What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    26
Edmonton said:
Boarded-up
GhMkidL.jpg
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just an illusion but it looks like the roof is about to cave in.

Tearing it down sooner than later also means paying less taxes, doesn't it?
 
So now we’ll have 4 different tent cities spread like sticks throughout the DT core…..
 
TAS said:
Maybe it's just an illusion but it looks like the roof is about to cave in.

Tearing it down sooner than later also means paying less taxes, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
In this case it is probably better to tear down sooner rather than later, particularly if the building has deteriorated, rather than let it become a safety or fire risk.
 
Hard for them not to look like the bad guy, I think it looks a lot worse than it is, but tough one to swallow coming out looking bad over a conditional 5 million when they have already given Boyle Street 10 million and basically 2 years of free rent in the space. I'm sure a settlement will be reached in short order but as it goes, good will is hard earned and easily lost.
 
"Both the Katz Group and Boyle Street declined interviews for this story, but provided written statements saying they're in the midst of trying to resolve the dispute through a private arbitration process."

Not a legal guy whatsoever but for those who know, would a lawsuit help push parties to engage in a private arbitration process? Given how careful Katz Group have been with minding PR of this entire saga, this feels like the nuclear option.
 
northlands said:
"Both the Katz Group and Boyle Street declined interviews for this story, but provided written statements saying they're in the midst of trying to resolve the dispute through a private arbitration process."

Not a legal guy whatsoever but for those who know, would a lawsuit help push parties to engage in a private arbitration process? Given how careful Katz Group have been with minding PR of this entire saga, this feels like the nuclear option.
Click to expand...
What nuclear option is worth trying to sink a homelessness serving organization to save your 2 Billion dollar corporation a one time $5 mil donation? I can't see anyway this isn't anything but petty.

I personally know how hard Boyle has worked to fundraise for the King Thunderbird and that the fundraising was their biggest concern because they know how much donor fatigue there is at this time of social and economic turmoil. People often seem to be under the impression non-profits should be able to just "fundraise more" to solve resource concern without understanding the mismatch between need and how few donor dollars are actually out there. I used to work with one of the larger and more successful donor funded non-profits in town and the amount of work and $ they put in is incredible, at one point the the Director of Donor Development told me they saw a return of $1.20 for every $1 spent fundraising.
 
northlands said:
"Both the Katz Group and Boyle Street declined interviews for this story, but provided written statements saying they're in the midst of trying to resolve the dispute through a private arbitration process."

Not a legal guy whatsoever but for those who know, would a lawsuit help push parties to engage in a private arbitration process? Given how careful Katz Group have been with minding PR of this entire saga, this feels like the nuclear option.
Click to expand...
I'm also not "a legal guy" but it's worth noting that the nuclear option was commenced/filed last November even though it's just being reported now. As noted above, this is regarding a potential additional $5m, not clawing back any of the support that's already been given both in cash and in kind.

From my perspective, if you do give a "contingency commitment", you need to be able and prepared to fund it when the time comes. In this case the "able" isn't really in question so it's a matter of prepared to or not with the answer being not. This is a classic dilemma when it comes to contingency agreements and contingency commitments.

From my perspective, if there is a contingency commitment that you would prefer not to fund (which is the underlying rationale for providing a contingency commitment and not a donation) then you should have some rather direct involvement if not outright control over the venture being backstopped (the additional fundraising in this case). That way if you fail, you fund but you control your destiny. If you're not prepared to accept that responsibility or take on that commitment, then you need to rely on the other party to perform and should be fully prepared to fund if they fail. I would assume there were certain undertakings and best effort requirements and probably some reporting obligations from Boyle Street and it would seem Katz Group now wants to make the case that those obligations weren't met. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't but if they weren't that didn't happen on an end date. Was Katz aware and if so were concerns expressed that were ignored which is what resulted in the action being filed? All of that will come out in court or it will get resolved directly or through arbitration or mediation and little if anything will be made public on the why and how even though the result will be public even if simply in Boyle Street's public financial reporting.

In any case, for most of us it would appear that Katz will lose more than $5M in "good will" here but they already have a reputation for playing hardball and for being litigious that would indicate "good will" is not necessarily the highest priority. Which is a shame.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top