HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1221  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 1:16 PM
Welkin Welkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
^ i dont fully understand the dynamics of regina's facilities, but looking at it from the outside, it seems way more reasonable to build a proper arena to compete with the one in saskatoon....any concerts and shows that currently bypass regina do so because it does not have a 10-15000 seat venue...not because it doesnt have a 35000 seat indoor one.

most big shows that would go in a stadium are touring shows, and since edmonton, calgary and winnipeg do not have an indoor facility, what stadium tours there are do not come to western canada in the winter...in fact they dont tour anywhere in the winter.....they go in the summer when they can play all of the cities that dont have domes.

if regina builds an arena that can be reduced in size for the pats (like MTS Centre) then you will be able to compete for things like the brier, the world juniors etc.....and you will get the acts that are right now hitting other western cities.

99.9% of touring shows require a 10-15000 seat arena, not a 35000 seat stadium.

this is why i never understood the passion for a dome in winnipeg and i dont understand it in regina....
Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is another large retractable roof stadium that was built mainly for football. Outside of Indianapolis Colts games, the stadium only has six big events scheduled between now and January 2013 (they do have several small events like weddings scheduled). The have Supercross in March, a Fire Department Convention in April, a Kenny Chesney concert in June, the National FFA convention in October, the BOA Grand Nationals in November and Monster Jam in January. If a city the size of Indianapolis can't keep their stadium busy, what realistic expectations would we have for Regina? Eight Colt's game a year make up over 90% of Lucas Oil Stadium's revenue just like the Riders would make up 90% of the revenue of any stadium in Regina.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1222  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 2:06 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Pray for Nathan Cirillo
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 49.8955° N, 97.1384° W
Posts: 5,483
So far as I can tell, there really is no economic case to be made for a domed stadium (er, "multi-purpose entertainment facility") for Regina. The argument in favour of such a complex really boils down to one of ego, i.e., Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver have domed stadiums. When we build ours, we'll be on par with them. If that's what it really is then fine, go ahead and build it. But don't try to convince anyone that it's because of the buckets of money that will be made with a domed stadium, because that won't be happening.

If you want to see what a Regina domed stadium's event schedule will be like, go and check out the events calendar for the first half of 2012 at BC Place, Olympic Stadium and Rogers Centre. Remove all of the MLS, MLB and CONCACAF related events from their respective schedules. Add in maybe one or two concerts too big for the Brandt Centre. What you're left with is a smattering of entertainment events, nearly all of which could be accommodated elsewhere (home show, boat show, Disney on Ice) and really no sporting events of any significance save for the occasional one-off like maybe a Brier final.

If it boils down to wanting to be the kings of football in Canada then I guess a domed stadium it is, but if it's about making money then it's hard to see how it wouldn't make more sense to go with an outdoor stadium and indoor arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1223  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 2:53 PM
micheal micheal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
So far as I can tell, there really is no economic case to be made for a domed stadium (er, "multi-purpose entertainment facility") for Regina. The argument in favour of such a complex really boils down to one of ego, i.e., Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver have domed stadiums. When we build ours, we'll be on par with them. If that's what it really is then fine, go ahead and build it. But don't try to convince anyone that it's because of the buckets of money that will be made with a domed stadium, because that won't be happening.

If you want to see what a Regina domed stadium's event schedule will be like, go and check out the events calendar for the first half of 2012 at BC Place, Olympic Stadium and Rogers Centre. Remove all of the MLS, MLB and CONCACAF related events from their respective schedules. Add in maybe one or two concerts too big for the Brandt Centre. What you're left with is a smattering of entertainment events, nearly all of which could be accommodated elsewhere (home show, boat show, Disney on Ice) and really no sporting events of any significance save for the occasional one-off like maybe a Brier final.

If it boils down to wanting to be the kings of football in Canada then I guess a domed stadium it is, but if it's about making money then it's hard to see how it wouldn't make more sense to go with an outdoor stadium and indoor arena.
There is no economic case to be made for any public facilities let a alone a stadium complex ie: libraries, community centers, theaters, museums, etc. But it goes beyond that.They ad to the fabric and culture of a community. Listen. no one is saying this is going to make millions in profit. heck the facility ITSELF it probably will lose money. but the economic and cultural spinoffs and benefits will be great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1224  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 4:20 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is online now
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welkin View Post
Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is another large retractable roof stadium that was built mainly for football. Outside of Indianapolis Colts games, the stadium only has six big events scheduled between now and January 2013 (they do have several small events like weddings scheduled). The have Supercross in March, a Fire Department Convention in April, a Kenny Chesney concert in June, the National FFA convention in October, the BOA Grand Nationals in November and Monster Jam in January. If a city the size of Indianapolis can't keep their stadium busy, what realistic expectations would we have for Regina? Eight Colt's game a year make up over 90% of Lucas Oil Stadium's revenue just like the Riders would make up 90% of the revenue of any stadium in Regina.
Indianapolis also has indoor complexes with capacities of almost 20,000 and 8,000.

Edit: not to mention that Lucas Oil Stadium is almost 2x the size in the base configuration, and about 1.5x in the expanded formats when compared to the last proposal here.

Vancouver's Stadium is used a lot more often, what do they say? 200 event days a year?

Comparisons can be made to any stadium around he world to suit anyone's argument. There have been successful multi-purpose venues and there have been unsuccessful ones.

Last edited by Nathan; Mar 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1225  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 4:45 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is online now
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Well being from Saskatchewan, I don't want my money paying for Regina's follies....

I am amazed at this multi functioned facility mentality going on. Almost everywhere else is going away from this type of facilty, especially in MAJOR cities.

Give Regina a 15,000 seat arena. Good for concerts 5 or 10 a year, and a half dozen shows or other events.... The Riders need a good football facility. I agree 100% on that. But they don't need a white elephant in the shape of a domed stadium...
I'll be sure to send a letter to the Premier asking him to only commit Regina-generated tax revenues. Keep them in Regina instead of spreading them throughout the province. I'm sure there'd be more than enough.

On that same vein, I hope only Moose Jaw revenues were used for Mosaic Place. And the bridges in Saskatoon, I hope that was just Saskatoon revenues, I'll get no used out of them. The one's they currently had were more than enough for my once/twice a year visits. I hope the provincial funds for the art gallery were also just from Saskatoon as well as the funds committed for the new health sciences building (300 million?).

I hate that attitude/reasoning. There are many many things the province spends money on that I will never get use out of, but I accept that the people who do use it will benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1226  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 10:00 PM
Welkin Welkin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
Indianapolis also has indoor complexes with capacities of almost 20,000 and 8,000.

Edit: not to mention that Lucas Oil Stadium is almost 2x the size in the base configuration, and about 1.5x in the expanded formats when compared to the last proposal here.

Vancouver's Stadium is used a lot more often, what do they say? 200 event days a year?

Comparisons can be made to any stadium around he world to suit anyone's argument. There have been successful multi-purpose venues and there have been unsuccessful ones.
Most stadiums have lots of little rooms where they can host small events. Lucas Oil is no different than the Regina Dome in that aspect. However little events are not a justification for building a $500 million facility since the Brandt can already handle them. BC Place in Vancouver is not as busy with "real events" as you might think. When they say 200 event days per year that includes the little events (weddings, small meetings, etc) and big events plus set up days and conversion days.

In January big events in BC Place consisted of only the CONCACAF soccer tournament (8 days). In February BC Place was used for Monster Jam and then the Boat Show and the Garden Show. In March BC Place has only two MLS matches and the PlayDome. In April it has the Auto Show, a Sun Run Fair and a couple more MLS matches. In May the have a couple of MLS matches and their first concert The Wall. Through the summer and on to the end of the year they have only CFL games and MLS matches scheduled. Outside of maybe The Wall concert and CFL games, none of these events would be coming to Regina.

If you doubt this, check out their website for their schedule of events. Outside of hockey, CFL, MLS, and a hand full of concerts/trade shows, most stadiums and arenas in Western Canada sit empty for most of the year. Some cities can justify their arenas because of NHL teams. BC Place host both CFL and MLS plus a couple of major trade shows (Boat Show, Car Show, Garden Show) that don't come to Regina. If you think I am cherry picking, you show me an arena/stadium in Western Canada that stays busy with only a CFL team and a few shows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1227  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 11:04 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is online now
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,088
As I said before, I've already made up my mind as to which project had the best benefits for the cost, so you won't be convincing me otherwise. If the retractable stadium design balloons to ridiculous costs perhaps I'll reconsider my decision; however, as none of us knows what it will cost the province/city at this point, that argument is pointless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1228  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 1:49 AM
jvj jvj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Regina
Posts: 139
The City of Regina has released an RFP seeking consultants for Engineering and Architectural Advisory Services for the stadium replacement project. Submission deadline is March 20th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1229  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 4:40 AM
Dalreg's Avatar
Dalreg Dalreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
I'll be sure to send a letter to the Premier asking him to only commit Regina-generated tax revenues. Keep them in Regina instead of spreading them throughout the province. I'm sure there'd be more than enough.

On that same vein, I hope only Moose Jaw revenues were used for Mosaic Place. And the bridges in Saskatoon, I hope that was just Saskatoon revenues, I'll get no used out of them. The one's they currently had were more than enough for my once/twice a year visits. I hope the provincial funds for the art gallery were also just from Saskatoon as well as the funds committed for the new health sciences building (300 million?).

I hate that attitude/reasoning. There are many many things the province spends money on that I will never get use out of, but I accept that the people who do use it will benefit.


Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1230  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 5:54 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is online now
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.
In not even from Regina... I live here now; I'm from Saskatoon, but I can see the benefit of having a facility like this in the province. Some people will be against it yes, but there will also be some that live outside Regina that will be for it. Clearly you aren't one of those people, and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm also welcome to mine. Has there even been an actual poll done to measure sentiment for the project? Or are you just deciding that most people are of the same opinion as yourself? I know there was one done for Regina, haven't heard about the province's though.

And I'm not sure the rest of the province would be better off. Regina and Saskatoon most likely rake in the majority of provincial tax revenues (not including resource revenue which can't be attributed to any area as no local authority has jurisdiction for that). But that argument is best left for another more politically themed thread, in which I'm not really very inclined to participate.


And as for spending impact, as far as I know (I could be mistaken) the province would fund their commitment mortgage-style. If we use a 3% interest rate (chances are the province can get better with its good rating), and if the province were to contribute $300,000,000 (unlikely they would contibute that much anyway, but I'll just use a high amount for all the people that like hyperbole), the annual funding commitment to pay off a 25 year "mortgage" would be ~$17 million. A $100,000,000 contribution (if open air) would be a third of that number. So to put it in perspective... Since you wanted to talk about roads, the province has commited $1.7 billion toward highway maintenance over the last few budgets. Not to mention the billions thrown at health care every year. $17 million at most per year over the next 25 years (over time the value of the $17 million will of course decline due to inflation/econimic growth) is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else, and in the end won't cause us to axe health care spending, highway spending, or hamper our attempts to recruit health professionals to rural areas (which is one of the major issues facing healthcare in our province). A swing in Potash/Oil prices or the exchange rate has a bigger impact.

Yes, it's a significant sum and some serious thought/discussions will have to be undertaken, but it doesn't have to be the either/or dilemma some people make it out to be.

Last edited by Nathan; Mar 14, 2012 at 7:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1231  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 12:39 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 810
Its fine if people don't want to use logic and facts to see a domed facility will be a dud. People whom have experience with sports facilities or have been actively involved in that scene will be proving right. There is no logical reason for Regina to build such a large facility. Yes for cultural merits it is important but libraries and galleries don't cost 500m, also they are .... FOR THE CONSUMPTION AND USE OF ALL. This means either access is free or in some way made accessible for people whom may have trouble paying (students, elders, low-income, kids). To say a Rider game is in par as that is a complete joke. This is why Stadiums all across North America are boondoggles because the perceived 'culture' and 'accessibility' is a myth. Ticket prices always shoot up and people can engage in Sports culture without spending a dime at a new facility. Unless one can make a valid argument on how the facility would be inclusive to all then it can't be called a 'cultural facility'.

We will be vindicated. To many examples of duds all around. We are not different here in Regina. It would be a money looser just like the rest of them (ours potentially being the worst due to costs and the taxbase size). I can bet my dollar the new plan won't be a dome/retractable roof. They will push an outdoor facility with an option for a dome down the road (aka never). They can't let the new plan creep over the old amount that was pegged (how can they if they couldn't make the old number work via funding?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1232  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 1:26 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 1,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.
Well before making your PASSIONATE claims about propping up the good folks of southern sask in the past five years got much govt monies did Saskatoon get vs the govt Town ,get your facks straight before talking hate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1233  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 3:34 PM
CGY CGY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
Its fine if people don't want to use logic and facts to see a domed facility will be a dud. People whom have experience with sports facilities or have been actively involved in that scene will be proving right. There is no logical reason for Regina to build such a large facility. Yes for cultural merits it is important but libraries and galleries don't cost 500m, also they are .... FOR THE CONSUMPTION AND USE OF ALL. This means either access is free or in some way made accessible for people whom may have trouble paying (students, elders, low-income, kids). To say a Rider game is in par as that is a complete joke. This is why Stadiums all across North America are boondoggles because the perceived 'culture' and 'accessibility' is a myth. Ticket prices always shoot up and people can engage in Sports culture without spending a dime at a new facility. Unless one can make a valid argument on how the facility would be inclusive to all then it can't be called a 'cultural facility'.

We will be vindicated. To many examples of duds all around. We are not different here in Regina. It would be a money looser just like the rest of them (ours potentially being the worst due to costs and the taxbase size). I can bet my dollar the new plan won't be a dome/retractable roof. They will push an outdoor facility with an option for a dome down the road (aka never). They can't let the new plan creep over the old amount that was pegged (how can they if they couldn't make the old number work via funding?).
Sorry to not add anything substantive to this thread (I am all for a domed facility downtown btw!), but Osmo, your incorrect use of "whom" drives me nuts! A quick lesson for you:

Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom

He has experience with sports facilities. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom will the sports facility benefit?
Will the sports facility benefit him? therefore, whom is correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1234  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 5:16 PM
micheal micheal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.
Its funny how the past two years Regina has been creating a majority of the private sector jobs in the province and billions have been flowing into the city from the private sector. so i have to laugh at your baseless argument.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1235  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 6:31 PM
wacko wacko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 273
I'm late to the discussion, I really should check this forum more often. However, I'm a Regina Pats season ticket holder, so I'll share what I know about the Brandt Centre.

I am given to understand that the Brandt Centre is structurally sound, and is expected to remain so for the next 20 to 30 years. Currently, the capacity is 6,336 for hockey and up to 7,129 for concerts, depending on configuration. This includes standing room for 200 people, but doesn't include tables or skyboxes. The Pats are the main tenants, as well as Agribition (within the larger Evraz Place context).

Future expansion plans for the Brandt would involve reorienting the concessions so that they face outward rather than into the concourse. A new main entrance for the Brandt would be added to the south side, and additional seating would be added to the west side (much as was done for the east side in 2009). This would probably increase the capacity to around 8,000 or so. This extra capacity would be aimed at attracting additional events to the Brandt, as the Pats already have sufficient seating for their games.

I think talk of building a new arena is very premature. Such an idea probably would not be seriously considered for another 20 years, at least within the context of Evraz Place. Nor do I think the Parker family would be willing to pay a higher rent at a new, bigger arena when the Brandt is quite sufficient for their needs. The Parkers and Evraz Place have already had enough trouble agreeing on the Brandt lease in past years.

On the other hand, the Roughriders do need a new home relatively soon. I think we will most likely be presented with a proposal for a nice outdoor stadium which is purpose-built for football and which doesn't break the bank. This would serve the needs of both economics and common sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1236  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 7:55 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,183
[QUOTE=wacko;5627556]
Future expansion plans for the Brandt would involve reorienting the concessions so that they face outward rather than into the concourse. A new main entrance for the Brandt would be added to the south side, and additional seating would be added to the west side (much as was done for the east side in 2009). QUOTE]

Just to clarify, the plan is to fill in the concourse with seats or boxes and turn the concessions so they face the outside of the building, under the seats. You would then have continuous seating ceiling to floor like the east end has.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1237  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 3:21 PM
UPP UPP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Regina, Canada
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.


Are you serious? Get a grip. As a taxpayer from Regina I pay for a hell of a lot of virtually unused highways that I will never drive on. I pay for schools outside the city that stay open with enrollments of 60 students while city schools close when they dip below 200 students. (and high schools when they have fewer than 400 students) I subside rural phone and internet rates through Sasktel, I subside STC so that rural folks can get around using unprofitable bus routes that no private company would ever run.

I'm paying for a new hospital in Saskatoon that I will never ever use as well as an art gallery I will never step foot in. I doubt I will ever go to the new arena in Melville or Estevan yet I've helped pay for both.

As for propping up the govt town, don't even get me started on propping up agriculture. I could go on and on.

Fact is, we all share the burden for one another. Another fact is, Regina has not received its share of the payout for a long time, considering 20% of the province lives in its CMA. We don't complain when everyone else gets their share and we would hope for the same from you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1238  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 6:28 PM
Spongebob's Avatar
Spongebob Spongebob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this [B]bridge.[B]

Honestly most people outside of Saskatoon would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools etc.....

A bridge for [I]Saskatoonthat no one outside of Saskatoon will useis not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Saskatoon then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that is Saskatoon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1239  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 9:59 PM
Cam Cam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Wpg
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalreg View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this stadium.

Honestly most people outside of Regina would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools, etc....

A domed stadium for Regina that will sit empty 300+days a year is not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Regina then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that Regina is.
Come on children, let's play nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1240  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 10:09 PM
Dan0myte Dan0myte is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob View Post
Get over it that a lot of people in this province do not want their tax dollars going to this [B]bridge.[B]

Honestly most people outside of Saskatoon would rather spend their tax dollars on something useful, maybe fix a highway or two. Maybe a new hospital, schools etc.....

A bridge for [I]Saskatoonthat no one outside of Saskatoon will useis not one of them. Keep your tax dollars in Saskatoon then. The rest of the province would come out ahead if they didn't have to prop up the government town that is Saskatoon.
Love it.

We're all in this together guys. Certain tax dollars can't go to certain areas. It's one big pool and the ministries divy it up as equally as they can.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:27 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.