[Unsound]

Double post, but I'll use it anyways. Just to make it clear that while I don't personally advocate Alberta Independence I can see the movement gaining some steam if the feds keep taking us for granted like this, and at this point I am willng to listen to the seperatists if they start talking.

[Yogi]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yogi Yogi:

I have no problem understanding the 'advertising for future tourism' aspect, but now is not the time. The focus must be on immediate needs! Or else Edmontonians, and others, will be 'sitting in the dark & cold, eating balogna sandwhiches' while they 'ohh & ahh' over the photos of that 'long ago holiday'!

I may have missed something, so perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain to me exactly how I have benefitted from 'Expo 86' in B.C.

Unless you live in Vancouver, you wouldn't have benefited from Expo '86.

This wasn't about advertising the city for tourism purposes at all - although it wouldn't have hurt either.

Here's a major way Edmonton would have benefited from Expo 2017;

$1:

It would have acted as an accelerant on river valley commercial and residential development, while pushing ahead building plans at the University of Alberta by decades. About half of the budget, about $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion, was going to be used to build Expo facilities at the South Campus, which would later be turned into campus buildings, a massive legacy of the event, Franceschini says.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business ... story.html

That alone was worth the cost IMHO.

Tack on added infrastructure spending like roads, LRT, etc, and it would have been a boon to this city.

Do you know why Calgary has such an extensive LRT system compared to Edmonton? Because it was funded by massive amounts of fed/prov money before the '88 Olympics. After that, it was simply a matter of extending it once the basic system was in place. Edmonton - without the Olympics - had to fund the LRT largely on its own and that's why there's a huge difference.

It's also why I thought the Olympics were great for Vancouver - they got new subway stations, new arenas, a twinned highway to Whistler, etc. Those things will all help make Vancouver a better place in the coming decades.

Of course, the big problem here is that Edmonton blindly votes Conservative every election and Harper et al obviously thought that if they were going to spend money on a big event, they would prefer to do so in Ontario or Quebec, where they can maybe win some seats. That's probably a big reason they funded Toronto's 2015 Pan-AM Games bid but not Edmonton's Expo bid.

Thre's no question that Edmonton needs some serious upgrading. I was/ am against the idea of the request for funding being made under the guise of a big party. The party alone would cost upwards of a billion dollars. A lot of pockets would have been lined from this. Hence the high cost there. The party could be put on for a lot less cost. The infrastructure is necessary, regardless. I don't see why ROC should be 'on the hook' for any of those costs, anymore than ROC being 'on the hook' for the infrastructure costs necessary for any other city.
mandel stated yesterday that 'they will now look at other avenues of funding for the infrastructure'.

[DrCaleb]

Yogi Yogi:

Thre's no question that Edmonton needs some serious upgrading. I was/ am against the idea of the request for funding being made under the guise of a big party. The party alone would cost upwards of a billion dollars. A lot of pockets would have been lined from this. Hence the high cost there. The party could be put on for a lot less cost. The infrastructure is necessary, regardless. I don't see why ROC should be 'on the hook' for any of those costs, anymore than ROC being 'on the hook' for the infrastructure costs necessary for any other city.
mandel stated yesterday that 'they will now look at other avenues of funding for the infrastructure'.

Just that the timelines will change. That's how we did the LRT upgrades so far. And the Anthony Henday, and 23rd avenue . . . but why shouldn't Edmonton get some federal infrastructure funding, as other cities like Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver . . . have received in the past? Like I said previously - Edmonton -> Duck Pond. Toronto -> $1B for transit.

As the Reform party motto went - "We want back in!"

[Yogi]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yogi Yogi:

Thre's no question that Edmonton needs some serious upgrading. I was/ am against the idea of the request for funding being made under the guise of a big party. The party alone would cost upwards of a billion dollars. A lot of pockets would have been lined from this. Hence the high cost there. The party could be put on for a lot less cost. The infrastructure is necessary, regardless. I don't see why ROC should be 'on the hook' for any of those costs, anymore than ROC being 'on the hook' for the infrastructure costs necessary for any other city.
mandel stated yesterday that 'they will now look at other avenues of funding for the infrastructure'.

Just that the timelines will change. That's how we did the LRT upgrades so far. And the Anthony Henday, and 23rd avenue . . . but why shouldn't Edmonton get some federal infrastructure funding, as other cities like Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver . . . have received in the past? Like I said previously - Edmonton -> Duck Pond. Toronto -> $1B for transit.

As the Reform party motto went - "We want back in!"

The last report I heard stated that the timeline would likely only be off by one year. edmonton most likely will get most of the ifrastructure funding. They will now have to be more realistic in the actual costs deducting the cost of the expo-taking on the reponsibility of cost overruns would certainly go a long way towards the accuracy of estimates- and submit their proposal1/3-2/3 Provincial-Federal. Mandel & co have always played fast and loose with other peoples money. Especially when they've never had to account for it!

[bootlegga]

Yogi Yogi:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yogi Yogi:

Thre's no question that Edmonton needs some serious upgrading. I was/ am against the idea of the request for funding being made under the guise of a big party. The party alone would cost upwards of a billion dollars. A lot of pockets would have been lined from this. Hence the high cost there. The party could be put on for a lot less cost. The infrastructure is necessary, regardless. I don't see why ROC should be 'on the hook' for any of those costs, anymore than ROC being 'on the hook' for the infrastructure costs necessary for any other city.
mandel stated yesterday that 'they will now look at other avenues of funding for the infrastructure'.

Just that the timelines will change. That's how we did the LRT upgrades so far. And the Anthony Henday, and 23rd avenue . . . but why shouldn't Edmonton get some federal infrastructure funding, as other cities like Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver . . . have received in the past? Like I said previously - Edmonton -> Duck Pond. Toronto -> $1B for transit.

As the Reform party motto went - "We want back in!"

The last report I heard stated that the timeline would likely only be off by one year. edmonton most likely will get most of the ifrastructure funding. They will now have to be more realistic in the actual costs deducting the cost of the expo-taking on the reponsibility of cost overruns would certainly go a long way towards the accuracy of estimates- and submit their proposal1/3-2/3 Provincial-Federal. Mandel & co have always played fast and loose with other peoples money. Especially when they've never had to account for it!

A year? Are you serious? LRT expansion (for the three lines planned - SE, W, NW) will take almost THREE decades - the goal in the City's Transportation Master Plan is by 2040. Now you are telling me we can have it in place by 2039 without this funding? Good thing we aren't spending that $2 billion...

They are HOPING to open the NAIT station in 2014 - HOPING because they don't yet have funding for it. One of the key ideas behind hosting this was to fast track infrastructure construction. Without this event, our LRT development will stagnate just like it did for most of the 90s.

You also didn't read my post clearly. The head of the bid noted that the expansion of the UofA would be accelerated by decades, not only a year.

$1:

It would have acted as an accelerant on river valley commercial and residential development, while pushing ahead building plans at the University of Alberta by decades. About half of the budget, about $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion, was going to be used to build Expo facilities at the South Campus, which would later be turned into campus buildings, a massive legacy of the event, Franceschini says.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business ... story.html

This was a huge opportunity for Edmonton to get a hand up, just like Calgary did in '88, Vancouver did this year and no doubt Toronto will get if they hold the 2015 Pan-Am Games.

[Yogi]

No Boots, I did read your post. As far as the infrastructure funding being necessary, I'm in complete agreement with you and Caleb! But all levels of govt are experiencing extremely difficult times right now. Still, some of the funding can be had. Mandel and co. now need to rethink the projects- minus the epo bid- and focus on priorities.

As to the ...only set things back by about one year... statement, I can't explain how that estimate was arrived at because my television won't answer my questions!

Those of you who favored the expo are in the minority.

[DrCaleb]

Yogi Yogi:

But all levels of govt are experiencing extremely difficult times right now. Still, some of the funding can be had. Mandel and co. now need to rethink the projects- minus the epo bid- and focus on priorities.

I assume you're speaking of 23rd avenue interchange? That was in the planning for a decade, of which there were some very lean times. Construction started just before the unpredicted boom, and it's the boom that drove up costs. Not Councils ineptitude at estimating. And the project did finish earlier than scheduled.

Yogi Yogi:

Those of you who favored the expo are in the minority.

And that seems to be tragic. During a downturn is exactly the time to plan such things. Contracts can be signed cheaper, costs kept down, and projects finished earlier than if we were still riding the roller coaster 'up'.

I suspect that we are a minority because many people don't have the vision to be able to plan beyond next weekend. It may be lean times right now, but billions in construction projects for the next 7 years would go a long way toward easing that.

[Unsound]

The Doctor is correct.

As well, whether you agreed with the Expo bid or not, the issue here is that Edmonton, once again, got screwed. This is a pattern that can be blamed on the Cons taking us for granted, and the Libs ignoring us because they haven't really got a chance here anyways. I suspect the NDP might appreciate our votes, but them we might accidentlly end up with an NDP government <shudder>

[Yogi]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yogi Yogi:

But all levels of govt are experiencing extremely difficult times right now. Still, some of the funding can be had. Mandel and co. now need to rethink the projects- minus the epo bid- and focus on priorities.

I assume you're speaking of 23rd avenue interchange? That was in the planning for a decade, of which there were some very lean times. Construction started just before the unpredicted boom, and it's the boom that drove up costs. Not Councils ineptitude at estimating. And the project did finish earlier than scheduled.

Yogi Yogi:

Those of you who favored the expo are in the minority.

And that seems to be tragic. During a downturn is exactly the time to plan such things. Contracts can be signed cheaper, costs kept down, and projects finished earlier than if we were still riding the roller coaster 'up'.

I suspect that we are a minority because many people don't have the vision to be able to plan beyond next weekend. It may be lean times right now, but billions in construction projects for the next 7 years would go a long way toward easing that.

Not 23rd ave specifically, but since you mention it; It was definitely required work. Where council screwed up was in not holding contractors to their bids!. Not just on this project but virtually everything that Edmonton contracts out! A signed quote/estimate/bid is a legally binding contract. Unless there happens to be a 'Except for...' clause, which seems to be the case in the way business is being done in all regards. Time to get folks with business experience running the show. As it is, mandel & co. have no business being in business!


Who was it, a few years ago, who went around handing out yo-yos? That's about all the current 'yoyos' are capable of!

[DrCaleb]

Yogi Yogi:

Not 23rd ave specificsally, but since you mentio it; It was definitely required work. Where council screwed up was in not holding contractors to their bids!. Not just on this project but virtually everything that Edmonton contracts out! A signed quote/estimate/bid is a legally binding contract. Unless there happens to be a 'Except for...' clause, which seems to be the case in the way business is being done in all regards. Time to get folks with business experience running the show. As it is, mandel & co. have no business being in business!


Who was it, a few years ago, who went around handing out yo-yos? That's about all the current 'yoyos' are capable of!

On that we agree. But not for holding contractors to their bids, but for eliminating the city works department altogether! They used to have the ability to do this sort of heavy work all themselves, but one Mayor - Smith I think - whittled the City Works department down to the "barely able to clear snow and fix pothole" patrol, in favour of the construction lobbiests who told the city that they could reduce fixed costs by contracting everything out! What a brilliant idea! never have to pay for under-worked staff or vehicle maintainence again!