Quote:
Originally Posted by Snark
1) If the City can acquire $500M from whatever source(s) and then spend it on what it wants to, this is effectively City-only funding, as the City is controlling its disbursement.
|
OK...I never said I thought this was city funding or not. It may be that the city acquired $500mil from somewhere...it may be a partnership of some kind...it may be that the city has been sitting on it for 80 years. Who knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snark
2) Why do you think that City is acquiring $500M? Ever considered that this is a public/private scheme where much of the funding is private for private developments, or perhaps a 3P arrangement?
|
If it IS a public-private partnership there should be more transparency than the mayor simply saying that something big is going to happen...and it's going to be worth $500mil. Shouldn't the public know where money is coming from and where it's going? Keeping in mind all we know so far is based on anectodal news reports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snark
3) Perhaps not everyone (or even the majority) thinks that the cornucopia of urban development is a LRT (I assume that's what you are thinking when you say "transit'. I'm sure that you didn't mean to imply more buses). Perhaps some people have alternative ideas for economic development outside of the world of public transit that might produce more rapid payoffs in terms of economic growth and job creation. Outside of students, public transit is far from foremost in the vast majority's mind.
|
No, LRT is NOT what I think of when I think of improved transit in London. Maybe in the distant future but for now they need to focus on one or two BRT routes (N-S and E-W), more frequent service and the possibility of a central bus terminal. All of this would cost well under $500 million.
*Resists urge to compare London to Kitchener-Waterloo*
IF the city has indeed acquired $500 million or negotiated a P/P partnership worth $500 million for the specific purpose of revitalizing a specific neighbourhood (which I have absolutely nothing against, by the way)...why can't the same effort be put into acquiring much less funding for a few simple steps to a vastly superior transit service that the city badly needs?