouse and even hired a firm recommended by Ian Lee, one of the Friends who is strongly opposed to the project. It has been vetted and signed off by them and by other well respected organizations

The city walked the extra mile, but it seems the foL are determined to get rid of the stadium and anything that will bring people and life back to Lansdowne

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote