brownbear Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 quote:Originally posted by mike_desare I HAPPILY invite the mods to confirm my IP address and Spiral's IP address, and to confirm that we are different users. As for you Jonnie Monster, you sound alot like Brownbear as you have the same silly logic as him. Please do tell me why my logic is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriendsOfSoccer Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 FYI: In light of the speculation in the past week over the future of BC Place, Friends of Soccer has sent the following letter to Premier Campbell and the entire Liberal caucus to seek clear answers and a solution to the issue: _______ Dear Premier Campbell, Almost four months ago, your government was re-elected on a platform based on building opportunities for economic growth, bringing long term benefits for the people of British Columbia. The renovation of BC Place stadium was one of the projects designed to create jobs now, and to drive millions of dollars of economic activity in a time when all of our core industries are struggling. It was a promise your party proclaimed dozens of times to the electorate, and your party took every opportunity during the campaign to slam your opponents when they showed uncertainty about the project. The confusing statements and lack of clarity regarding the future of BC Place over this past week has been damaging to the industries that are trying to plan for B.C.'s post-Olympic future. It has raised questions over the future viability of major professional sporting events, concerts and trade shows in B.C. It has caused grave uncertainty in the construction industry, who need jobs now, and has handcuffed the tourism and hospitality industries' ability to plan for the future. We urge you, for the sake of B.C.'s economy, to find solutions to complete this project, and to make a clear statement that your government is committed to completing it. Throughout the world, governments are battling the recession through strategic investments in capital infrastructure, and it's working. We know from the history of past recessions and the Great Depression that cutbacks to infrastructure spending only increases unemployment and keeps the economy stagnated in recession for longer periods of time. Future generations are also robbed of the net benefits of improved infrastructure. A fully renovated B.C. Place Stadium will be a net contributor to the economy. Those are the types of projects this province needs right now. Hundreds of construction jobs would be created immediately. Hundreds of long-term permanent jobs would be directly created through the operation of BC Place. The growth in the number and quality of events that could be held at BC Place would create renewed prosperity for our tourism and hospitality sector. In 2011, Major League Soccer is scheduled to come to Vancouver. As we have seen recently in Seattle and Toronto, the impact this will have on Vancouver and the province will be surprising and profound. Thousands travel across the continent every season to follow their team. Millions watch around the world as the games are beamed onto TV screens across Europe, Asia and South America. Recently, the City of Portland predicted the arrival of MLS in their city will generate up to $50 million a year in economic activity. Portland is one of the U.S. cities hit hardest by the recession, yet they see the wisdom in making infrastructure investments that allow them to grow in the future. It would be shortsighted to jeopardize that future now in B.C.. On top of this, the economic benefits of the major concerts, trade shows and sporting events (such as the 2011 Grey Cup) are well documented. Without a fully renovated BC Place stadium, these events fall into question as well. Four months ago, Friends of Soccer chastised your opponents on this issue and reminded them that citizens expect governments to be able to address a host of issues. We expect government to provide sustainable services, while providing the opportunities for economic growth and the freedom to provide a good quality of life for our families. To say we must choose between them in our society is a false choice. We are writing to remind you of that today. We urge your government to be clear and upfront on your intentions regarding the BC Place renovations, and work with all stakeholders involved to find solutions to the issue. Sincerely yours, Bill Currie Friends of Soccer www.friendsofsoccer.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Top notch as always! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Deficit now expected to be $4 billion. To put the $365 million renovations in context: quote: Healthcare Fewer elective operations, longer waiting lists and higher parking fees in hospital lots are some of what British Columbia residents will see as the province looks to its six health authorities to shave millions from their spending. Desired savings: $360-million, the amount that provincial authorities pegged as the shortfall between their budgets and expected costs in 2009-2010. The province says there is no money to bridge the gap. The sweeping cuts will affect everything from cataract operations to seniors' homes to programs for abused women, and will be felt throughout the province. And they'll come even though Premier Gordon Campbell repeated a commitment to boost overall health-care spending by 20 per cent over the next three years in the recent Throne Speech. The province expects a “large portion of savings” to come from administration and overhead costs, provincial Health Minister Kevin Falcon said in a July 15 letter to health authority chairs. Joint purchasing and procurement should be looked at, and “you will also face some tough choices in the year ahead to live within your means.” Some measures, including layoffs and overtime restrictions, have already been implemented. Health authorities are now grappling with decisions relating to elective surgery, diagnostic procedures and contracts with community agencies in areas such as mental health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 No one knows for sure what the deficit will be. But to put deficit financing during a recession into context, here's what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives thinks: Iglika Ivanova of the Centre for Policy Alternatives said the estimate of $3.2-billion is based on an average of current economic forecasts by the major banks. However, the banks have repeatedly revised their forecasts downward since February, she said. The estimate of $3.9-billion assumes the recession does not recede as quickly as anticipated. Ms. Ivanova said she felt too much attention is paid to the size of the deficit. “The number itself is irrelevant,” she said. The deficit has not been caused by reckless government spending and does not threaten provincial finances in the long term, she said. “It is caused by reduced revenue resulting from the recession. When the economy recovers, without the government having to do anything its revenue will increase.” The government will “actually cause damage” if the deficit does not increase to cover the drop in revenues, she said. “Deficits in a recession are appropriate public policy. What is more harmful is spending cuts,” she said. Government cutbacks could further depress the economy, killing jobs and increasing unemployment, she said. “We're concerned the government is too fixated with how big the number is, and, as a result, they cut important programs just to come up with a smaller number,” Ms. Ivanova said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-headed-toward-4-billion-deficit-experts-project/article1267524/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 If the government is saying the deficit is $3-4 billion I think I'll take their word on it. And I listen to NDP political lobby groups for social architecture, not fiscal responsibility. I also don't give a lot of cred to groups masquerading as non-partisan when they are funded and given long-term deals by a government on their way out the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Well, Vic...we'll know for sure on Tuesday when the budget comes down. And I realize that with most people, it's a philosophical discussion rather than a straight economic one, and I respect you views on it. As for the three groups mentioned in the article, one is right leaning, one is left leaning and Credit One Credit Union comes right down the middle. All three support stimulous spending as a way out of the recession (no surprise, it seems to be the approach most of the world is taking.), although they disagree as to where in the economy it should go. As for any deals they've taken from governments past or present, I'm not privy to any of that info. As for FoS, I'm happy to report that we've been successful at offending every municipal and provincial party at some point over the last four years (Although not to the point where they won't talk to us). And in case anyone is wondering, we haven't taken as much as a dollar or even a free ticket for our efforts...although I'd like to know how you get in on this long-term government deal racket ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I'm with you there, and I have my fingers crossed it's a positive announcement, a modest roof would be nice but something which opens the door for a SSS would be even nicer. I'd also like to see the City throw in the training ground land as a sweetener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Vic I'm with you there, and I have my fingers crossed it's a positive announcement, a modest roof would be nice but something which opens the door for a SSS would be even nicer. I'd also like to see the City throw in the training ground land as a sweetener. Aren't you guys already building a world class training center in Delta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I guess we all find out at 1445 in Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Yup, 60yr lease on John Oliver Park which is essentially silly. If they build a stadium for the City might as well give them the land outright as a token gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Vancouversoccerman No one knows for sure what the deficit will be. But to put deficit financing during a recession into context, here's what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives thinks: Iglika Ivanova of the Centre for Policy Alternatives said the estimate of $3.2-billion is based on an average of current economic forecasts by the major banks. However, the banks have repeatedly revised their forecasts downward since February, she said. The estimate of $3.9-billion assumes the recession does not recede as quickly as anticipated. Ms. Ivanova said she felt too much attention is paid to the size of the deficit. “The number itself is irrelevant,” she said. The deficit has not been caused by reckless government spending and does not threaten provincial finances in the long term, she said. “It is caused by reduced revenue resulting from the recession. When the economy recovers, without the government having to do anything its revenue will increase.” The government will “actually cause damage” if the deficit does not increase to cover the drop in revenues, she said. “Deficits in a recession are appropriate public policy. What is more harmful is spending cuts,” she said. Government cutbacks could further depress the economy, killing jobs and increasing unemployment, she said. “We're concerned the government is too fixated with how big the number is, and, as a result, they cut important programs just to come up with a smaller number,” Ms. Ivanova said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-headed-toward-4-billion-deficit-experts-project/article1267524/ The CCPA would actually be opposed to the idea of funding a roof on BC Place. Anything that doesn't go to health care, education, or social services (and only into what they see as fit) causes them to whine about the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownbear Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG The CCPA would actually be opposed to the idea of funding a roof on BC Place. Anything that doesn't go to health care, education, or social services (and only into what they see as fit) causes them to whine about the issue. I guess your definition of "whining" is when someone makes a well-reasoned argument with which you don't agree. As much as I'd like to see a satisfactory resolution to this whole issue, the weakest of the pro-retractable roof rationales is the economic one. Sporting facilities are bad economic investments. Most don't understand this because of their misunderstanding or ignorance of the concept of opportunity cost. Moreover, spending on health care, education, etc., increase the stock of human capital, which, in addition to physical and financial capital, are necessary for production to take place. If one is judging, base on the economic merits of each case alone, whether it is better to spend the 365 million on the roof, or on health care, education, etc., the latter wins hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Gordon Campbell was on CKNW this morning. He was asked straight up "Yes or No" if the BC Place roof will be going ahead. He said he wish he could give a yes or no answer, but that the plan is being reviewed by treasury board and he is working with PavCo to find a solution. EDIT: In a further question, he said that the government is not concerned about adding to the debt over BC Place, if the cost benefit case can be made. He also emphasized the difference between accumulating debt for infrastructure that brings an economic return, and accumulating structural deficits that remove dollars from the economy. EDIT 2: Finally (if anyone is still interested), I'm going to be on CKNW with Christy Clark talking about BC Place from 2:30-2:45 today. (www.cknw.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Great job, especially the economics of it. One small criticism, I think you should have mentioned the lions more. They need BC Place too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Thanks, Pilts...there was lots I wanted to mention, but the chat kept turning back to the soccer angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 B.C. budget will assume recession has already reached lowest point http://www.timescolonist.com/health/budget+will+assume+recession+already+reached+lowest+point/1948464/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownbear Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 quote:Originally posted by piltdownman B.C. budget will assume recession has already reached lowest point http://www.timescolonist.com/health/budget+will+assume+recession+already+reached+lowest+point/1948464/story.html Campbell and his minions are even dumber than I thought. Weren't these the same guys who just a few months ago claimed the deficit would be relatively small? quote:I can tell you this: the deficit for 2009-2010 will be $495 million maximum. -- Premier Gordon Campbell, April 23, 2009 The Lower Mainland, especially, has yet to really feel the effects of the recession. It's going to get more ugly before it gets better. You know that Vancouver has yet to wake up to economic reality when people are trying to sell a 2BR condo in the middle of the drug- and disease-ravaged Downtown East Side for almost $700,000. http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/reb/1340999336.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 And they are selling. When did you last visit that neighbourhood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I must admit that I haven't watched Vancouver's market as closely as Victoria's, but here in the capital the real numbers are bad. The real estate board keeps saying the market is starting to recover, but as someone who is eying an upgrade and watching the the listing almost daily I can tell you this is not the case. All the houses on the really high end aren't moving. Last fall the ~$2.0m homes got lowered to the $1.5m mark, and now that the summer is ending I am seeing the same ones around $1.2m. The entry level homes are dropping too. You can finally get a home in the city for $500k now, which unless you wanted a 1-2BR from 1901 "REQUIRING EXTENSIVE WORK" you couldn't find even three month ago. Sadly ... for me at least ... entry level condos are slowly still going down in price, while the 2br and loft "step ups" seem to have stopped going down in price. I must say I'm lucky though. I almost bought at the very height of the bubble, but got cold feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownbear Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard And they are selling. When did you last visit that neighbourhood? I work in the neighbourhood. They're not selling now. I counted 14 units for sale on Craigslist, and these are all hopeful flippers. The units did sell out during the pre-sales mania of a few years back when Bob Rennie was telling Vancouverites to "be bold, or move to the suburbs." I'm not knocking the project, and think it's a wonderful addition to the urban fabric of Vancouver, but as I said in the earlier post, asking 700,000 for a two-bedroom in that area is insane. The only question is who will be the greatest fool. To get back on topic, CBC radio in Vancouver has been running a new story all day that points out that the BC provincial government has cut 165,000 dollars from the sports budget for BC high schools. Not only does this mean that some teams, and whole sports, will be cut, but there will be no provincial championships. I'm as big a fan of professional soccer in this city as there is, but it's really, really hard to justify spending $365 million on a retractable roof when the goverment can't even cough up 165,000 to keep kids' sports going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The Budget Update is out, but there's no real news on B.C. Place. The renovation budget of $365 million is still in the funding envelope. There is also a vague statement of $1.4 billion being allocated to "Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion, BC Place rejuvenation projects, the integrated case management system, and the Lower Mainland Pre-Trial Centre" However, the Tourism Minister has repeated that the project is still under Treasury Board review. The project may go ahead, be changed, or scaled back. However, I think it seems unlikely it will be canceled altogether. There is also this statement from a BC Pavillion Corp. update document provided with the budget: BC Place Stadium – Revitalization Program "The scope of the $365 million BC Place revitalization program includes interior renovations, new furniture fixtures and equipment, the design and construction of a new retractable roof and structural upgrades and temporary work to the facility in order to implement the retractable roof. Major maintenance items within BC Place, including elevator and seismic upgrades, upgrading life safety and mechanical systems, and modifications and upgrades to the stadium floor are also part of the revitalization program. The BC Place roof replacement and upgrade project is both unconventional and complex from a design/engineering perspective. The province is currently assessing project budget risks and possible mitigation strategies.Further detail of the revitalization project is at www.bcpavco.com/pdf/capproj.pdf." If you're really interested in crunching the numbers (I'm not) you can find all the docs at: http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2009_Sept_Update/default.htm Here's some early media analysis: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2009/09/01/10708781.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Nothing about BC Place in the budget unless it is hidden in there. "BC Place", "Stadium", "Roof" and "Retractable" are all absent from all the pdfs released today on bcbudget.gov.bc.ca . Some reading the highlights they do make a big deal about 480 capital projects that the province have committed to fund and which will provide 21,600 jobs. Call me naive, but I think todays news, or lack there of, to be very positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 It's mentioned on a few pages in the full budget document (not at all in the summaries or speech) and there's a PavCo update document on the Crown Agency Services Plan link: http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2009_Sept_Update/crown_toc.htm And I think it's going to be good news as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie Monster Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 According to that document link above, PavCo fully intends to go forward with the roof. It's mentioned no less than 26 times. Of course, what PavCo wants and what PavCo gets from the treasury board are two different things, but it certainly seems like there is an approval in the works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.