stubblejumper1 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 21 hours ago, travel_dude said: You voted the council in. The city hires people experienced in negotiation of major contracts. The negotiations can't be made public during. The final results are. Did you vote on the other major projects? Have your say on the library deal? Not trying to be insulting, but if you want to be heard or have your opinion know, call your council office. Go to a council meeting. Like everyone else in the city who voted, I voted for one councillor not the entire council. I have no problem with the negotiations ocurring in private, as long as no deal is signed until tax payers have a say. I had no say on the library deal, but I can go to the library and check out books for free. What would be the point of going to a council meeting to discuss negotiations that are kept private? I would be nothing more than a protester. Seems counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblejumper1 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 10 hours ago, cccsberg said: Talk about a misleading and biased comment. Anyone could have used the Saddledome for free for the many Stampede displays there, and easily attended multiple events for well under $20pp, like the Hitmen, lacrosse, heck even the Flames. Yes, you could also pay hundreds for the Flames and others but to intimate that you couldn’t enjoy any events without shelling out hundreds is nonsense and dishonest. As as far as notice goes, the earlier comment I believe was referring to negotiations, before being brought to the public/council for a vote. I believe both sides already know it’s controversial and there are strong opinions on both sides. What good is stirring those up again in the midst of negotiations? And as far as I’m concerned, a referendum is a cop-out. We have a council and aldermen to make decisions and they should do so. Did the city have a referendum for the Peace Bridge? The library? C-train extensions? The airport tunnel? The blue ring? No, but they do have elections..... We have to pay for access to the Stampede - I can't just wander onto the stampede grounds and go check out the displays in the Saddledome. It is dishonest to suggest I could go to a Flames <$20 and even if I could, attendance is not free. The majority, if not all of the other infrastructure projects the City (using our tax dollars) pays for are free to attend. I am fine with the negotiations occuring in private, but I believe no deal should be signed without public approval. Did the Peace Bridge, the library, the airport tunnel or the blue ring cost over $1,000,000,000? The C-train benefits over 100,000 people every day. A new rink benefits 10,000 season ticket holders for 40 nights a year (plus a few billionaire owners every day). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 2 hours ago, cccsberg said: What was your problem with the CalgaryNext concept? Personally I thought it was brilliant in developing a new region plus including multiple & public facilities all together, so would be interested in what part of that you have a problem with? I agree, CalgaryNext is a brilliant idea and a made in Calgary solution. If they would of handled the original proposal similar to the way they are presently negotiating we could of been in the construction phase by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 2 hours ago, cross16 said: The price tag, specifically the amount of public money. Complex proposals that accomplish so much usually have a price tag. Some prefer to piece it out and scatter it around the city at a higher cost to the tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 25 minutes ago, CheersMan said: I agree, CalgaryNext is a brilliant idea and a made in Calgary solution. If they would of handled the original proposal similar to the way they are presently negotiating we could of been in the construction phase by now. I don't think it would have been made in Calgary. Certainly farm out the creosote removal to a world class expert. Architectural by world class designer. Engineering by world class consultant... It may pool construction workers from the Alberta region, and that's about as made in Calgary as the entire facility will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 3 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said: Like everyone else in the city who voted, I voted for one councillor not the entire council. I have no problem with the negotiations ocurring in private, as long as no deal is signed until tax payers have a say. I had no say on the library deal, but I can go to the library and check out books for free. What would be the point of going to a council meeting to discuss negotiations that are kept private? I would be nothing more than a protester. Seems counterproductive. How do you think the bolded could ever work? A deal is negotiated, in other words offer and acceptance. Can't really kill the deal then. How would you have input on the deal? A "yes or no" plebiscite? That would probably cost $20m to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 3 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said: We have to pay for access to the Stampede - I can't just wander onto the stampede grounds and go check out the displays in the Saddledome. It is dishonest to suggest I could go to a Flames <$20 and even if I could, attendance is not free. The majority, if not all of the other infrastructure projects the City (using our tax dollars) pays for are free to attend. I am fine with the negotiations occuring in private, but I believe no deal should be signed without public approval. Did the Peace Bridge, the library, the airport tunnel or the blue ring cost over $1,000,000,000? The C-train benefits over 100,000 people every day. A new rink benefits 10,000 season ticket holders for 40 nights a year (plus a few billionaire owners every day). I get it you don’t like it, but maybe you could get more realistic information to get a more balanced picture. First off, access. It’s a simple 10-15 minutes walk from downtown, which is not only zero cost but also good for you. C-train access is relatively cheap, as it is for using the C-train for anything else, like work. If you drive, you have the option to park a few blocks away and walk, or perhaps just north of the Stampede grounds and pay $5. As for the Stampede, yes you MAY have to pay for entrance, but not specifically for the Dome. Nosebleed seats at the Flames are pretty cheap. Go on Stubhub and many games you can get other seats for <$20, as I have lots of times. Most of the Hitman or lacrosse seats are cheap. A new arena isn’t anywhere close to $1B. If you are referring to the CalgaryNext complex, it was under that amount for three separate facilities: hockey arena, football stadium and sports field house, all of which are desperately needed in the city. It also included public use space and accommodations to use it as a performance facility. It also would have acted as a catalyst to clean up some environmental damage that the city/province is responsible for and should have been been completed years ago. The city threw in an inflated clean-up cost and transportation costs to come up with their huge number. BTW the Crowchild interchange issues are also something the City needs to do. All in all, important non-hockey projects, and yes, overall expensive. But even if Vic Park ends up going ahead these things will also need to be done, at taxpayer expense..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 4 hours ago, CheersMan said: Complex proposals that accomplish so much usually have a price tag. Some prefer to piece it out and scatter it around the city at a higher cost to the tax payer. CalgaryNext did not offer very significant savings over separate facilities. In Kings own words, it was around 100million which is easily offset by the cleanup cost. But we've debated this enough and are not likely to agree. I'll never agree that 1 billion of public money on a project like CalgaryNext is a justifiable price tag or a smart investment. The Crowchild project was not, and never has been included as part of the CalgaryNext estimate. Quote o. The city threw in an inflated clean-up cost and transportation costs to come up with their huge number. BTW the Crowchild interchange issues are also something the City needs to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 10 hours ago, The_People1 said: I don't think it would have been made in Calgary. Certainly farm out the creosote removal to a world class expert. Architectural by world class designer. Engineering by world class consultant... It may pool construction workers from the Alberta region, and that's about as made in Calgary as the entire facility will be. You under estimate the skills we have in this city. We have many qualified contractors and professionals capable of handling every stage of this proposal. But like any project, it would go out to tender for all to bid on. A made in Calgary solution checks all the boxes is what I meant. Some want only a butter knife when what we really need is a Swiss Army knife. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 6 hours ago, cross16 said: CalgaryNext did not offer very significant savings over separate facilities. In Kings own words, it was around 100million which is easily offset by the cleanup cost. But we've debated this enough and are not likely to agree. I'll never agree that 1 billion of public money on a project like CalgaryNext is a justifiable price tag or a smart investment. The Crowchild project was not, and never has been included as part of the CalgaryNext estimate. I'd take a $100 million savings during the construction phase every day of the week. The savings will continue to be made long after construction when all venues are at one location under one roof. The Crowchild Trail improvements are being worked on as we speak. You continue to look at the number and discard the proposal. Try looking at the proposal and what it offers, then look at the number. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 31 minutes ago, CheersMan said: I'd take a $100 million savings during the construction phase every day of the week. The savings will continue to be made long after construction when all venues are at one location under one roof. The Crowchild Trail improvements are being worked on as we speak. You continue to look at the number and discard the proposal. Try looking at the proposal and what it offers, then look at the number. Cochrane had similar creosote issues where the testing and monitoring (i.e. did nothing) went on for decades, then as soon as they got serious about developing it and had a couple major anchor tenants, they shifted to actually cleaning it up and the work was complete in less than a year. Meanwhile, in Calgary, the monitoring continues nd it continues to seep and now the creosote plume apparently is all the way across the river. Crowchild "tinkering" is going on now, but until they add another bridge and extra lanes all the way from the current McMahon Stadium all the way to 17th Ave S there will be problems. I agree with an earlier comment that this wasn't included in some earlier proposals, but shifting lanes and interchanges was.... oh, btw, does anyone know why they have that "sky" station? Just an easier way to get up the hill to the West? Having cycled that riverside trail many times I know how beautiful that stretch of land is where the CalgaryNext proposal was. Its too bad its basically an industrial/commercial wasteland at the moment, it could be a real gem and attraction for the city. No matter how many Stampede Casinos or a new arena they put in Vic Park, I can't see that area ever being much more than vast parking lots for the Stampede grounds. As many have said, this has been argued already. If they want an Olympics in Calgary something needs doing. I guess we'll see what Mayor Nenshi is willing to stomach to push through his "legacy" event...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 1 hour ago, cccsberg said: Cochrane had similar creosote issues where the testing and monitoring (i.e. did nothing) went on for decades, then as soon as they got serious about developing it and had a couple major anchor tenants, they shifted to actually cleaning it up and the work was complete in less than a year. Meanwhile, in Calgary, the monitoring continues nd it continues to seep and now the creosote plume apparently is all the way across the river. Crowchild "tinkering" is going on now, but until they add another bridge and extra lanes all the way from the current McMahon Stadium all the way to 17th Ave S there will be problems. I agree with an earlier comment that this wasn't included in some earlier proposals, but shifting lanes and interchanges was.... oh, btw, does anyone know why they have that "sky" station? Just an easier way to get up the hill to the West? Having cycled that riverside trail many times I know how beautiful that stretch of land is where the CalgaryNext proposal was. Its too bad its basically an industrial/commercial wasteland at the moment, it could be a real gem and attraction for the city. No matter how many Stampede Casinos or a new arena they put in Vic Park, I can't see that area ever being much more than vast parking lots for the Stampede grounds. As many have said, this has been argued already. If they want an Olympics in Calgary something needs doing. I guess we'll see what Mayor Nenshi is willing to stomach to push through his "legacy" event...... How times have changed eh ? People were happy to have hockey here in Calgary and jammed the little ole Corral to see a game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 3 hours ago, CheersMan said: I'd take a $100 million savings during the construction phase every day of the week. The savings will continue to be made long after construction when all venues are at one location under one roof. The Crowchild Trail improvements are being worked on as we speak. You continue to look at the number and discard the proposal. Try looking at the proposal and what it offers, then look at the number. Done so and in fact I've read the entire report the city commissioned plus talked to many people about it that have more of a background in it then myself. My opinion is not based solely on the numbers, but the numbers not working is a large component. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted June 22, 2018 Report Share Posted June 22, 2018 36 minutes ago, cross16 said: Done so and in fact I've read the entire report the city commissioned plus talked to many people about it that have more of a background in it then myself. My opinion is not based solely on the numbers, but the numbers not working is a large component. I still believe the Arena on the East end and Football/Soccer on the West end would be the better plan. This would better spread out the traffic and support businesses in both areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblejumper1 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 22 hours ago, travel_dude said: How do you think the bolded could ever work? A deal is negotiated, in other words offer and acceptance. Can't really kill the deal then. How would you have input on the deal? A "yes or no" plebiscite? That would probably cost $20m to do. I don't understand why the city and the flames owners can't come to an agreement pending approval from tax payers. A $500K deal to buy/sell a home always has conditions prior to the sale being finalized (inspection, financing, etc). $5+ billion deals in the oil patch require shareholder approval after the deal is announced. Why couldn't a $500MM deal have a condition requiring tax payer approval? I believe the Flames want to keep the deal private because they got destroyed in the media when: 1. They asked for the City to fund a disproportionate amount of the billion dollar plus West Village project. 2. They asked the City to pay for essentially all of the new arena. The Flames ownership doesn't want a deal put in front of taxpayers because the Flames will never settle for a deal that is fair to taxpayers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblejumper1 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 22 hours ago, cccsberg said: I get it you don’t like it, but maybe you could get more realistic information to get a more balanced picture. First off, access. It’s a simple 10-15 minutes walk from downtown, which is not only zero cost but also good for you. C-train access is relatively cheap, as it is for using the C-train for anything else, like work. If you drive, you have the option to park a few blocks away and walk, or perhaps just north of the Stampede grounds and pay $5. As for the Stampede, yes you MAY have to pay for entrance, but not specifically for the Dome. Nosebleed seats at the Flames are pretty cheap. Go on Stubhub and many games you can get other seats for <$20, as I have lots of times. Most of the Hitman or lacrosse seats are cheap. A new arena isn’t anywhere close to $1B. If you are referring to the CalgaryNext complex, it was under that amount for three separate facilities: hockey arena, football stadium and sports field house, all of which are desperately needed in the city. It also included public use space and accommodations to use it as a performance facility. It also would have acted as a catalyst to clean up some environmental damage that the city/province is responsible for and should have been been completed years ago. The city threw in an inflated clean-up cost and transportation costs to come up with their huge number. BTW the Crowchild interchange issues are also something the City needs to do. All in all, important non-hockey projects, and yes, overall expensive. But even if Vic Park ends up going ahead these things will also need to be done, at taxpayer expense..... Those are fair comments, but here is where I disagree: - The West Village deal would have forced the City to pay for all of those projects at once, instead of spreading them out over 10+ years. The City would have had to put other important projects on hold to appease Ken King's legacy project. - The cleanup costs were probably not inflated. I have been involved in several oilfield cleanup projects and they always cost much more than originally estimated because it is almost impossible to anticipate all of the unknowns associated with the project. - I forgot about the Hitmen and the Roughnecks, they provide good value for family entertainment. However, the Flames could probably work out a deal at a facility like Winsport to host Hitmen and Roughnecks games at a tiny fraction of the cost of building a new arena. A new "Saddledome" would be built for the Flames - the Hitmen and Roughnecks would be a bit of an afterthought. I would like to see a new arena built, and I think the City should help pay for some of it because the Flames do a lot for the community. However, Ken King and the owners need to realize that this city is four years into an economic slump and now is not the time for tax payers to give a blank cheque to a handful of billionaires so they can make a few more millions (especially Murray Edwards who moved away from the city to avoid paying taxes). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 1 hour ago, stubblejumper1 said: I don't understand why the city and the flames owners can't come to an agreement pending approval from tax payers. A $500K deal to buy/sell a home always has conditions prior to the sale being finalized (inspection, financing, etc). $5+ billion deals in the oil patch require shareholder approval after the deal is announced. Why couldn't a $500MM deal have a condition requiring tax payer approval? I believe the Flames want to keep the deal private because they got destroyed in the media when: 1. They asked for the City to fund a disproportionate amount of the billion dollar plus West Village project. 2. They asked the City to pay for essentially all of the new arena. The Flames ownership doesn't want a deal put in front of taxpayers because the Flames will never settle for a deal that is fair to taxpayers. Again, what does that approval consist of? Not all voters pay property tax. How do you get the okay? Can't compare it to a private company. Maybe the equivalent would be to ask season ticket holders, since they are the ones that mostly pay the bill. As soon as you start putting details of a deal in the media, you get a media circus. If the city can't negotiate a deal with a sports team, how do you expect them to negotiate with mega companies for tax breaks and concessions. How about the IOC? In case you forget the proposal, here's a link. I make no comment on their version of the facts, but leave it to you. https://www.nhl.com/flames/fans/arena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 1 hour ago, stubblejumper1 said: Those are fair comments, but here is where I disagree: - The West Village deal would have forced the City to pay for all of those projects at once, instead of spreading them out over 10+ years. The City would have had to put other important projects on hold to appease Ken King's legacy project. - The cleanup costs were probably not inflated. I have been involved in several oilfield cleanup projects and they always cost much more than originally estimated because it is almost impossible to anticipate all of the unknowns associated with the project. - I forgot about the Hitmen and the Roughnecks, they provide good value for family entertainment. However, the Flames could probably work out a deal at a facility like Winsport to host Hitmen and Roughnecks games at a tiny fraction of the cost of building a new arena. A new "Saddledome" would be built for the Flames - the Hitmen and Roughnecks would be a bit of an afterthought. I would like to see a new arena built, and I think the City should help pay for some of it because the Flames do a lot for the community. However, Ken King and the owners need to realize that this city is four years into an economic slump and now is not the time for tax payers to give a blank cheque to a handful of billionaires so they can make a few more millions (especially Murray Edwards who moved away from the city to avoid paying taxes). Yes, there is always that issue of players being millionaires and the jealousy that comes with it, however I think the city needs to look past that and get some decent facilities in keeping with a world-class city that Calgary probably feels it is. I don't disagree that it is, but based on our recreational facilities and professional sports facilities the city is pretty much second-rate. Heck, Edmonton has 5 field houses for pete's sack... and world-class football and arena facilities. Not surprised, though, being a liberal/NDP bastion that's right in line with those parties... Jack up taxes, throw money at problems and have government take over virtually everything they can.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblejumper1 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 11 hours ago, travel_dude said: Again, what does that approval consist of? Not all voters pay property tax. How do you get the okay? Can't compare it to a private company. Maybe the equivalent would be to ask season ticket holders, since they are the ones that mostly pay the bill. As soon as you start putting details of a deal in the media, you get a media circus. If the city can't negotiate a deal with a sports team, how do you expect them to negotiate with mega companies for tax breaks and concessions. How about the IOC? In case you forget the proposal, here's a link. I make no comment on their version of the facts, but leave it to you. https://www.nhl.com/flames/fans/arena This feels like it is going in a circle. The approval could consist of a referendum, or if the timing is right it could be an election issue. I would argue that nearly all voters pay property tax either directly or indirectly by paying rent. There aren't a lot of homeless voters. I wasn't comparing it to a private company - I was comparing it to a publically trade company. The CEO of a private company (call him Ken King) can make deals on behalf of a private company. The CEO of a publically funded company (call him Naheed Nenshi) needs shareholder approval to complete a significant transaction. Do we want the City negotiating tax breaks with mega companies without consulting the public? This is a personal opinion, but I could care less about the IOC. Calgary is only in the running for the Olympics because nobody else is interested in hosting the winter Olympics. The IOC is so corrupt that nobody wants to deal with them anymore. Of all the negotiations the City of Calgary could be involved in, the Olympic bid is the one I feel needs the most public input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 Quote This feels like it is going in a circle. The approval could consist of a referendum, or if the timing is right it could be an election issue. If every major project came down to a referendum then just about nothing would get done. Almost NOTHING. Voters want stuff but for free. They aren't willing to vote approval, if they have to pay for it. I would argue that nearly all voters pay property tax either directly or indirectly by paying rent. There aren't a lot of homeless voters. It does no good to say landowners should have more say than renters or homeless. There is no good reason to separate the people who live in Calgary. Even if taxpayers end up paying for some of the project in the end those expenses would be paid back over time or in other ways. I wasn't comparing it to a private company - I was comparing it to a publically trade company. The CEO of a private company (call him Ken King) can make deals on behalf of a private company. The CEO of a publically funded company (call him Naheed Nenshi) needs shareholder approval to complete a significant transaction. Do we want the City negotiating tax breaks with mega companies without consulting the public? Cities/counties do this without public approval all the time. They see huge corporations coming in and bringing in revenues and give them all sorts of perks. Low cost land and/or tax breaks are the most common. This is a personal opinion, but I could care less about the IOC. Calgary is only in the running for the Olympics because nobody else is interested in hosting the winter Olympics. The IOC is so corrupt that nobody wants to deal with them anymore. Of all the negotiations the City of Calgary could be involved in, the Olympic bid is the one I feel needs the most public input. IOC was corrupt back when Calgary held the 1986 Olympics. Our winter Olympics were still considered one of the all time successes for Winter Olympics. That type of legacy is what our mayor would like on his resume too so fuels his approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblejumper1 Posted June 23, 2018 Report Share Posted June 23, 2018 This feels like it is going in a circle. The approval could consist of a referendum, or if the timing is right it could be an election issue. If every major project came down to a referendum then just about nothing would get done. Almost NOTHING. Voters want stuff but for free. They aren't willing to vote approval, if they have to pay for it. In general, I would agree. However, in this case tax payer dollars are going to the direct benefit of the handful of billionaires who own the Flames. This project does not benefit all or even most Calgarians. It disproportionately benefits wealthy Calgarians. I would argue that nearly all voters pay property tax either directly or indirectly by paying rent. There aren't a lot of homeless voters. It does no good to say landowners should have more say than renters or homeless. There is no good reason to separate the people who live in Calgary. Even if taxpayers end up paying for some of the project in the end those expenses would be paid back over time or in other ways. I completely agree that landowners, renters and the homeless citizens of this city should all have an equal say at City Hall. I feel this enforces my point about the arena project disproportionately benefiting wealthy Calgarians. I also believe it is a strong reason to bring any arena deal to a referendum. I wasn't comparing it to a private company - I was comparing it to a publically trade company. The CEO of a private company (call him Ken King) can make deals on behalf of a private company. The CEO of a publically funded company (call him Naheed Nenshi) needs shareholder approval to complete a significant transaction. Do we want the City negotiating tax breaks with mega companies without consulting the public? Cities/counties do this without public approval all the time. They see huge corporations coming in and bringing in revenues and give them all sorts of perks. Low cost land and/or tax breaks are the most common. Again, I agree, but is that how we want it to work? Is that how it should work? Maybe there is a better way. This is a personal opinion, but I could care less about the IOC. Calgary is only in the running for the Olympics because nobody else is interested in hosting the winter Olympics. The IOC is so corrupt that nobody wants to deal with them anymore. Of all the negotiations the City of Calgary could be involved in, the Olympic bid is the one I feel needs the most public input. IOC was corrupt back when Calgary held the 1986 Olympics. Our winter Olympics were still considered one of the all time successes for Winter Olympics. That type of legacy is what our mayor would like on his resume too so fuels his approval. A successful Olymic bid that ends up costing the City of Calgary billions (which is a real risk) would destroy a politician's legacy. Hopefully that is not the case for Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubblejumper1 Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, The_People1 said: Unfortunately, he's not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, stubblejumper1 said: Unfortunately, he's not wrong. Sounds like a troll from EDM. Nenshi is the savior of all things Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 2 hours ago, travel_dude said: Sounds like a troll from EDM. Nenshi is the savior of all things Calgary. https://youtu.be/HaTlJW9nVrA If he is, he isn't a happy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now