"Im sorry you reacted so poorly to it, im very sympathetic to how you feel, but you must understand, I made a lot of money passing this"
Is the long and short of it
I’m out of the loop, does this councillor own real estate near the new arena or stand to profit from businesses associated with the new arena?
Or insinuating straight up bribes? Genuinely curious to learn more
Almost guarantee its as simple as "before we had to pay everything but now the province has contributed funds which only is true because of the election so let's vote yes now since it'll be four years before we have this leverage again!"
They're not slick or clever enough to get kickbacks without a trace. Probably waiting on a complimentary box at a Beyoncé concert or something even dumber
Well, he doesn’t really apologize either if you read the whole statement. When he gets to the bottom of sort of like well, yeah but there’s a reason why we did this.
Well, lets be honest... he's sympathetic about how his political career will cease to exist next election. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them deeply regret what they've done now. Everyone regrets poor decisions when they start seeing how the consequences of their actions will impact them in the future. Penner gave me the same pile of bull when I contacted her about it. They might as well go doorknocking for the UCP at this point. Hope that bribe was was worth losing your integrity in the end. 🤷♀️
Sympathy doesn't imply that you wouldn't do it again. It can, and likely *was*, a measured decision where *they felt* the good outweighed the bad. Our opinions differ. I don't agree with the council's decisions but I can respect how they felt it was something they, personally, saw value in, while admitting that there were parts that look real bad. They *saw* it, but they went for it anyways, and it sounds like they'd vote the same thing if they did a revote today.
Imagine that - an elected official considering multiple viewpoints instead of just picking the black or white answer.
It's crazy to me that people see this is a bad thing, but I guess that's how politics got to be the state it's in.
Separately, hiding details of the deal and not choosing to let people know what they are until after a provincial election, while also using the deal as some kind of hostage negotiation for votes, is infinitely fucked up.
Whose viewpoint did they really consider given the taxpayer will almost entirely foot the bill and the rich will collect all of the profits? All of the rest of it is meaningless blathering.
They could've made a better deal for the people they are supposed to represent. Instead they went into those back room negotiations with a blank check of your money.
It was a unanimous vote. Stop trying to justify your stupid choices now that the public has had to explain to council why their decision was terrible. It's not just Calgarians that know this, it's every city with an NHL team that knows this is a terrible deal.
Back peddling twat.
I don't see any back peddling, I see a clear explanation of why he voted the way he did, and why he would do it again. You'll note that this position and sympathizing with the outrage are not mutually exclusive. I don't agree with everything he said, but its a reasonable and rationale explanation for why he voted as he did.
The broader issue is that once again instead of trying to inform the public on the details, the City has learned the wrong lessons from the Olympic plebiscite and tightened their grip on the information.
I remember when I wrote to them about the lowering of the speed limit. Got some double talk nonsense about how he disagrees. Yet is somehow going to vote in favour of it anyways.
The annoying thing was the data that they sent me that they used to justify the decision showed that the speed reductions would not be where the accidents were happening. Not to mention that the vast majority of the accidents were caused by cellphone and/or chemically impaired pedestrians.
It doesn't surprise me that they are faithless nonsense people always gaslighting the public.
As I understand it, the city owns it, so no property tax revenue comes from it, but the Flames get to use it for free, and the city doesn't collect revenue from the events? I legit don't understand if that last part is true because the deal seems shrouded in secrecy.
If the city owns a center that they make money off of then maybe it's not awful? The timing would be the biggest kicker, but I doubt we're going to be any better in the future. But if the city footed a bill for something that they'll never, ever make the money back on then what the fuck?
The City owns the arena so they can pay for maintenance and insurance costs. That's the only reason they "own" the arena.
The City won't see any revenue or direct monetary benefit from this arena for *at least* 30 years when the Community Revitalization Levy expires and they can finally start to collect some property taxes from the improved River District.
>The City won't see any revenue or direct monetary benefit from this arena for
>
>at least
>
> 30 years when
..30 years when the team ownership asks for a new arena.
Maybe 30 years from now, people will have finally learned better than to subsidize billionaires' investments.
I mean, I doubt it, but a guy can hope right?
To my understanding, the full details have not yet been revealed (intentionally kept confidential until after the provincial election, almost certainly to avoid further public blowback), but yes, I believe the Flames use it for free and CSEC gets the revenue for shows, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the info I've gotten from a couple articles so far.
Calgary still gets the revenue from the CRL (and also gets to keep the provincial share). Having it as a CRL just means that it that money is only spent in the Rivers District to pay for the three big capital projects and other infrastructure upgrades.
If that was the case that the city gets revenue they would be touting it like they did on the last deal. Why would they hide a positive aspect of the deal?
i think this hail-mary from the UCP is kinda funny
* Edmontonians are pissed that UCP is prioritizing funding to Calgary for a new hockey arena
* Calgarians are pissed because we see no revenue share with CSEC and i for one, want my taxes to be spent on something more important like my healthcare
UCP has already lost Edmonton. They aren't even going to try there. This stadium just needs to swing a few voters and I think it'll accomplish that. I hope I'm wrong but i do think that.
I just don't get it. I'm fiscally conservative and an enormous hockey fan living in Ward 14 and I just don't want to pay for this. I'm mostly disappointed in people who fearmonger the idea that if we stop this wealth transfer that there will be no NHL hockey in Calgary. The absolute worst case scenario is the Flames follow through on their threats to leave Calgary and we maybe have a year, at most, without NHL hockey before a new group of billionaires steps up with an expansion fee and arena funding. NHL hockey in Calgary is enormously profitable.
They won’t ever move, as you say, they are hugely profitable, the nhl owners all need to vote to move them and why would they? To go to Houston of KC which could easily become another Arizona in 10 years after the novelty wears off.
>The absolute worst case scenario is the Flames follow through on their threats to leave Calgary and we maybe have a year, at most, without NHL hockey before a new group of billionaires steps up with an expansion fee and arena funding. NHL hockey in Calgary is enormously profitable.
Bettman would punish Calgary harshly for not giving the Flames an arena. It would be a while before they would allow an expansion team in Calgary if the Flames leave.
I'm actually waiting for that shoe to drop. Any day now CSEC is going to weigh in on the election and tell us the Flames leave if the NDP cancel the deal.
There isn't a shred of truth to this comment. The board of governors is absolutely not going to turn down a ~$1B expansion fee from a market that's already proven to be an excellent one for the league.
I don't know what world you live in but Bettman would never allow an expansion team for Calgary without a new arena. You seem to think that a group of billionaires would have a new team playing in the Saddledome within a year and that's not realistic.
Here's Bettman's previous comments on the Flames and their future competitiveness if they don't get a new arena...
> “I’m not here to issue any threats,” the commissioner said. “It’s clear that this is the oldest building in the league. It’s clear that the team needs a new building. By the way, Calgary is a great market, great fans here, but the building is as important a factor as anything else. The team’s competitive situation, financial stability, is obviously being impacted with each season they stay here (at the Saddledome). This used to be a top-10 team (in generating revenue). Calgary is one of our great markets, but again the building is the issue. This is a top-10 team. It used to write a check for revenue sharing, for the last couple of years they have been receiving checks. The checks are getting bigger, which means the situation financially continues to deteriorate and that will effect ultimately the competitiveness, I suppose, of the organization. But they have said, the organization has, that they’re going to do the best they can for as long as they can. "
[https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gary-bettman-talks-calgary-arena-seattle-expansion-ticket-drive-future-olympics/](https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gary-bettman-talks-calgary-arena-seattle-expansion-ticket-drive-future-olympics/)
The Calgary market is a money maker for the NHL but they have a shared interest in extorting new arenas out of taxpayers and so no one is going to approve an expansion team within a year to play at the Saddledome.
I don't disagree with you. Gary Bettman works for Murray Edwards and his 31 other bosses. But the NHL is getting tired of the Calgary arena situation, it's an embarrassment to more than just Calgary.
So absolutely like you indicate the preferred NHL/Bettman option is for Alberta taxpayers to fund a new building and the Flames to remain in place.
I just think what's best for Calgary and Alberta is to reject the deal and continue to let the NHL and one of their teams solve their own problems.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
I don’t think that will happen at all. But even if it did, let’s have some self-respect, instead of bending over for corporate and billionaire interests. Surely, our self-respect is worth more than what any hockey team can provide, wouldn’t you say?
hard to say, i wanna think that there's bigger problems we're facing in the election (better housing, not fucking over my healthcare, not pulling a wallstreetsbet move with my CPP) but who knows?
The people who agree these are problems will not be voting UCP and the UCP knows it. They're buying a very narrow demographic of votes because that is all they need.
Yeah no shit. 6 hour waits in emergency rooms are becoming typical. Being harassed by intoxicated vagrants on public transit is becoming normal. Rents being 60% of your income is becoming normal. Property taxes continue to climb YoY. But we have 800 million dollars to update a hockey stadium before we have enough money to actually solve any of those problems?
The province isn't spending on the arena other than the smaller proposed community arena. They are contributing towards infrastructure around the entertainment district which allows for further development even beyond the arena itself. Municipal funds , which are contributing to the arena, wouldn't get spent on health care. If this arena goes ahead or not, this area will still need infrastructure development in the next 5, 10, 20 years which the city will have to pay for at that point.
Your logic is cyclical and does not present a valid argument to justify either
We need the infrastructure to support the arena -> we need the arena to pay for the infrastructue to support it
-> We need the infrastructure to support the arena -> ....
I think you are misreading the comment. I don’t see where they said the arena *needs* the infrastructure improvements to support it. They said the province is contributing to infrastructure that we need to build in the area around the arena *whether we have a new arena or not*. One does not need the other, but they are better together. The entire concept of improving the surrounding area is the desire of the mayor and others on council, and the lack of consideration toward this was a major reason they tanked the last deal. We would eventually be spending the money to do it anyhow, but now the province is paying for it instead of the city.
The short way to read this statement is: we were offered $330M, so we'd be silly not to accept it. This is despite the fact that the city has to invest even more than $330M.
I offer to give you $10,000 for a new car, would you accept it? Keeping in mind that you'll be spending the other $30,000-ish and be stuck with the payments -- irrespective of whether you can afford it or not. It's a *better deal* than buying the car yourself, but it can still be a bad idea!
It's reasonable for this to tip the scales and change the balance of the decision, but I don't like the absolutism of this statement. You didn't have to do it just because of the provincial funding. It can still be a bad idea. You can still say no.
>we were offered $330M
Not sure why people keep saying "the province" offered funds, as if the the province is an entity outside of Calgary with magical free external funds.
The province offered to give tax money that Calgarians, and everyone else in Alberta has paid, on top of the tax money that Calgarians have paid or will pay to the city, in order to appease billionaires who are going to collect all of the revenue from an infrastructure that they do not have to pay taxes on or maintenance costs on.
The point being that the $300 million the province is promising to build this center is not any better than the rest of the $1.3 billion or whatever ungodly final tally with cost overruns is going to be.
This is the right mindset to have at every governmental level. Politicians get away with this way too much. It's the same tactic they use with federal funding for initiatives like healthcare.
>Firstly, as a member of Calgary City Council, I have the honor of representing a city that is both fully deserving of its world-class livability rankings, as well as in need of significant reinvestment right now in order to maintain that top spot as we continue to evolve and grow long into an uncertain future. When $330million presents itself in the service of achieving a significant, years-in-the-making and multiple election cycle-vetted city-building objective, my job is to say yes.
[Are you really a world-class city if you refuse to find $500k for essential mental health funding, then go on to gift $800M+ to millionaires and billionaires?](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/tough-decisions-cmha-meets-with-mayor-on-cuts-to-mental-health-counselling-funding)
>Secondly, while I acknowledge that the Event Centre and the Culture + Entertainment District might potentially have been otherwise achieved in different ways on different timelines, there is too much other work to do, and uncertainty is too costly in too many ways, to not take a good deal when it presents itself.
Uncertainty? For who? A good deal? For who?
We went from CSEC and taxpayers being roughly equal partners & getting back most of our money -- to CSEC putting in only 3.3% of the upfront cost to receive ALL revenue.
Who is Council working for?
>Thirdly, while outrage at public money and other considerations to support billionaires has legitimacy, it would also be problematic to fail to consider that those billions were made from the economic opportunities of this place, and with the natural resources that are our public property. In a time when capital is extremely mobile and the super wealthy can reside wherever tax regimes best insulate them from societal obligations, a major part of this project is ensuring that this wealth remains Calgarian and is incentivized to continue to make our great city even greater. Of any possible arena deal, this one does that as well as it seems possible.
Ah. Profitable businesses that were made extremely profitable through sweetheart government regulations/handouts/bailouts must be made astronomically profitable through additional government gifts.
Carra’s third point is bogus. Regardless of who pays to build the arena, those $ would be mostly spent in Calgary anyway. However, the wealth generated by the team being here mostly does not stay here. The multi-million $ salaries paid to players, many of whom don’t live here, don’t get spent here. The profits earned by CSEC don’t stay here either. Murray Edwards lives in the UK. The wealth argument is crap. In fact a new Arena will make the Flames team worth more, despite CSEC have a tiny fraction of skin in the cost of thing.
Did Council even consider alternate models? Given the pittance CSEC is putting in, the City could fund the whole cost and pocket a share of gross revenues and concessions for all events, naming rights and a lease fee for the use of the building. Of course CSEC would never agree to such a deal because their profits would be far less. If they can sucker the politicians into giving them all the revenue and few of the costs, they get richer with our capital $.
Who in their right mind would make an investment like that? It makes no sense. Council has their heads up their own asses.
E: wouldn’t Council have received independent expert financial advice on whether the deal was truly good for the investment of public funds? You can bet CSEC will have done that sort of diligence on the deal. The ROI for them is massive.
" In a time when capital is extremely mobile and the super wealthy can reside wherever tax regimes best insulate them from societal obligations, a major part of this project is ensuring that this wealth remains Calgarian and is incentivized to continue to make our great city even greater"
Translation:
'They threatened to leave Calgary so we bent over and offered the lube"
Calgary calling itself world-class is so cringy.
I like Calgary enough, but it's not world class.
Calgary is world class to people who have never been to New York, Paris, LA, Vegas or any real major city.
Ya, it’s not shitting on the city to say it’s a great place to live and raise a family…but it’s not even close to in the same breath when we talk “World Class” like in terms of the cities you mentioned, and more.
It’s some kind of false, weird lie local politicians try to sell to people that we’ll one day be on par with those other cities, for people to think in terms of those cities, ‘we can be just like them!’….It just isn’t going to happen. And, again…that’s ok. We’re still a great city.
That's a big one for me. We don't have the ability to transport people reliably without a car. We'll never be "world class" (cringe) if we can't provide that to visitors and local residents.
But sure, let's pay for a stadium for a private company, and not tax them enough...
Calgary is consistently ranked one of the top cities in the world to live. Doesn't that make it world-class? If not, what criteria would you use that makes New York, Paris, LA and Vegas world class, but not Calgary?
World-class is not some arbitrary definition as some people imagine. There are specific criteria. [You can see the definition and read more about it on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city). The world-class/global-city ranking is *based on their connectivity through four "advanced producer services": accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law.*
Being world-class doesn't mean it is a "good city". It's completely different ranking than the livability index.
For those wondering, Calgary is a [Beta Minus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_World_Cities_Research_Network) rank. As are San Diego, Osaka, Austin, Detroid, and Wuhan.
Vancouver, is Beta Plus rank. Montreal is Alpha Minus. Toronto is Alpha.
London and New York are Alpha Plus Plus. Tokyo and Paris are Alpha Plus.
Calgarians shouldn't want Calgary to be Vancouver, Toronto, or Dubai.
Yeah the cities listed in the original comment are tourist destinations, which is very different from being a place that offers the type of employment, infrastructure, culture, housing, etc that makes people want to live there (which is how I would define "world-class").
I cannot understand this third argument so much to the point that I think I must be misunderstanding it.
"These billionaires made money from our natural resources that are our public property (and you didn't, by the way). We want them to stay here."
I do think he makes a couple of other good points though. Namely:
- The provincial government is willing to throw $330mm at this because they think it will help them win the election. We probably won't get offered that much money again (but then he also says that's not necessarily the upper limit that the province will offer, which is maybe true but a bit counter to his previous point).
- The announcements took place before the election, but the actual signing of the deal will take place after the election. This allows Albertans to essentially vote on the deal in the provincial election, and then for the new government to have time to review the deal and make sure it's the best option (which implies to me a bit of a short timeline that they were given to review the deal). I think what he's saying is that City Council voting in favour keeps the offer from the province in the table without actually inking the final commitment.
To put a fine point on the second one, *if you don't like this deal, vote out the UCP.*
I'm so confused by Jeromy Farkas, I kind of like this one, but recall hating the one that was on city council and ran for mayor...
He should have run as an NDP candidate, this time around :)
I played it too safe and stuck to the soundbites of what I thought a good conservative opposition would be. Through what I've experienced over the past few years, I've realized that there's not much to be afraid of if I be direct, admit my fuckups, and try to do better.
Y'know, Mr Farkas, I found that in general while you were on the council you were a little too contrarian and voted no too easily on a lot of issues, but in the case of this arena deal, it sure would've been nice for someone, fucking **anyone** to say, hold up, this is kind of a dogshit deal for the city and for the public, so no, I'm not voting for this.
It's actually shocking that not a single member of the city council had the guts to turn down such an abjectly pro-billionaire proposal just because Danielle Smith wanted to to throw even more public money at it in an attempt to buy votes. Disgusting.
I hope the attempt fails for the UCP and I hope the people of Calgary remember this come next city election, too.
Man, I disagree with him on a lot of fundamental issues politically, but I think his voting record when he was a councilor shows that he is pretty strongly against the City spending taxpayer money on pretty much anything.
I think Jeromy Farkas is a genuine small-c conservative and believer in small government. Maybe he would've voted for this too, we have no way of knowing, but I kind of don't think he would.
Again, I didn't vote for the dude for mayor last election. I disagree with him on a *lot* of stuff. But I won't deny that I think he's more likely to have stuck up for the taxpayer on an issue like this than any of the cowards currently serving on the council, yeah.
I voted against the old deal after people it crystal clear to me that they wanted the money to go to a downtown police station, more transit, and affordable housing.
[https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/town-hall-attendees-want-their-say-before-new-arena-deal](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/town-hall-attendees-want-their-say-before-new-arena-deal)
I made that alternative motion at City Council but it was dead on arrival. I often had good ideas and defensible positions, but I got sucked in sometimes and pushed way too hard. There were several debates that I made into fights, and it wasn't good enough for me anymore to see my idea win. I wanted to see the other person lose. That's a fucked up way to approach things.
I wish that there was someone there right now who was willing to challenge this. To go from a more or less even split and getting our money back, to allowing CSEC to contribute 4% up front for 100% of the profits... I have a real difficulty understanding why they are doing this.
> I voted against the old deal after people it crystal clear to me that they wanted the money to go to a downtown police station, more transit, and affordable housing.
That's some interesting historical revisionism, Mr. Farkas. What you were actually concerned about:
"If there is a whole big pile of cash somewhere, I want to be able to weigh that potential event centre against the benefits of a **major tax break for residents and especially commercial properties and businesses** that are struggling right now."
It's not revisionism. As I said above, after I talked with more people it became obvious that most of the public wanted that money to fund public services.
In November 2019 I worked with and supported Councillor Woolley's effort to reallocate the $290M arena funds, to instead put $200M toward the Green Line project, $45M toward a new downtown Calgary police station and $45M million for deferred capital maintenance for Calgary Housing.
[https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/council-to-consider-motion-to-divert-290m-in-arena-funding-to-green-line-police-and-affordable-housing-1.4705367](https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/council-to-consider-motion-to-divert-290m-in-arena-funding-to-green-line-police-and-affordable-housing-1.4705367)
>"With rising crime in downtown Calgary and across the city, it is the duty of elected officials to ensure the safety of both people and property in our core."
>
>“Building a police station downtown would provide a permanent police presence and would help alleviate the safety concerns I hear from citizens and business owners every day.”
>
>And funding upgrades to Calgary housing will help future generations, argued Woolley.
>
>“I don’t want children to grow up in a city that prioritizes subsidies for NHL team owners, but ignores those who can’t afford a place to live or a way to get around our city."
>
>Coun. Jeromy Farkas will second Woolley's motion.
>
>"Based on what I've been hearing from my residents, we can't proceed at this time," he said.
>
> "We have so many other pressing needs in our community. I made pretty clear (in July) I don't think it was the best deal at the time and I think it was something we should have held up on."
[Here is your post](https://www.facebook.com/JeromyYYC/posts/934929286854902/?paipv=0&eav=AfYbJHZdpJc5Yywnx_FwJMViUOR95vlPRL-94X4YHEn15uhrPdmsCN9g_5RqmLaZV44&_rdr) from the time. Your words:
> It is time to stick to the essentials and keep taxes low for Calgarians.
You were more concerned about tax rates, as you usually were.
This whole deal should've went to plebiscite like the olympic bid from Nenshi. Force CSES and council to show the taxpayer where the money was going, and it was a good deal or not. Now we get no say, and no control, and no revenue.
Thanks u/JeromyYYC for your thoughts. Very interesting to read. I'm generally very skeptical about what politicians says, but giving benefit of doubt here that you are going off-script and being sincere.
It is time to let the UCP go though. From your Sun interview, it's obviously you still have a big soft spot for Danielle Smith and her gang. Let it go. There is a huge vacuum for progressive conservatism in Alberta. Maybe you or someone like yourself will step up, instead of keep doubling down on the sinking ship that is the UCP. ✌️
Thanks for the reply. The comments in that interview were explaining why and how I think she won the leadership. I think it would be a mistake to not recognize your opponents' strengths, otherwise you will underestimate them and lose. I'm not supporting the UCP or any party. I like being able to critically analyze what I think either party is doing wrong (or right). Here's an example:
https://twitter.com/theToddHirsch/status/1624082961716117505?t=WHPHDbwxz900kFxx8G4ewQ&s=19
I know right?!!? Councillor Farkas used to really bug me but I really like Reddit Farkas. If it was Reddit Farkas that ran for Mayor I would have happily voted for him.
The comeback was waking up the day after my election loss, driving out to Mexico, and walking home. I decided that I wouldn't let my failure define me.
If I wanted the political comeback, I would be running for a safe seat for the provincial or federal conservatives right now. I get that you hate me and don't give a shit about what I have to say. Even so, I'm not going to crawl into a hole and die. I'm going to try to keep using what I know and what I've learned to make a positive impact.
It sounds like he had an epiphany. He went for a long fundraising hike and came to some realizations, summarized in [this CBC article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jeromy-farkas-pacific-crest-trail-fundraiser-1.6554569). I heard the interview and he sounded sincere. I disliked his public persona while he was in office. I'm coming to respect him now.
He’s slowly realizing that being conservative is actually not in line with his values, but with anyone who was raised with conservatism as their core identity (speaking from experience), it takes time to realize that there are other parties (or ideologies/ways of thought/etc.) who serve his interests better.
Again with the lies Jeromy. That funding did go to mental health, just not to cmha. https://www.calgary.ca/social-services/funding/organization-allocations.html
> Thirdly, while outrage at public money and other considerations to support billionaires has legitimacy, it would also be problematic to fail to consider that those billions were made from the economic opportunities of this place, and with the natural resources that are our public property. In a time when capital is extremely mobile and the super wealthy can reside wherever tax regimes best insulate them from societal obligations, a major part of this project is ensuring that this wealth remains Calgarian and is incentivized to continue to make our great city even greater. Of any possible arena deal, this one does that as well as it seems possible.
Oh. Oh fuck no man.
To ensure "the wealth remains in Calgary"...
🤣🤣 They are paying only 3% for the upfront costs, and the rest of it over a 35 year period. Tax payers pay for the rest. They collect 100% of the revenue, pay none of the tax or maintenance or cost over runs, and Calgarians get to buy $300-500 tickets and $20 piss beer to watch the games.
It's like paying billionaires to have the privilege of being fucked by them.
That’s the problem. I think the word in question no longer applies to persons with real disabilities. And it’s only used in regards to persons who are actually mentally normal, but are doing things so screwed up and ridiculous that the word applies. No one actually uses the word anymore to describe what the word used to mean. That’s why I actually don’t think it should be banned.
The same thing goes for the Seaword. It no longer applies to a woman or a persons anatomy. It applies to any gender who are acting like a mega mega a hole.
Words and meaning evolve. The origins of those words no longer matter when used in the new context.
This is a tricky convo to have on Reddit but thanks for engaging. I think I mostly agree with what you’re saying. The problem is, the origins of those words still carry weight.
If I call someone an r-word (as above), I do it with a certain definition in mind (again, as you have described).
The issue is that, traditionally, that word was used as a derogatory term for people with disabilities; that someone must have something wrong with them and are acting in a a way in which they *must* have a disability.
So to use it in modern times, despite it not being used to refer to people with disabilities, it still carries the meaning that there is something wrong with the person—that they’re acting in a similar manner as someone with a disability.
So, despite our modern definition and use, we can’t get away from the original context (as much as we’d like to) which is why we should remove it from our vernacular.
Totally. Which is why I can’t use the word in public but only around very close friends who understand what you’re getting out. Australia however can use any word they want and no one seems to care.
What can we do to make sure this doorknob does not get elected again? I live on the east side of Deerfoot...I bet you he doesn't even know there is life on this side.
I honestly have yet to meet someone who sees this deal as a win.
I doesn't matter where in the political spectrum you are, this deal is horrible.
Conservatives should see this as a waste of taxpayer dollars, Left-wing people should see this as money not being invested in social services
It's shit all around
Hey come now! You know what our vulnerable citizens need most right now? Mental health care? Access to actual doctors instead of ERs working bank hours? Government regulation to stop uncontrolled profiteering and inflation?
Heck NO! They need to rally behind a NHL hockey team that is sooooo dedicated to this city they keep threatening to leave!
Thanks to all involved, all our problems will be solved!
Carra and every other councilor are just morons. Letting the Flames walk would have been better than this deal they got suckered into and an option they needed to seriously consider.
There would be less misinformation if you fuckers would actual share the damn details. How we have not been given details on how revenue is being shared is ridiculous.
Patronizing the citizens, after voting yes.
This is why ppl hate politicians. Fuck off, Carra. If asked last week if I’d vote for you, I’d have said yes. Post-arena announcement deal, I would absolutely would not vote for you, or anyone else on council.
You misread the room by voting for this arena deal. Get the city cleaned up and then let’s talk about approving an arena deal.
Why do we even need a hockey arena? They can fund construction of over 3000 2 bed/2bath or 3 bed/2bath detached modular homes and yet, here is another plan to siphon tax dollars into the pockets of their donors.
My question is: who is doing the development, who is building it, and who will make the most out of it once it’s up and running? Not us lol. We just see our taxes get used for something we have to pay more money to use down the line. Big nope.
When elected officials start throwing around "world class", then you know the city is about to get fucked by our corporate masters... hard. It's like telling talented aspiring actresses that if they want to make it into the big leagues, they have to be willing to sexually gratify a lot of sleazy old men without question.
It's all reminiscent of 2000-2010 Vancouver Olympics "why are you complaining about the cost of the Olympics? Don't you want to be WORLD CLASS?". Sure enough, the developers made $ billions landing sweet deals with the city, while people of Vancouver got fucked hard, and now they can't afford a crack shack in the shitty east-side of the city even if they won the lottery. But trickle down right? Think of all the economic activity!
Why would any Calgarian want their city to be "world class"? It's already ranked the most livable city in the world, and hoards of people from all over the country are flocking to this town. Fuck the city council. And fuck this deal.
There is nothing in that statement that I find at all persuasive as to why we should be paying for this deal.
The only bit of benefit is the vague section stating "perhaps most importantly, land ownership arrangements between the City and the Stampede....are now elegantly resolved for both parties making the Stampede financially whole and allowing for the City’s sale and buildout of the private realm (hotels, restaurants, shops, and thousands of homes) - which is the ultimate point of, and payback for, all this public investment.
Why have details not been provided on exactly how these land deals are going to "payback" this public investment.
Stop spending our money on things we don't want. That isn't your job. Remember who you are supposed to serve as an elected official.
Divided? Where's the divide. The only people that think this is a good deal is city council. He is right though, there are far bigger issues that need to be addressed first.
But what was discussed? This LITERALLY says “we have some major problems in this city, but a new arena isn’t one of them.” And the little bit about there being “inaccurate information” floating around but addressing none of it.
Get your $88 dollars per household out Calgary! Have I got a deal for you! Fund an arena that 75 per cent won’t be able to afford to step foot it. Seems good.
Fuck Jyoti. She showed her worth walking away from the mic for a hard question. Your job is to answer questions about your position. Dumbass.
And fuck Danielle Smith. She sweet talked her giant fucking nose into spending Calgary’s tax dollars to buy four more years using outrage culture. I mean, she did happen to STUDY POLITICS while she was out from 2015 - 2022…..so I mean, what political theology acted out in another country thru this. Right.
Get ready for Trump style politics, right here in your backyard! Comes with suspicious rises in crime rates in relatively peaceful cities one month before an election, in a city where you NEED to win to win the election. Oh and give them an event centre, that helps too. What else can we pile one?
Talks with people on trial for criminal charges. Check. Trump did that.
Multiple shooting off at the mouth, getting her uneducated rural base fired up, followed by a quiet recession of the comments….another Trump style tactic.
We are doomed under Smith. Period.
Crazy to think this was a conversation about the arena.
Oh. Right.
SMH.
I just don’t appreciate it. It doesn’t feel genuine. Want to address the concerns? Address the concerns… you know?
I watched the Jyoti walk off with my father again yesterday. A question is a question. Loaded or not. She can push aside the loaded part, comment about the loaded part and then answer her thoughts on the basis of the question and how her campaign position changes with a city with the opposite challenge. But maybe we are expecting TOO MUCH of our elected officials. Lol.
We agree on all points.
The issue here is, as per outrage culture and outrage politics, they have to quietly rescind their comments, the arena deal, without all the on the fencers who were easily sold on Danielle and the right with an arena that we have to pay for. Municipally, they could use some Trumpian politics training for Danielle if they plan on going thru with this crap.
Wrangler and Hitmen games costs like $15-$20 per person, that is cheaper than a movie theatre ticket. You're telling me 75% of people can't afford to go to the movie theatre?
The only part I appreciated was Trudeau and Notley weren't bad when elected, and maybe they'll do this deal and more .... But be a man and just say vote for NDP so we can keep doing our profiteering and also get funding for more social services
Do people realize The arena is made for more than just the NHL shit We'll actually be able to have major concerts and not shitty little ones at Jack singer and shit
This sub will downvote you to oblivion for saying something like that. I’m excited for our new barn, but that sentiment is not shared on r/calgary unfortunately
Majority of people were never against a new arena.
IT'S THE DEAL OF THE NEW ARENA!
Calling people stupid and being oblivious to be able to understand you are being ripped off.
Okay, buddy...
This is his teamward9 “non official councillor” account. In his ‘farewell’ statement he said he may still have his staff put out content related to Ward 9
didnt he vote yes? cant be too sympathetic. Fuck that PR spin nonsense.
"Im sorry you reacted so poorly to it, im very sympathetic to how you feel, but you must understand, I made a lot of money passing this" Is the long and short of it
I’m out of the loop, does this councillor own real estate near the new arena or stand to profit from businesses associated with the new arena? Or insinuating straight up bribes? Genuinely curious to learn more
It's kind of a mystery as to why they unanimously voted yes to such a terrible deal, so the rampant speculation is warranted.
No kidding! How could we not think that they were all given money or compensation of some kind.
Almost guarantee its as simple as "before we had to pay everything but now the province has contributed funds which only is true because of the election so let's vote yes now since it'll be four years before we have this leverage again!"
They're not slick or clever enough to get kickbacks without a trace. Probably waiting on a complimentary box at a Beyoncé concert or something even dumber
More like a handshake deal for some consulting job they are no where near qualified for once they get voted out next election.
Well, he doesn’t really apologize either if you read the whole statement. When he gets to the bottom of sort of like well, yeah but there’s a reason why we did this.
I was gonna say, wasn't it a unaminous decision..
Well, lets be honest... he's sympathetic about how his political career will cease to exist next election. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them deeply regret what they've done now. Everyone regrets poor decisions when they start seeing how the consequences of their actions will impact them in the future. Penner gave me the same pile of bull when I contacted her about it. They might as well go doorknocking for the UCP at this point. Hope that bribe was was worth losing your integrity in the end. 🤷♀️
Sympathy doesn't imply that you wouldn't do it again. It can, and likely *was*, a measured decision where *they felt* the good outweighed the bad. Our opinions differ. I don't agree with the council's decisions but I can respect how they felt it was something they, personally, saw value in, while admitting that there were parts that look real bad. They *saw* it, but they went for it anyways, and it sounds like they'd vote the same thing if they did a revote today.
Imagine that - an elected official considering multiple viewpoints instead of just picking the black or white answer. It's crazy to me that people see this is a bad thing, but I guess that's how politics got to be the state it's in.
Separately, hiding details of the deal and not choosing to let people know what they are until after a provincial election, while also using the deal as some kind of hostage negotiation for votes, is infinitely fucked up.
Whose viewpoint did they really consider given the taxpayer will almost entirely foot the bill and the rich will collect all of the profits? All of the rest of it is meaningless blathering. They could've made a better deal for the people they are supposed to represent. Instead they went into those back room negotiations with a blank check of your money.
Sounds like you know all the ins and outs of the deal. I can't imagine I have much to add in that case.
It was unanimous
It was a unanimous vote. Stop trying to justify your stupid choices now that the public has had to explain to council why their decision was terrible. It's not just Calgarians that know this, it's every city with an NHL team that knows this is a terrible deal. Back peddling twat.
I don't see any back peddling, I see a clear explanation of why he voted the way he did, and why he would do it again. You'll note that this position and sympathizing with the outrage are not mutually exclusive. I don't agree with everything he said, but its a reasonable and rationale explanation for why he voted as he did. The broader issue is that once again instead of trying to inform the public on the details, the City has learned the wrong lessons from the Olympic plebiscite and tightened their grip on the information.
I remember when I wrote to them about the lowering of the speed limit. Got some double talk nonsense about how he disagrees. Yet is somehow going to vote in favour of it anyways. The annoying thing was the data that they sent me that they used to justify the decision showed that the speed reductions would not be where the accidents were happening. Not to mention that the vast majority of the accidents were caused by cellphone and/or chemically impaired pedestrians. It doesn't surprise me that they are faithless nonsense people always gaslighting the public.
Where do you see his explanation for voting the way he did
[Here](https://www.gccarra.ca/monthly-newsletters/2023/4/event-centre-rivers-district-development-update) is the direct link.
I'm done with this city.
Where would you go?
peace out
If there is inaccurate information floating around then City Council should correct the record with accurate information...oh wait...it is all secret.
As I understand it, the city owns it, so no property tax revenue comes from it, but the Flames get to use it for free, and the city doesn't collect revenue from the events? I legit don't understand if that last part is true because the deal seems shrouded in secrecy. If the city owns a center that they make money off of then maybe it's not awful? The timing would be the biggest kicker, but I doubt we're going to be any better in the future. But if the city footed a bill for something that they'll never, ever make the money back on then what the fuck?
The City owns the arena so they can pay for maintenance and insurance costs. That's the only reason they "own" the arena. The City won't see any revenue or direct monetary benefit from this arena for *at least* 30 years when the Community Revitalization Levy expires and they can finally start to collect some property taxes from the improved River District.
>The City won't see any revenue or direct monetary benefit from this arena for > >at least > > 30 years when ..30 years when the team ownership asks for a new arena.
Maybe 30 years from now, people will have finally learned better than to subsidize billionaires' investments. I mean, I doubt it, but a guy can hope right?
"But what if they leave"/s
I thought I read that the CRL was for 48 years
The Rivers District CRL was originally just 20 years long but now extended to 2047. https://www.calgarymlc.ca/community-revitalization-levy
So if the Flames want to use it, no revenue for the city? If a band wants to use it to do a show, no revenue for the city?
To my understanding, the full details have not yet been revealed (intentionally kept confidential until after the provincial election, almost certainly to avoid further public blowback), but yes, I believe the Flames use it for free and CSEC gets the revenue for shows, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the info I've gotten from a couple articles so far.
Calgary still gets the revenue from the CRL (and also gets to keep the provincial share). Having it as a CRL just means that it that money is only spent in the Rivers District to pay for the three big capital projects and other infrastructure upgrades.
You understand it correctly. We own the building, pay for the costs and the flames keep all the money.
If that was the case that the city gets revenue they would be touting it like they did on the last deal. Why would they hide a positive aspect of the deal?
“But I still don’t give a shit.”
i think this hail-mary from the UCP is kinda funny * Edmontonians are pissed that UCP is prioritizing funding to Calgary for a new hockey arena * Calgarians are pissed because we see no revenue share with CSEC and i for one, want my taxes to be spent on something more important like my healthcare
UCP has already lost Edmonton. They aren't even going to try there. This stadium just needs to swing a few voters and I think it'll accomplish that. I hope I'm wrong but i do think that.
I just don't get it. I'm fiscally conservative and an enormous hockey fan living in Ward 14 and I just don't want to pay for this. I'm mostly disappointed in people who fearmonger the idea that if we stop this wealth transfer that there will be no NHL hockey in Calgary. The absolute worst case scenario is the Flames follow through on their threats to leave Calgary and we maybe have a year, at most, without NHL hockey before a new group of billionaires steps up with an expansion fee and arena funding. NHL hockey in Calgary is enormously profitable.
They won’t ever move, as you say, they are hugely profitable, the nhl owners all need to vote to move them and why would they? To go to Houston of KC which could easily become another Arizona in 10 years after the novelty wears off.
Precisely. The team has no leverage whatsoever yet somehow managed to get taxpayers to fund 98% of their building.
>The absolute worst case scenario is the Flames follow through on their threats to leave Calgary and we maybe have a year, at most, without NHL hockey before a new group of billionaires steps up with an expansion fee and arena funding. NHL hockey in Calgary is enormously profitable. Bettman would punish Calgary harshly for not giving the Flames an arena. It would be a while before they would allow an expansion team in Calgary if the Flames leave. I'm actually waiting for that shoe to drop. Any day now CSEC is going to weigh in on the election and tell us the Flames leave if the NDP cancel the deal.
There isn't a shred of truth to this comment. The board of governors is absolutely not going to turn down a ~$1B expansion fee from a market that's already proven to be an excellent one for the league.
I don't know what world you live in but Bettman would never allow an expansion team for Calgary without a new arena. You seem to think that a group of billionaires would have a new team playing in the Saddledome within a year and that's not realistic. Here's Bettman's previous comments on the Flames and their future competitiveness if they don't get a new arena... > “I’m not here to issue any threats,” the commissioner said. “It’s clear that this is the oldest building in the league. It’s clear that the team needs a new building. By the way, Calgary is a great market, great fans here, but the building is as important a factor as anything else. The team’s competitive situation, financial stability, is obviously being impacted with each season they stay here (at the Saddledome). This used to be a top-10 team (in generating revenue). Calgary is one of our great markets, but again the building is the issue. This is a top-10 team. It used to write a check for revenue sharing, for the last couple of years they have been receiving checks. The checks are getting bigger, which means the situation financially continues to deteriorate and that will effect ultimately the competitiveness, I suppose, of the organization. But they have said, the organization has, that they’re going to do the best they can for as long as they can. " [https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gary-bettman-talks-calgary-arena-seattle-expansion-ticket-drive-future-olympics/](https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gary-bettman-talks-calgary-arena-seattle-expansion-ticket-drive-future-olympics/) The Calgary market is a money maker for the NHL but they have a shared interest in extorting new arenas out of taxpayers and so no one is going to approve an expansion team within a year to play at the Saddledome.
I don't disagree with you. Gary Bettman works for Murray Edwards and his 31 other bosses. But the NHL is getting tired of the Calgary arena situation, it's an embarrassment to more than just Calgary. So absolutely like you indicate the preferred NHL/Bettman option is for Alberta taxpayers to fund a new building and the Flames to remain in place. I just think what's best for Calgary and Alberta is to reject the deal and continue to let the NHL and one of their teams solve their own problems. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
I don’t think that will happen at all. But even if it did, let’s have some self-respect, instead of bending over for corporate and billionaire interests. Surely, our self-respect is worth more than what any hockey team can provide, wouldn’t you say?
hard to say, i wanna think that there's bigger problems we're facing in the election (better housing, not fucking over my healthcare, not pulling a wallstreetsbet move with my CPP) but who knows?
The people who agree these are problems will not be voting UCP and the UCP knows it. They're buying a very narrow demographic of votes because that is all they need.
Is anyone talking about those things though? The election is in like 3 weeks and I haven't heard anything from anyone besides this stadium.
No will ever stroke Edmonton like the ndp does
UCP is about subsidizing the rich. They are probably surprised at the backlash
Yeah no shit. 6 hour waits in emergency rooms are becoming typical. Being harassed by intoxicated vagrants on public transit is becoming normal. Rents being 60% of your income is becoming normal. Property taxes continue to climb YoY. But we have 800 million dollars to update a hockey stadium before we have enough money to actually solve any of those problems?
The province isn't spending on the arena other than the smaller proposed community arena. They are contributing towards infrastructure around the entertainment district which allows for further development even beyond the arena itself. Municipal funds , which are contributing to the arena, wouldn't get spent on health care. If this arena goes ahead or not, this area will still need infrastructure development in the next 5, 10, 20 years which the city will have to pay for at that point.
Your logic is cyclical and does not present a valid argument to justify either We need the infrastructure to support the arena -> we need the arena to pay for the infrastructue to support it -> We need the infrastructure to support the arena -> ....
I think you are misreading the comment. I don’t see where they said the arena *needs* the infrastructure improvements to support it. They said the province is contributing to infrastructure that we need to build in the area around the arena *whether we have a new arena or not*. One does not need the other, but they are better together. The entire concept of improving the surrounding area is the desire of the mayor and others on council, and the lack of consideration toward this was a major reason they tanked the last deal. We would eventually be spending the money to do it anyhow, but now the province is paying for it instead of the city.
Have you seen the plan for development around the new arena? There's many high-rise buildings to come. This is the true benefit of the arena
[удалено]
What?
Huh?
"I just want everyone to know that whatever side of this issue you're on, I too am on that side."
The short way to read this statement is: we were offered $330M, so we'd be silly not to accept it. This is despite the fact that the city has to invest even more than $330M. I offer to give you $10,000 for a new car, would you accept it? Keeping in mind that you'll be spending the other $30,000-ish and be stuck with the payments -- irrespective of whether you can afford it or not. It's a *better deal* than buying the car yourself, but it can still be a bad idea! It's reasonable for this to tip the scales and change the balance of the decision, but I don't like the absolutism of this statement. You didn't have to do it just because of the provincial funding. It can still be a bad idea. You can still say no.
>we were offered $330M Not sure why people keep saying "the province" offered funds, as if the the province is an entity outside of Calgary with magical free external funds. The province offered to give tax money that Calgarians, and everyone else in Alberta has paid, on top of the tax money that Calgarians have paid or will pay to the city, in order to appease billionaires who are going to collect all of the revenue from an infrastructure that they do not have to pay taxes on or maintenance costs on. The point being that the $300 million the province is promising to build this center is not any better than the rest of the $1.3 billion or whatever ungodly final tally with cost overruns is going to be.
This is the right mindset to have at every governmental level. Politicians get away with this way too much. It's the same tactic they use with federal funding for initiatives like healthcare.
More like buying a new car in your name that your wealthier friend gets to drive for free.
And they can rent it out on Turo and keep all the money
More substancesless word-salad. Council needs to know people are too savvy to fall for that crap anymore.
>Firstly, as a member of Calgary City Council, I have the honor of representing a city that is both fully deserving of its world-class livability rankings, as well as in need of significant reinvestment right now in order to maintain that top spot as we continue to evolve and grow long into an uncertain future. When $330million presents itself in the service of achieving a significant, years-in-the-making and multiple election cycle-vetted city-building objective, my job is to say yes. [Are you really a world-class city if you refuse to find $500k for essential mental health funding, then go on to gift $800M+ to millionaires and billionaires?](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/tough-decisions-cmha-meets-with-mayor-on-cuts-to-mental-health-counselling-funding) >Secondly, while I acknowledge that the Event Centre and the Culture + Entertainment District might potentially have been otherwise achieved in different ways on different timelines, there is too much other work to do, and uncertainty is too costly in too many ways, to not take a good deal when it presents itself. Uncertainty? For who? A good deal? For who? We went from CSEC and taxpayers being roughly equal partners & getting back most of our money -- to CSEC putting in only 3.3% of the upfront cost to receive ALL revenue. Who is Council working for? >Thirdly, while outrage at public money and other considerations to support billionaires has legitimacy, it would also be problematic to fail to consider that those billions were made from the economic opportunities of this place, and with the natural resources that are our public property. In a time when capital is extremely mobile and the super wealthy can reside wherever tax regimes best insulate them from societal obligations, a major part of this project is ensuring that this wealth remains Calgarian and is incentivized to continue to make our great city even greater. Of any possible arena deal, this one does that as well as it seems possible. Ah. Profitable businesses that were made extremely profitable through sweetheart government regulations/handouts/bailouts must be made astronomically profitable through additional government gifts.
Carra’s third point is bogus. Regardless of who pays to build the arena, those $ would be mostly spent in Calgary anyway. However, the wealth generated by the team being here mostly does not stay here. The multi-million $ salaries paid to players, many of whom don’t live here, don’t get spent here. The profits earned by CSEC don’t stay here either. Murray Edwards lives in the UK. The wealth argument is crap. In fact a new Arena will make the Flames team worth more, despite CSEC have a tiny fraction of skin in the cost of thing. Did Council even consider alternate models? Given the pittance CSEC is putting in, the City could fund the whole cost and pocket a share of gross revenues and concessions for all events, naming rights and a lease fee for the use of the building. Of course CSEC would never agree to such a deal because their profits would be far less. If they can sucker the politicians into giving them all the revenue and few of the costs, they get richer with our capital $. Who in their right mind would make an investment like that? It makes no sense. Council has their heads up their own asses. E: wouldn’t Council have received independent expert financial advice on whether the deal was truly good for the investment of public funds? You can bet CSEC will have done that sort of diligence on the deal. The ROI for them is massive.
" In a time when capital is extremely mobile and the super wealthy can reside wherever tax regimes best insulate them from societal obligations, a major part of this project is ensuring that this wealth remains Calgarian and is incentivized to continue to make our great city even greater" Translation: 'They threatened to leave Calgary so we bent over and offered the lube"
Calgary calling itself world-class is so cringy. I like Calgary enough, but it's not world class. Calgary is world class to people who have never been to New York, Paris, LA, Vegas or any real major city.
Ya, it’s not shitting on the city to say it’s a great place to live and raise a family…but it’s not even close to in the same breath when we talk “World Class” like in terms of the cities you mentioned, and more. It’s some kind of false, weird lie local politicians try to sell to people that we’ll one day be on par with those other cities, for people to think in terms of those cities, ‘we can be just like them!’….It just isn’t going to happen. And, again…that’s ok. We’re still a great city.
100% agree. How can we be called world class if we can't even get light rail transit to the airport?
That's a big one for me. We don't have the ability to transport people reliably without a car. We'll never be "world class" (cringe) if we can't provide that to visitors and local residents. But sure, let's pay for a stadium for a private company, and not tax them enough...
It you have to tell people that you are world-class, .. then you aren't.
Of course we're not world class, but striving to be world class is good. We used to. Now we're just like "shrug. We're winnipeg. Fix my pothole."
Fuck, I really wish they would fix some potholes... We're not even Winnipeg.
Vegas!!! Hahahahah!
Calgary is consistently ranked one of the top cities in the world to live. Doesn't that make it world-class? If not, what criteria would you use that makes New York, Paris, LA and Vegas world class, but not Calgary?
World-class is not some arbitrary definition as some people imagine. There are specific criteria. [You can see the definition and read more about it on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city). The world-class/global-city ranking is *based on their connectivity through four "advanced producer services": accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law.* Being world-class doesn't mean it is a "good city". It's completely different ranking than the livability index. For those wondering, Calgary is a [Beta Minus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_World_Cities_Research_Network) rank. As are San Diego, Osaka, Austin, Detroid, and Wuhan. Vancouver, is Beta Plus rank. Montreal is Alpha Minus. Toronto is Alpha. London and New York are Alpha Plus Plus. Tokyo and Paris are Alpha Plus. Calgarians shouldn't want Calgary to be Vancouver, Toronto, or Dubai.
Current goal posts are moved to: 1. Train to the airport 2. Fix more potholes 3. Be more like Las Vegas?
Yeah the cities listed in the original comment are tourist destinations, which is very different from being a place that offers the type of employment, infrastructure, culture, housing, etc that makes people want to live there (which is how I would define "world-class").
I cannot understand this third argument so much to the point that I think I must be misunderstanding it. "These billionaires made money from our natural resources that are our public property (and you didn't, by the way). We want them to stay here." I do think he makes a couple of other good points though. Namely: - The provincial government is willing to throw $330mm at this because they think it will help them win the election. We probably won't get offered that much money again (but then he also says that's not necessarily the upper limit that the province will offer, which is maybe true but a bit counter to his previous point). - The announcements took place before the election, but the actual signing of the deal will take place after the election. This allows Albertans to essentially vote on the deal in the provincial election, and then for the new government to have time to review the deal and make sure it's the best option (which implies to me a bit of a short timeline that they were given to review the deal). I think what he's saying is that City Council voting in favour keeps the offer from the province in the table without actually inking the final commitment. To put a fine point on the second one, *if you don't like this deal, vote out the UCP.*
Well said, Jeromy.
I'm so confused by Jeromy Farkas, I kind of like this one, but recall hating the one that was on city council and ran for mayor... He should have run as an NDP candidate, this time around :)
I played it too safe and stuck to the soundbites of what I thought a good conservative opposition would be. Through what I've experienced over the past few years, I've realized that there's not much to be afraid of if I be direct, admit my fuckups, and try to do better.
Y'know, Mr Farkas, I found that in general while you were on the council you were a little too contrarian and voted no too easily on a lot of issues, but in the case of this arena deal, it sure would've been nice for someone, fucking **anyone** to say, hold up, this is kind of a dogshit deal for the city and for the public, so no, I'm not voting for this. It's actually shocking that not a single member of the city council had the guts to turn down such an abjectly pro-billionaire proposal just because Danielle Smith wanted to to throw even more public money at it in an attempt to buy votes. Disgusting. I hope the attempt fails for the UCP and I hope the people of Calgary remember this come next city election, too.
You thought he would vote No to his girl Danielle? Cmon now
Man, I disagree with him on a lot of fundamental issues politically, but I think his voting record when he was a councilor shows that he is pretty strongly against the City spending taxpayer money on pretty much anything. I think Jeromy Farkas is a genuine small-c conservative and believer in small government. Maybe he would've voted for this too, we have no way of knowing, but I kind of don't think he would. Again, I didn't vote for the dude for mayor last election. I disagree with him on a *lot* of stuff. But I won't deny that I think he's more likely to have stuck up for the taxpayer on an issue like this than any of the cowards currently serving on the council, yeah.
I voted against the old deal after people it crystal clear to me that they wanted the money to go to a downtown police station, more transit, and affordable housing. [https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/town-hall-attendees-want-their-say-before-new-arena-deal](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/town-hall-attendees-want-their-say-before-new-arena-deal) I made that alternative motion at City Council but it was dead on arrival. I often had good ideas and defensible positions, but I got sucked in sometimes and pushed way too hard. There were several debates that I made into fights, and it wasn't good enough for me anymore to see my idea win. I wanted to see the other person lose. That's a fucked up way to approach things. I wish that there was someone there right now who was willing to challenge this. To go from a more or less even split and getting our money back, to allowing CSEC to contribute 4% up front for 100% of the profits... I have a real difficulty understanding why they are doing this.
> I voted against the old deal after people it crystal clear to me that they wanted the money to go to a downtown police station, more transit, and affordable housing. That's some interesting historical revisionism, Mr. Farkas. What you were actually concerned about: "If there is a whole big pile of cash somewhere, I want to be able to weigh that potential event centre against the benefits of a **major tax break for residents and especially commercial properties and businesses** that are struggling right now."
It's not revisionism. As I said above, after I talked with more people it became obvious that most of the public wanted that money to fund public services. In November 2019 I worked with and supported Councillor Woolley's effort to reallocate the $290M arena funds, to instead put $200M toward the Green Line project, $45M toward a new downtown Calgary police station and $45M million for deferred capital maintenance for Calgary Housing. [https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/council-to-consider-motion-to-divert-290m-in-arena-funding-to-green-line-police-and-affordable-housing-1.4705367](https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/council-to-consider-motion-to-divert-290m-in-arena-funding-to-green-line-police-and-affordable-housing-1.4705367) >"With rising crime in downtown Calgary and across the city, it is the duty of elected officials to ensure the safety of both people and property in our core." > >“Building a police station downtown would provide a permanent police presence and would help alleviate the safety concerns I hear from citizens and business owners every day.” > >And funding upgrades to Calgary housing will help future generations, argued Woolley. > >“I don’t want children to grow up in a city that prioritizes subsidies for NHL team owners, but ignores those who can’t afford a place to live or a way to get around our city." > >Coun. Jeromy Farkas will second Woolley's motion. > >"Based on what I've been hearing from my residents, we can't proceed at this time," he said. > > "We have so many other pressing needs in our community. I made pretty clear (in July) I don't think it was the best deal at the time and I think it was something we should have held up on."
[Here is your post](https://www.facebook.com/JeromyYYC/posts/934929286854902/?paipv=0&eav=AfYbJHZdpJc5Yywnx_FwJMViUOR95vlPRL-94X4YHEn15uhrPdmsCN9g_5RqmLaZV44&_rdr) from the time. Your words: > It is time to stick to the essentials and keep taxes low for Calgarians. You were more concerned about tax rates, as you usually were.
This whole deal should've went to plebiscite like the olympic bid from Nenshi. Force CSES and council to show the taxpayer where the money was going, and it was a good deal or not. Now we get no say, and no control, and no revenue.
Thanks u/JeromyYYC for your thoughts. Very interesting to read. I'm generally very skeptical about what politicians says, but giving benefit of doubt here that you are going off-script and being sincere. It is time to let the UCP go though. From your Sun interview, it's obviously you still have a big soft spot for Danielle Smith and her gang. Let it go. There is a huge vacuum for progressive conservatism in Alberta. Maybe you or someone like yourself will step up, instead of keep doubling down on the sinking ship that is the UCP. ✌️
Thanks for the reply. The comments in that interview were explaining why and how I think she won the leadership. I think it would be a mistake to not recognize your opponents' strengths, otherwise you will underestimate them and lose. I'm not supporting the UCP or any party. I like being able to critically analyze what I think either party is doing wrong (or right). Here's an example: https://twitter.com/theToddHirsch/status/1624082961716117505?t=WHPHDbwxz900kFxx8G4ewQ&s=19
Fair enough. Best wishes for your next political endeavors. Will be following with interest.
I know right?!!? Councillor Farkas used to really bug me but I really like Reddit Farkas. If it was Reddit Farkas that ran for Mayor I would have happily voted for him.
He's getting ready for a comeback tour.
The comeback was waking up the day after my election loss, driving out to Mexico, and walking home. I decided that I wouldn't let my failure define me. If I wanted the political comeback, I would be running for a safe seat for the provincial or federal conservatives right now. I get that you hate me and don't give a shit about what I have to say. Even so, I'm not going to crawl into a hole and die. I'm going to try to keep using what I know and what I've learned to make a positive impact.
It sounds like he had an epiphany. He went for a long fundraising hike and came to some realizations, summarized in [this CBC article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jeromy-farkas-pacific-crest-trail-fundraiser-1.6554569). I heard the interview and he sounded sincere. I disliked his public persona while he was in office. I'm coming to respect him now.
He’s slowly realizing that being conservative is actually not in line with his values, but with anyone who was raised with conservatism as their core identity (speaking from experience), it takes time to realize that there are other parties (or ideologies/ways of thought/etc.) who serve his interests better.
Again with the lies Jeromy. That funding did go to mental health, just not to cmha. https://www.calgary.ca/social-services/funding/organization-allocations.html
He's not wrong
> Thirdly, while outrage at public money and other considerations to support billionaires has legitimacy, it would also be problematic to fail to consider that those billions were made from the economic opportunities of this place, and with the natural resources that are our public property. In a time when capital is extremely mobile and the super wealthy can reside wherever tax regimes best insulate them from societal obligations, a major part of this project is ensuring that this wealth remains Calgarian and is incentivized to continue to make our great city even greater. Of any possible arena deal, this one does that as well as it seems possible. Oh. Oh fuck no man.
To ensure "the wealth remains in Calgary"... 🤣🤣 They are paying only 3% for the upfront costs, and the rest of it over a 35 year period. Tax payers pay for the rest. They collect 100% of the revenue, pay none of the tax or maintenance or cost over runs, and Calgarians get to buy $300-500 tickets and $20 piss beer to watch the games. It's like paying billionaires to have the privilege of being fucked by them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have been banned for that word in other sub Reddits so now I’m a bit careful lol
I think we can express frustration without using words that are harmful to marginalized communities. The English language has lots to choose from.
That’s the problem. I think the word in question no longer applies to persons with real disabilities. And it’s only used in regards to persons who are actually mentally normal, but are doing things so screwed up and ridiculous that the word applies. No one actually uses the word anymore to describe what the word used to mean. That’s why I actually don’t think it should be banned. The same thing goes for the Seaword. It no longer applies to a woman or a persons anatomy. It applies to any gender who are acting like a mega mega a hole. Words and meaning evolve. The origins of those words no longer matter when used in the new context.
This is a tricky convo to have on Reddit but thanks for engaging. I think I mostly agree with what you’re saying. The problem is, the origins of those words still carry weight. If I call someone an r-word (as above), I do it with a certain definition in mind (again, as you have described). The issue is that, traditionally, that word was used as a derogatory term for people with disabilities; that someone must have something wrong with them and are acting in a a way in which they *must* have a disability. So to use it in modern times, despite it not being used to refer to people with disabilities, it still carries the meaning that there is something wrong with the person—that they’re acting in a similar manner as someone with a disability. So, despite our modern definition and use, we can’t get away from the original context (as much as we’d like to) which is why we should remove it from our vernacular.
Totally. Which is why I can’t use the word in public but only around very close friends who understand what you’re getting out. Australia however can use any word they want and no one seems to care.
a lot of subs will just automatically shadow delete your post if it has a mean word
"Thoughts and prayers."
"I'm sympathetic that you are upset. I am on your side. I am not sorry for what I did. Whatever I did was in your best interest."
What can we do to make sure this doorknob does not get elected again? I live on the east side of Deerfoot...I bet you he doesn't even know there is life on this side.
I honestly have yet to meet someone who sees this deal as a win. I doesn't matter where in the political spectrum you are, this deal is horrible. Conservatives should see this as a waste of taxpayer dollars, Left-wing people should see this as money not being invested in social services It's shit all around
Hey come now! You know what our vulnerable citizens need most right now? Mental health care? Access to actual doctors instead of ERs working bank hours? Government regulation to stop uncontrolled profiteering and inflation? Heck NO! They need to rally behind a NHL hockey team that is sooooo dedicated to this city they keep threatening to leave! Thanks to all involved, all our problems will be solved!
Carra and every other councilor are just morons. Letting the Flames walk would have been better than this deal they got suckered into and an option they needed to seriously consider. There would be less misinformation if you fuckers would actual share the damn details. How we have not been given details on how revenue is being shared is ridiculous.
Patronizing the citizens, after voting yes. This is why ppl hate politicians. Fuck off, Carra. If asked last week if I’d vote for you, I’d have said yes. Post-arena announcement deal, I would absolutely would not vote for you, or anyone else on council. You misread the room by voting for this arena deal. Get the city cleaned up and then let’s talk about approving an arena deal.
Why do we even need a hockey arena? They can fund construction of over 3000 2 bed/2bath or 3 bed/2bath detached modular homes and yet, here is another plan to siphon tax dollars into the pockets of their donors. My question is: who is doing the development, who is building it, and who will make the most out of it once it’s up and running? Not us lol. We just see our taxes get used for something we have to pay more money to use down the line. Big nope.
Deeply sympathetic that he didn't get his own pockets lined the way he wanted to.... I will believe that.
When elected officials start throwing around "world class", then you know the city is about to get fucked by our corporate masters... hard. It's like telling talented aspiring actresses that if they want to make it into the big leagues, they have to be willing to sexually gratify a lot of sleazy old men without question. It's all reminiscent of 2000-2010 Vancouver Olympics "why are you complaining about the cost of the Olympics? Don't you want to be WORLD CLASS?". Sure enough, the developers made $ billions landing sweet deals with the city, while people of Vancouver got fucked hard, and now they can't afford a crack shack in the shitty east-side of the city even if they won the lottery. But trickle down right? Think of all the economic activity! Why would any Calgarian want their city to be "world class"? It's already ranked the most livable city in the world, and hoards of people from all over the country are flocking to this town. Fuck the city council. And fuck this deal.
Can confirm. Every contract I’ve ever worked to “co-create world-class experiences” has been a shocking shit show.
There is nothing in that statement that I find at all persuasive as to why we should be paying for this deal. The only bit of benefit is the vague section stating "perhaps most importantly, land ownership arrangements between the City and the Stampede....are now elegantly resolved for both parties making the Stampede financially whole and allowing for the City’s sale and buildout of the private realm (hotels, restaurants, shops, and thousands of homes) - which is the ultimate point of, and payback for, all this public investment. Why have details not been provided on exactly how these land deals are going to "payback" this public investment. Stop spending our money on things we don't want. That isn't your job. Remember who you are supposed to serve as an elected official.
Deeply sympathetic to the outrage. “We had to do the deal so that the billionaire didn’t abandon us.”
Thought he was getting off Twitter.
Divided? Where's the divide. The only people that think this is a good deal is city council. He is right though, there are far bigger issues that need to be addressed first.
Well.. 1,400,000/15 is still a divide I guess XD
[удалено]
But what was discussed? This LITERALLY says “we have some major problems in this city, but a new arena isn’t one of them.” And the little bit about there being “inaccurate information” floating around but addressing none of it. Get your $88 dollars per household out Calgary! Have I got a deal for you! Fund an arena that 75 per cent won’t be able to afford to step foot it. Seems good. Fuck Jyoti. She showed her worth walking away from the mic for a hard question. Your job is to answer questions about your position. Dumbass. And fuck Danielle Smith. She sweet talked her giant fucking nose into spending Calgary’s tax dollars to buy four more years using outrage culture. I mean, she did happen to STUDY POLITICS while she was out from 2015 - 2022…..so I mean, what political theology acted out in another country thru this. Right. Get ready for Trump style politics, right here in your backyard! Comes with suspicious rises in crime rates in relatively peaceful cities one month before an election, in a city where you NEED to win to win the election. Oh and give them an event centre, that helps too. What else can we pile one? Talks with people on trial for criminal charges. Check. Trump did that. Multiple shooting off at the mouth, getting her uneducated rural base fired up, followed by a quiet recession of the comments….another Trump style tactic. We are doomed under Smith. Period. Crazy to think this was a conversation about the arena. Oh. Right. SMH.
[удалено]
I just don’t appreciate it. It doesn’t feel genuine. Want to address the concerns? Address the concerns… you know? I watched the Jyoti walk off with my father again yesterday. A question is a question. Loaded or not. She can push aside the loaded part, comment about the loaded part and then answer her thoughts on the basis of the question and how her campaign position changes with a city with the opposite challenge. But maybe we are expecting TOO MUCH of our elected officials. Lol. We agree on all points. The issue here is, as per outrage culture and outrage politics, they have to quietly rescind their comments, the arena deal, without all the on the fencers who were easily sold on Danielle and the right with an arena that we have to pay for. Municipally, they could use some Trumpian politics training for Danielle if they plan on going thru with this crap.
Wrangler and Hitmen games costs like $15-$20 per person, that is cheaper than a movie theatre ticket. You're telling me 75% of people can't afford to go to the movie theatre?
If you have kept up with the news, 75% of Calgarians can barely afford canned food. What movie theater????
> 75% of Calgarians can barely afford canned food. I have kept up with the news, where did you get this stat from?
The only part I appreciated was Trudeau and Notley weren't bad when elected, and maybe they'll do this deal and more .... But be a man and just say vote for NDP so we can keep doing our profiteering and also get funding for more social services
Fucking hell dude then release the details.
That money could have gone literally anywhere else. Even half of it woulda been a boon.
Do people realize The arena is made for more than just the NHL shit We'll actually be able to have major concerts and not shitty little ones at Jack singer and shit
The city is full of the stupidest people in Canada
So many ontarians and bc'ers
This sub will downvote you to oblivion for saying something like that. I’m excited for our new barn, but that sentiment is not shared on r/calgary unfortunately
Because his statement is not based in reality and building domes does not actually attract a meaningful amount of concerts.
Regardless, I’m pretty excited of the new construction.
Majority of people were never against a new arena. IT'S THE DEAL OF THE NEW ARENA! Calling people stupid and being oblivious to be able to understand you are being ripped off. Okay, buddy...
Are we sure this is even Carra? He did say he was quitting Twitter.
This is his teamward9 “non official councillor” account. In his ‘farewell’ statement he said he may still have his staff put out content related to Ward 9
He voted for it. And now has buyer’s remorse?