HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 8:28 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
^ The lease didn't commit the city to providing the land for race city until 2020, only that it could be renewed until that time with agreement by both parties.

The city has no legal obligation to renew the lease past the current term (2010) to my knowledge. If anyone has seen anything counter to this fact in the media, or in city documents if they could point it out that would be great.

It would be great to open up a Race City type facility as a cultural or sport resource. Of course, just like other things it would need to be non-profit, have some sort of seed funds. If that is the goal I would guess changing the eligibility rules for Lottery Grants to include auto facilities would be the first step.

As for private recyclers, none of the bids beat the waste department's bid. That none of the existing recyclers put in a bid doesn't make the process illegitimate - there were still private sector bids for the city wide contract. We don't break up large water treatment plants into 20 pieces to accommodate small players - if the small recycling players wanted to bid they could have formed a consortium just like many other private sector groups do when bidding for contracts.
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 8:38 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post

The Expo bid antics by council just gives people another reason to not vote for any of them. It was clear from Day 1 that this would never fly and even if we won the bid, we would end up losing a lot of money. So McIver's support on this issue really is strange. But at the same time did Bronco, etc. have another agenda? He knew as well this would never fly but I'm sensing they went through the initial work to get a study done on the West Village area which would have been hard to justify with the public given that the East Village hasn't even started actual development.
Expo bid changed the big west park seen in the city centre plan, into an expo site, into a neighborhood. I don't really remember much talk about the plan before it just appeared. As I am unclear on ownership of the lands there (the city might own it all already and lease it back to the users) who knows. Perhaps the city just realized the difficulty in financing large land purchases to create green space. I have only glanced at the plans, but using a TIF there to pay for some sort of realignment or to bury Bow Trail might turn out to be doublely profitable, with the city being able to flip some land and TIF it all (even if TIFs don't generate extra money for the tax rolls).
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 8:40 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Nevermind.

Last edited by frinkprof; May 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 10:12 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
According to this article, it's almost all City-owned:

Quote:
He said by the time West Village is ready to begin, East Village will be rolling out.

"I think they complement each other very well," said Ollenberger, who next year will begin talking to developers about opportunities in the East Village.

He added that the city's land ownership in the West Village--about 90 per cent, compared to about 50 per cent in the East Village--will also help smooth development.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...698/story.html

I actually think they will wait on West Village until the East Village is somewhat built up already. No need to spread the market too thin.
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 11:39 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
If development will help pay for burying Bow, then full speed ahead I say. Otherwise, no point in rushing it and diverting development out of rail town and the eat village.
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 8:01 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
^ The lease didn't commit the city to providing the land for race city until 2020, only that it could be renewed until that time with agreement by both parties.

The city has no legal obligation to renew the lease past the current term (2010) to my knowledge. If anyone has seen anything counter to this fact in the media, or in city documents if they could point it out that would be great.

It would be great to open up a Race City type facility as a cultural or sport resource. Of course, just like other things it would need to be non-profit, have some sort of seed funds. If that is the goal I would guess changing the eligibility rules for Lottery Grants to include auto facilities would be the first step.

As for private recyclers, none of the bids beat the waste department's bid. That none of the existing recyclers put in a bid doesn't make the process illegitimate - there were still private sector bids for the city wide contract. We don't break up large water treatment plants into 20 pieces to accommodate small players - if the small recycling players wanted to bid they could have formed a consortium just like many other private sector groups do when bidding for contracts.
Concerning recycling, the city administration essentially made the requirements to have a successful bid so expensive that no one but the city would qualify. There was plenty in the news about this when the city was implementing a recycling program plan. Now it sounds like they are screwing Race City. The more that comes out about this lease the more it seems like the administration wants to get rid of these guys.

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/loca...ce-city-mciver

It was also mentioned on the news today that the $3.1 million the city was to spend on keeping the race track in it's current location was going or is going to be spent anyway because it has to do with landfill expansion. Either they are not being honest or the media is doing their usually crappy job of reporting. I've also heard it mentioned that part of the $3.1 million would be spent on event security which makes no sense to me. Since when does the city pay for security for private events?
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2009, 5:53 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Two stories today:
Quote:
Calgary alderman apologizes as Race City quip draws fire


BY JASON MARKUSOFF, CALGARY HERALD DECEMBER 1, 2009 7:02 AM


CALGARY - Ald. Ric McIver has apologized for saying he hopes the Race City track sues the city and wins, after a colleague fired a veiled rebuke at him in council.

McIver has spearheaded the push to have city officials renegotiate the lease with the speedway in his ward rather than force the property to become part of a landfill expansion.

When council last week refused to spend $3 million on necessary infrastructure to allow Race City to stay, the southeast aldermen lashed out at what he viewed as the city's bid to kill Race City.

"I'm still hopeful we'll come to a deal. Or, if worst comes to worst, I hope Race City is successful in suing the city to get their lease reinstated," McIver told reporters last week.

It's exceedingly rare for politicians to express hopes their own government loses anything, especially not a court battle.

Ald. Gord Lowe didn't mention McIver by name, but did note the reported comments and asked during Monday's council meetings if aldermen carried the same responsibility as corporate directors.

"Given the published comments, I know if I was on the board of a publicly owned company and had done something like that, I can fully expect to be tossed off the board," Lowe said in an interview afterwards.

"And my director's insurance would vanish and I'd be at the tender mercies of the shareholders, the board and the corporation."

Bronconnier said Lowe's query about "fiduciary duty" would be dealt with behind closed doors.

Asked about the situation, McIver said he regretted saying something he didn't really mean to say.

"When you say something stupid and it gets recorded, the best thing you can do is say I'm sorry," he said.

"And I'm happy to say I'm sorry."

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...975/story.html


Quote:
Calgary council halts efforts to cut tax increase

Council opts to stand by its 2010 budget adjustments, settling on a property tax increase of 4.79 per cent, which will add about $54 a year to the municipal portion of the average residential bill.

BY KIM GUTTORMSON, CALGARY HERALD DECEMBER 1, 2009 7:02 AM

CALGARY - The city won’t be trying to further reduce next year’s tax increase, after hearing Monday that it would require more cuts to staff, including the police.

After an in camera briefing late Monday night, council voted 13-2 to not pursue additional cuts that could drop the 4.79 per cent tax increase by a percentage point.

“I was looking for better suggestions to reduce the budget,” Ald. Ric McIver said Monday of the reversal. “I’m extremely disappointed.”

McIver, who asked for staff to find another $9 million in savings, said the suggestions council heard Monday night behind closed doors “were not helpful.”

He had hoped for “a plan B that we never got to see” during last week’s budget debate.


But Ald. Gord Lowe, chairman of the finance committee, said the move didn’t make sense.

“They identified what the cost would be in terms of significant impact to personnel, including going back on the promise not to impact police servicing,” he said. “Council elected not to go there.”

Last week, council approved its 2010 budget adjustments, settling on a property tax increase of 4.79 per cent, which will add about $54 a year to the municipal portion of the average residential bill.

After that final budget vote, McIver proposed city staff go back and find another $9 million in cuts, which would reduce the increase to 3.79 per cent.

It was a move criticized by some of his colleagues, who argued that administration had already cut the budgets of most departments by 1.7 per cent to get the tax increase to where it was.

That included eliminating job positions, including more than 30 layoffs, and scaling back some low-use bus routes.

During a day-long budget debate Nov. 23, council itself eliminated about $200,000 from the $2.5 billion operating budget, but then added another $68,000 back in.

Council was told Monday that finding any additional savings would mean going to the police budget — left untouched in the first round of cuts — as well as the auditor and civic partners, such as the library and science centre.

The police budget would have been by far the largest part of any reductions and had presented proposed cuts during the initial round of budget talks which were rejected by council.

“It would absolutely result in cuts to people, primarily in the police budget,” Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart said. “Council made a decision to leave the police budget alone.”

Ald. Linda Fox-Mellway said McIver’s original motion didn’t leave staff much choice.

“It asks administration to perform some function without any realistic suggestions,” she said. “They need direction, that’s our jobs here.”


kguttormson@theherald.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...268/story.html
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 5:11 AM
SmokWawelski SmokWawelski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 154
Since I can't find anyone discussing this.... any takers??? Might this be a somewhat of an issue????



"Alderman sounds alarm bells about potential overtaxation
CHQR Newsroom
1/12/2010

The City of Calgary will be reviewing its reserve fund policies to see if it's appropriate to stash away hundreds of millions of dollars at the same time tax increases are given the green light.
"Money that goes into the reserve is money that's collected from citizens on taxes, over and above what's needed to run the city," McIver told Global Television. "It seems pretty clear there's overtaxation going on."
Roughly $800 million is currently stashed away in 55 separate city reserve accounts.
An audit also found reviews of some reserve funds weren't being done every three years, as required.
The reserve fund policies will be reviewed this week at a meeting of the finance committee."
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 5:27 AM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
If it's "reserve funds" in the sense of savings for emergency issues, then GOOD. I'm bloody sick of the province already pissing away billions only to claim poverty the second anything slightly off plan happened, if this happens in the city there'll be hell to pay.

But damn that's a lot of money. I hope it's well accounted for regardless of what it's for.
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2010, 5:30 AM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
This isn't the first time its come up recently, though the dollar figure keeps going higher and higher (it was only like $200M thought to be in the reserve accounts at one point). From what it sounds like though is theres a lot of money there, and they keep adding huge amounts to it without thinking if the funds should be used elsewhere to an extent, or if they really need to have that much in a reserve for that specific purpose.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2010, 7:28 AM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
Looks like we have the first candidate to throw their hat in the ring for Ward 1: story
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2010, 8:15 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by mersar View Post
This isn't the first time its come up recently, though the dollar figure keeps going higher and higher (it was only like $200M thought to be in the reserve accounts at one point). From what it sounds like though is theres a lot of money there, and they keep adding huge amounts to it without thinking if the funds should be used elsewhere to an extent, or if they really need to have that much in a reserve for that specific purpose.
Maybe Oscar Fetch was right when he claimed the City had about $1 billion stashed away. I know most people thought (or still do) he was crazy but if a complete independend audit was done who knows how much money would be found. The City has already admitted to at least $800+ million which is a crazy amount when most of it hasn't been allocated.
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2010, 8:19 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by mersar View Post
Looks like we have the first candidate to throw their hat in the ring for Ward 1: story
I can't believe I'm about to say this but Hodges has been one of the better people on council the last few terms. Before that I would have loved for him to have been gone. I think he'll end up announcing his retirement before summer and Ward 1 will end up being a wide-open race.
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:27 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Breaking News

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../12997361.html

Bronconnier to call it quits


Mayor Dave Bronconnier has just announced he will not seek re-election in October.

This will his final term after being in office for nine years.

The mayor was speaking to Rotary Club on Tuesday when he made the announcement.

He's Calgary's 35th mayor.
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:31 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Christ, McIvor is going to become mayor now.
__________________
Git'er done!
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:36 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,731
Fuck
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:45 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Nevermind.

Last edited by frinkprof; May 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM.
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:45 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
OK, who from SSP is going to throw their name in to run for mayor?
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:47 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
Christ, McIvor is going to become mayor now.
Pros: SE LRT gets built right away.
Cons: Nothing else is built, in his entire term.
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 8:53 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Bigtime for Mayor.

For serious. We all heard you on the radio, very knowledgable, articulate and passionate.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.