HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

New Arena deal agreed to by city and Katz group:mod warning #616

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-11-2013, 09:19 AM
  #351
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoesoftheEighties View Post
This isn't at you directly but anyone saying this is ridiculous. Anyone blaming the arena project for the U of A budget cuts needs to look at the framework of the arena deal and learn where their money actually goes. The provincial government has repeatedly refused to fund the project and education falls under provincial jurisdiction. None of these cuts have ANYTHING to do with the arena. Unless of course this post was facetious.

As for anyone saying they'd rather potholes and roads be fixed with the money, we all would but unfortunately the return on your investment with roads is pretty bad generating a whopping 0 dollars. Sadly, that is a luxury because you end up dumping that money into essentially making your citizens happier. At least the arena development will create jobs and help the economy a little.

Just my opinion on the matter.
What you say about the U of A is true, i take major major issue with your 2nd statement though. It all goes back to the defining the core function of a municipal government.

Provide core services.
Provide core infrastructure.
Maintain these.
Everything else is secondary. Unfortunately these base services are not flashy or attention getting. Cities should stay out the the 'investment game' as far as projects goes because they get burned very badly at times and the tax payer has to foot the bill.

Our mayor rants about a pet project being needed to revitalize down town to get people to go there while at the same time ignoring the fact the place were people actual spend most of their time is going to hell in a hand basket.

The arena will get built, it will partially revitalize down town (though not nearly as much as rosy projections) hockey fans will be very happy. The team will be very happy and it will be a bad deal for the citizens of Edmonton.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 10:29 AM
  #352
Koto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 500
im so confused....havent they voted yes to a master agreement like 4 times now? and they still dont have all the money accounted for? what exactly did they vote on? what changed?

Koto is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 10:47 AM
  #353
McEwen
Registered User
 
McEwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: South Africa
Posts: 668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
Mandel is apparently sounding flustered and frustrated despite the motion passing. Says that people don't come to a city for the suburbs and "We're trying to build a 'city.'"

Iveson, Diotte, Caterina, Henderson and Sloan voted against the motion.
Isn't he still apart of the Northlands Board? Huge conflict of interest that never gets mentioned in the news...

McEwen is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 10:58 AM
  #354
MoneyGuy
Registered User
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McEwen View Post
Isn't he still apart of the Northlands Board? Huge conflict of interest that never gets mentioned in the news...
No. Councillors sit on various boards and committees where issues from their outside boards come to council. They have to juggle their views as a councillor against those of a board member and vote as they see fit.

What do you suggest that Catarina do? He cannot abstain. You may disagree with his position on this issue (as I do), but otherwise he's doing what he must do.

When he votes on council he must do so from the perspective of a councillor and for the good of the entire city. Perhaps he feels he is doing that. Slam him if you disagree with his stand as a councillor who is supposed to be looking out for the interest of the entire city but I would like to know what you feel he should be doing.

MoneyGuy is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 12:18 PM
  #355
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
People want to complain about roads go ask your council member why the city is stuck in it's own ways and too stupid to take advice from the people that build the roads.
No kidding, they build roads like we have a Vancouver climate.

timekeep is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 12:59 PM
  #356
cyril*
Losers cheer for..
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Losing
Posts: 1,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McEwen View Post
Isn't he still apart of the Northlands Board? Huge conflict of interest that never gets mentioned in the news...
Mandel, Diotte and Gibbons are on the Northlands Board representing the City of Edmonton.

cyril* is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 02:04 PM
  #357
nexttothemoon
Eight Straight
 
nexttothemoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,851
vCash: 50
Just slightly off topic (but on-topic in the big picture as spending on the arena affects other areas as well)... some decent sites on pothole problems in Edmonton...

http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2013/04/05/...s-in-edmonton/

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...a-pothole.aspx

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...d.php?p=512516

nexttothemoon is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 02:51 PM
  #358
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Did anyone else catch that little tidbit about the location agreement:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...t-100-million/

Coun. Linda Sloan asks why there is no term identified in the master agreement.

Farbrother says the term would be the length of the lease, which is 35 years. He says if they missed that for some reason, both parties would be happy to add that.

Farbrother says the master agreement doesn’t expire until all of the clauses expire and there is no date for that because some of the clauses include possibilities for extensions.

Sloan asks if the city did review the owner’s financials. Asked admin is satisfied that there is collateral.

Rosen said they looked at Katz’ books but only as it applies to the arena.


Great, so it's not written in there, and since Katz negotiates like Genghis Khan, I'm sure he's going to extract a concession to get it put in writing. Farbrother is comfortable it won't be a problem. That's thin gruel, my friends.

Or else we just "trust Katz", eh? That sounds like a great idea, given the man's track record in this negotiation.

Silver is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 03:20 PM
  #359
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver View Post
Did anyone else catch that little tidbit about the location agreement:

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...t-100-million/

Coun. Linda Sloan asks why there is no term identified in the master agreement.

Farbrother says the term would be the length of the lease, which is 35 years. He says if they missed that for some reason, both parties would be happy to add that.

Farbrother says the master agreement doesn’t expire until all of the clauses expire and there is no date for that because some of the clauses include possibilities for extensions.

Sloan asks if the city did review the owner’s financials. Asked admin is satisfied that there is collateral.

Rosen said they looked at Katz’ books but only as it applies to the arena.


Great, so it's not written in there, and since Katz negotiates like Genghis Khan, I'm sure he's going to extract a concession to get it put in writing. Farbrother is comfortable it won't be a problem. That's thin gruel, my friends.

Or else we just "trust Katz", eh? That sounds like a great idea, given the man's track record in this negotiation.
Yes:,history shows with this guy in these negotiations that he's about the last guy to be trusted. How many times did that guy move the goalposts, and threaten the City by actions if not words?
And how can the City lawyers be that incompetent to not put that clause in black and white, instead leaving it to be implied from the lease? Like Katz and his cronies wouldnt try and take advantage of that "oversight" if it served their interests?
Unbelievable

Billybaroo* is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 04:23 PM
  #360
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Some moderator (Dado) in the Business of Hockey forum is likening the 30 year Glendale lease to the 35 year lease to keep the Oilers in Edmonton saying that it guarantees nothing.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 04:27 PM
  #361
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
Some moderator (Dado) in the Business of Hockey forum is likening the 30 year Glendale lease to the 35 year lease to keep the Oilers in Edmonton saying that it guarantees nothing.
This has been my beef with the City 'owning' the arena from day one. Make the Oilers own it (even if huge concessions are made to build it by the city) and they have a large asset that they have to deal with whether it is year 1, 10, or 35 or 36.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 08:49 PM
  #362
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,306
vCash: 500
people will come to edmonton if we build a arena complex.


mhmmm.

oilinblood is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 08:51 PM
  #363
Del Preston
Pass to Purcell
 
Del Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,380
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
Some moderator (Dado) in the Business of Hockey forum is likening the 30 year Glendale lease to the 35 year lease to keep the Oilers in Edmonton saying that it guarantees nothing.
I've seen some of his posts regarding the Oilers. He's clueless.


Last edited by Del Preston: 04-11-2013 at 08:56 PM.
Del Preston is online now  
Old
04-12-2013, 01:36 AM
  #364
T-Funk
Registered User
 
T-Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,969
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
people will come to edmonton if we build a arena complex.


mhmmm.
More people will come to Edmonton if we have a respectable downtown atmosphere. An arena just sparks development that leads to a respectable downtown.

T-Funk is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 11:49 AM
  #365
Gone
Fire KLowe
 
Gone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Preston View Post
I've seen some of his posts regarding the Oilers. He's clueless.
Katz is surronded by lawyers. I assure you he has an 'out' or two.

Gone is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 01:26 PM
  #366
Mr Forever
The Oilers :(
 
Mr Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: COLLEGE
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Funk View Post
More people will come to Edmonton if we have a respectable downtown atmosphere. An arena just sparks development that leads to a respectable downtown.
That's still debatable. I've been to many cities around the world where there are massive, beautiful pieces of infrastructure are built that create a small business donut effect because of the monoply the owner, like Katz, has on the development. Not saying that's what's going to happen for sure, because yeah I get there's the revitalization plan and it's not only an arena, I'm just pointing out you can't really predict whether an area will thrive or not. Will people move or travel to Edmonton if there's a nicer more built up down town? Maybe, maybe not. I'm a believer in the social drift theory, in that the area will become revitalized if the social problems (to an extent) are dealt with in the city and in the area. Not exactly the easiest an cheapest solution, I know, but you can't cover the issues that make downtown unappealing with a blanket, as they'll go somewhere else in the city and it will become an issue there. Don't get me wrong the plan is nice and all, and I'm glad it's happening, but I don't think the results will be as incredible as some are predicting.


Last edited by Mr Forever: 04-12-2013 at 01:32 PM.
Mr Forever is online now  
Old
04-12-2013, 01:33 PM
  #367
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Forever View Post
That's still debatable. I've been to many cities around the world where there are massive, beautiful pieces of infrastructure are built that create a small business donut effect because of the monoply the owner, like Katz, has on the development. Not saying that's what's going to happen for sure, because yeah I get there's the revitalization plan and it's not only an arena, I'm just pointing out you can't really predict whether an area will thrive or not. Will people move or travel to Edmonton if there's a nicer more built up down town? Maybe, maybe not.
Ah, well anecdotal evidence is nice, but this project has funded studies behind it talking about the economic viability between plopping an arena and hoping for the best and a municipal-wide initiative supporting the development surrounding not only the arena, but the arena district that is accompanying it. Quite a different story in that regard. Nobody, not even Katz, wants a land value black hole surrounding the arena. It's not good business for anybody.

smackdaddy is online now  
Old
04-12-2013, 01:35 PM
  #368
Mr Forever
The Oilers :(
 
Mr Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: COLLEGE
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Ah, well anecdotal evidence is nice, but this project has funded studies behind it talking about the economic viability between plopping an arena and hoping for the best and a municipal-wide initiative supporting the developing surrounding not only the arena but the arena district that is accompanying it. Quite a different story in that regard. Nobody, not even Katz, wants a land value black hole surrounding the arena. It's not good business for anybody.
As I said, I'm not an expert on this and I can't predict the future. I'm also not saying it won't happen, I'll just believe it when I see it. These kinds of things are unpredictable, whether they ran studies or not, human tendencies can be predicted, but are never absolute.

Mr Forever is online now  
Old
04-12-2013, 01:37 PM
  #369
MoneyGuy
Registered User
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone View Post
Katz is surronded by lawyers. I assure you he has an 'out' or two.
Don't be so sure of this.

The city also has lawyers and a capable CAO who have looked into this.

MoneyGuy is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 02:22 PM
  #370
The Big Unit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
What you say about the U of A is true, i take major major issue with your 2nd statement though. It all goes back to the defining the core function of a municipal government.

Provide core services.
Provide core infrastructure.
Maintain these.
Everything else is secondary. Unfortunately these base services are not flashy or attention getting. Cities should stay out the the 'investment game' as far as projects goes because they get burned very badly at times and the tax payer has to foot the bill.

Our mayor rants about a pet project being needed to revitalize down town to get people to go there while at the same time ignoring the fact the place were people actual spend most of their time is going to hell in a hand basket.

The arena will get built, it will partially revitalize down town (though not nearly as much as rosy projections) hockey fans will be very happy. The team will be very happy and it will be a bad deal for the citizens of Edmonton.
LRT expansion in downtown includes a station for the arena/Grant MacEwan. Increased property tax revenues from the arena are likely going to be funneled to road construction down the road in exactly the same fashion city council is using $55M of the provincial infrastructure credit to help build infrastructure in the arena district. The province has repeatedly stated that the city can do what they wish with that money and it doesn't constitute direct funding of the arena project by the province and they will not fund the arena in any direct way.

As for the bolded at the bottom......how do you know it's a bad deal for Edmonton? Governments aren't supposed to make money, like you said they're supposed to provide services. However, they're also supposed to ensure the city is an attractive place to visit and increase our quality of life while we live here, this is especially true for a municipal government. Do you not think a downtown revitalization project helps the city take big strides on both those fronts?

Back in 2006 I listened to a lecture given by the head of the city of Toronto's Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. He said that in order to bring all of the GTA's infrastructure up to 21st century standards it could cost up to an estimated $2 Trillion. That's right, with a T. You can't simply state that everything else is secondary because that means the city isn't fulfilling its duty to its citizens and should therefore scrap all projects and dump all their money into nothing but core services and infrastructure. That's just simply unrealistic and the city can't afford to do that anyway.

Say what you will about diverting funds from fixing infrastructure to building an arena but a major reason much of our infrastructure is crumbling is because of urban sprawl. They keep allowing developers to build new neighborhoods in areas further and further away from the city center. This has two negative effects. First, it costs a TON of money to lay and then maintain new infrastructure in these areas. New roads, new power lines, new sewage systems, new telephone lines etc don't come for free and it means that money isn't being spent to fix older neighborhoods. Second, it only spreads people out further from downtown exacerbating our issues with an already very low population density. This leads to less property tax being collected per sq km because way less people live/work/own businesses in the area.

We need more LRT, more condo buildings downtown and we need something for people to do when they decide to spend their time downtown. At least make it an attractive place for people to spend their time and maybe we can partially shed the reputation as an ugly ****hole in the prairies because our reputation matters too.


Last edited by The Big Unit: 04-12-2013 at 02:38 PM.
The Big Unit is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 04:32 PM
  #371
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,430
vCash: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlapse Vertigo View Post
Some moderator (Dado) in the Business of Hockey forum is likening the 30 year Glendale lease to the 35 year lease to keep the Oilers in Edmonton saying that it guarantees nothing.
Just because of the Phoenix example I wouldn't say a lease is worth "nothing". In order to break the lease Gerry Moyes had to throw the team into bankruptcy. In bankruptcy the owner of the company loses most to all of their equity.

Katz signing a lease is only worthless if you think Katz is likely to simply wash his hands of the Oilers and walk away.

Yukon Joe is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 04:41 PM
  #372
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Unit View Post

Say what you will about diverting funds from fixing infrastructure to building an arena but a major reason much of our infrastructure is crumbling is because of urban sprawl. They keep allowing developers to build new neighborhoods in areas further and further away from the city center. This has two negative effects. First, it costs a TON of money to lay and then maintain new infrastructure in these areas. New roads, new power lines, new sewage systems, new telephone lines etc don't come for free and it means that money isn't being spent to fix older neighborhoods. Second, it only spreads people out further from downtown exacerbating our issues with an already very low population density. This leads to less property tax being collected per sq km because way less people live/work/own businesses in the area.

We need more LRT, more condo buildings downtown and we need something for people to do when they decide to spend their time downtown. At least make it an attractive place for people to spend their time and maybe we can partially shed the reputation as an ugly ****hole in the prairies because our reputation matters too.
Nonsense. The neighbourhood I live in is not urban sprawl, neither are the ones closer to downtown from me, neither are the ones immediately south. These are long time, well established older neighbourhoods in which the lifecycle of the roads and sidewalks are well well past due date. You also have to take a close look at the type of people you are trying to get to live downtown. Condos are not for everyone, the neighbourhoods surrounding that core are not for everyone. Try and encourage down town development? Sure go for it. Use infra money on new capital projects rather than what it is mostly meant for? No, bad idea.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 04:45 PM
  #373
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
Just because of the Phoenix example I wouldn't say a lease is worth "nothing". In order to break the lease Gerry Moyes had to throw the team into bankruptcy. In bankruptcy the owner of the company loses most to all of their equity.

Katz signing a lease is only worthless if you think Katz is likely to simply wash his hands of the Oilers and walk away.
Which he or any other owner can easily do unless there are very punitive punishments for doing so. None of which we have heard about. They get all the benefits of the new rink and have zero in the way of real value holding them to that building if things go sour at all. The Oilers should own the building if they are going to reap all the rewards. If not they should lease the building not take on the risk and not reap all the benefits.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 04:59 PM
  #374
The Big Unit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Nonsense. The neighbourhood I live in is not urban sprawl, neither are the ones closer to downtown from me, neither are the ones immediately south. These are long time, well established older neighbourhoods in which the lifecycle of the roads and sidewalks are well well past due date. You also have to take a close look at the type of people you are trying to get to live downtown. Condos are not for everyone, the neighbourhoods surrounding that core are not for everyone. Try and encourage down town development? Sure go for it. Use infra money on new capital projects rather than what it is mostly meant for? No, bad idea.
Read my post properly! Are you trying to tell me the city doesn't foot part of the bill for the development of new infrastructure in areas south of Ellerslie, north of Belle Rive, west of the Anthony Henday and other areas? Can you tell me what would likely happen to the infrastructure in your neighborhood if the money that went to building new infrastructure in new neighborhoods like Silverberry,Tamarack, others in SE Edmonton was spent fixing up the infrastructure in neighborhoods like yours?

Last time I checked Edmonton was a city and we need to start acting like one. There are plenty of houses on the market in Edmonton proper if you don't want to live in a condo. Or you can move to Sherwood Park or St. Albert if it's too noisy or crowded for you in the city.

The Big Unit is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 05:28 PM
  #375
The Big Unit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
The city of Edmonton (not metro just the city) has just over 810 000 people as of 2011 estimates and is 684 km2. Our population density is 1186 people/km2.

By contrast, the city of Toronto (not metro just the city) has over 2.7M people as of last month and is just 641 km2. Toronto's population density is 4149 people/km2.

But yeah, it's sheer nonsense that we have a sprawl problem in Edmonton.

http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/geography.htm

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

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


Last edited by The Big Unit: 04-12-2013 at 05:35 PM.
The Big Unit is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.