Deadline Approaches....

[nivek_wahs]

From Alan Caldwell's blog... Moose Jaw Deadline Approaches (http://smallatlarge.blogspot.com/2008/06/moose-jaw-deadline-approaches.html)

[wardog fan]

the situation in moose jaw is this. the steering committee has finalized their recommendations for city coucil. this group was made to look over all the options the city has to play with , this group was suppose to have their plan in place i do believe 2 months ago but asked for more time, they then were ready to go 2 weeks ago but the city council was not in session till june 16th. now with that said this group will go in front of city council on june 16th. to let some in on some news the rink has been approved there is no question in that. the debate holds now are 1. placement of the new rink 2. what stages will be done. 3. money.... my understanding on money is its not a issue, the city has 80 million in surplus change kicking around in a bank just collecting interest, and many sponsers have come on board, including the spa and saskferco and the warriors themselves not to mention government money shall the mulitplex include a soccer field. the second topic is stages, which i dont know at this time cause there is various blueprints of what this project will look like. now the big issue is where , the fight right now is about the downtown location, it seems alot of bussinesses are trying to have the rink built downtown with promises of major development to proceed, such as a new casino upgrade, as well as spa expansion and rumors of a major hotel being built downtown. alot of rumors flying around, but to my concern is the city themselves and the warriors are quiet. the league has their league meetings set and the city left everything down to the 16th of june. my thinking is there is something set up (crossing fingers) or the city is ready to play lets make a deal with the whl governs again. what i would like to make clear is people are saying if we lose this team its our fault, its not our fault , the tax payers and fans have no say anymore, we did all we could in city meetings and voiced our opinions daily in the papers. the fault lays right on our city council and the bussiness men who pushed the issues of going downtown. again i will make my voice clear i dont care where it goes built the stupid thing. besides the downtown location which costs way more then the other 2 sites, it could still brighten the city up downtown with all these promises being made. the second location is the old civic center spot and the other is 9th avenue and thatcher drive east . both locations are fairly cheaper and less cleanup . either location we are looking at 40-60 millions dollers, the 60 million plus for the downtown location. not much more a fan can say anymore but the next 2 weeks are of thee out most importance for this city. and as for us fans , we could very well be robbed of a team we have supported for 20 plus years helped in every bill this team has payed and i think its unfair and i blame the city coucil and the league if they pull this franchise.

[wardog fan]

Steering committee completes recommendations
SUZANNE BOYER
The Moose Jaw Times Herald

Burning questions will be answered at Monday’s city council meeting when the Moose Jaw Multiplex steering committee presents its recommendations.
The committee’s work on its draft report has largely occurred behind closed doors and many councilors as well as Moose Jaw citizens have been waiting in anticipation for its conclusions. The report is to include an overall proposal, a location recommendation, a cost budget and a process for awarding the construction contracts for the proposed recreational facility.
“We are united and unanimous and the committee feels very good about what will be presented,” said committee Vice-Chairman Bevin Leipert.
The report will be presented to city councilors “on a confidential basis” by 5 p.m. Tuesday, as per a motion passed by the committee at its last meeting that morning. It also passed a motion to make the report public when it makes its presentation to city council Monday evening.
Leipert said the committee was determined that councilors would be the first to see the 42-page document and its appendixes, and it was “the decision of the committee” not to release the report publicly before the meeting.

[wardog fan]

Spa holding off on expansion until multiplex decision
CARTER HAYDU
The Moose Jaw Times Herald

Temple Gardens Mineral Spa owners would love to expand the local hotel but are waiting to see if the city builds the multiplex.
As the steering committee prepares its multiplex proposals, which it has said it would do at the June 16 city council meeting, Arni Thorsteinson, Temple Real Estate Investment Trust CEO, hopes councillors bear in mind locating the facility downtown would enormously entice spa owners to expand.
Thorsteinson said Temple REIT already has plans prepared for its massive expansion, which would add 75 guest rooms atop the existing south wing and broaden the casino as well. Temple REIT does not own Casino Moose Jaw but it does own the building it is in.
“Temple alone is prepared to make a $40 million investment,” he said.
Thorsteinson said such development hinges on other new and exciting city centre projects, such as the redevelopment of River Street West.
If the city does decide to build downtown, Thorsteinson said that would be enough to entice hotel/casino expansion. If the city builds the multiplex elsewhere, then Temple REIT would have to come up with a less dramatic expansion.
“We certainly think it would be a great mistake not to locate downtown.”
Depending on the multiplex decision, Thorsteinson said construction at the spa hotel and casino could begin as early as next year, with completion set for the end of 2010.
When Temple REIT built the hotel addition in 2002, Thorsteinson said it was constructed in such a way other rooms could be added as the market demanded.
As for the casino, he said the current facility is relatively small and Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation has indicated it is interested in expansion. Nobody from Saskatchewan Gaming was available Wednesday for comment.
To accommodate added business, Thorsteinson said the spa would have to increase parking space. Temple REIT owns the Anavets building on First Avenue Northeast and the CEO said one option would be converting that property into another parkade.

Carter Haydu can be reached at 691-1265.

[wardog fan]

NEWS Post a comment | View comments (9) | View latest comment |



Last updated at 7:24 AM on 05/06/08

Most businesses vote in favour of downtown multiplex site in chamber survey
The Moose Jaw Times Herald

Build it and build it downtown.
That’s the Moose Jaw & District Chamber of Commerce’s official opinion regarding the proposed multiplex project, based on the results of a business survey to which 42.8 per cent of members responded.
On Monday, the Moose Jaw & District Chamber of Commerce sent out the survey, asking its 500 members if they were in favour of the multiplex project and which sites they thought were best. The Chamber made survey results public on Wednesday.
Of the 214 chamber members represented in the survey, 60.8 per cent prefer the downtown location for the multiplex, 31.3 per cent like the current Civic Centre site and a mere 7.9 per cent want the facility built on Ninth Avenue Northeast.

Read more in Thursday's Times-Herald.

04/06/08



Related Article:
Steering committee completes recommendations 7 10/06/08 3:19 PM


Comments:
This Conversation is Semi-Moderated. What is moderation?
What does moderation mean?
The Moose Jaw Times Herald is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.

This is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes directly to the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.

All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.


(Post a comment)





Gary from MJ from Moose Jaw, Sask. writes: Wow, less than half the members responded and just over half of those who responded prefer the downtown location hmm. Lets see, 500 members, 214 respondents of which 60.8 prefer the downtown location. So we build it downtown based on what a hundred and twenty some odd people say??
Posted 05/06/2008 at 12:13 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Bert from SK writes: The Times Herald is being disingenuous. Why do you not restate the questions asked? Maybe because they were loaded questions. The question as to location was based on all 3 locations costing the same. The question as to wether to build was based on it being affordable. I see tht the Tomes Herald wants this downtown at any cost as well. I will be cancelling my subscription because you need to employ people with journalism degrees that maybe know a thing or two about ethics.
Posted 05/06/2008 at 12:38 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Bert from SK writes: Let me get this straight. Survey was sent out Monday and results are posted 2 days later? What a joke! And you wonder why only 42 percent responded? LOL!
Posted 05/06/2008 at 12:40 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Sam23 from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan writes: So Moose Jaw businesses favour the multiplex being built downtown.
How much will this increase the cost of this project?
Do we really need to spend this kind of money (probably close to 100 million when all is said and done) when our streets need repaving and water mains are going to fail... does it not make economic sense to renovate the crushed can to satisfy the WHL?

So, taxpayers, do you want to be burdened with extra taxes when (& if) the multiplex is built (and do not doubt it, taxes will go up to pay for it)? And more taxes when water mains (most are at the end of their lifetime) fail and have to be replaced?

Talk to your councillor and let your voice be heard before a small group of people ram this tax supported cash cow down our throats.
Posted 05/06/2008 at 7:01 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Corie from SK writes: I wonder where the majority of the CoC respondents have their businesses? Probably downtown and they are probably the 60% that thought downtown was better. To heck with the rest of the city residents' opinions.
Posted 05/06/2008 at 8:01 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







John from sakatchewan writes: It is easy to see why no one individual in particular took credit for writing this article.

I suggest the Times Herald take a look at the Canadian Association of Journalists Statement of Principles. In particular under “Fairness” where it says, “We must not ignore or temper the facts in order to curry favor or avoid retribution.”

Better yet take a hard look at the entire Statement of Principles and the Canadian Association of Journalists Ethics Guidelines http://www.caj.ca/principles/principles-statement-2002.htm hopefully you will learn something and keep from decreasing an already low number of subscribers.
Posted 05/06/2008 at 8:55 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Leslie from saskatchewan writes: I own a business in Moose Jaw and I don't want the multiplex at all because it will mean a big tax increase. Business is hard enough and we've had 2 tax increases in 2 years. This hurts business the most because we pay the most taxes. Commercial tax collection in Moose Jaw is already on the decline don't make it worse.

Unfortunately I didn't get to vote because I was busy with a normal business day and didn't get the survey until it had closed. Who distributes a one day survey this late in the game?

But I suspect that is exactly how they wanted the results to appear. I'm taking time out of my day today here to vote and say NO I don't want a multiplex, and I don't want it downtown. It isn't financially viable and the costs of the locations aren't the same.

Posted 05/06/2008 at 9:54 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







nobody from MJ, SK writes: And now the big question...I've been waiting to drop this one...How many of the properties downtown where the multiplex will go were sold off at bargain basement prices over the last so many years, and now will be sold BACK to the city for excessive amounts of money? I recall alot of properties going for $1, if those people sell them back for hundreds of thousands or more, well I don't think I need to tell you all what that means.

This is the dirtiest, slimiest thing that a council could do. It is NOT about tourism, hockey or community; it is about MONEY!! A whole lot of local people making butt loads of cash off of this thing going downtown. And they won't care in five or ten years, when the place is a money pit due to no one renting it, because they already got their money from the city. It's pathetic and horribly transparent what is happening here.

This has all been in the works for YEARS, it was never going anywhere else but downtown, and the mass profits that are about to be reaped by local land owners are going to come out of the taxpayers pocket.

Oh yeah, and one more thing, what ever happened to that 70+ million dollars the city had in surplus? Hmm, doesn't seem like they did much with that, now does it? Still got gravel roads right in the city.....
Posted 05/06/2008 at 10:31 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







R.M from M.J., Sask. writes: Sadly, the Moose Jaw Money again wants our tax dollars (for another downtown pet project, the multiplex, you know, for the SPA expansion and River Street) so that they can say' it keeps our young people here.' No,..... it keeps the same old tired gang Thorn, Boechler, Boughen, Jamieson and Liepert's sticky fingers in our tax dollars for personal gian.

It is personal gain taking preciedent over our crumnbling sewer, water, sidewalks, roads and and our kids real needs. More kids (2200) play soccer, than the 640 hockey playing kids! Lets get real here, the conspiracy theorists were right!, 'the gang wants our tax dollars, Plus raise our taxes and finally,this time, they want ALL of our civic savings too!

P.S: Plus we must pay the mortgage for 25 years, plus pay to operate it at 1.2 million a year. Last year the Warriors paid the City 29,000 dollars in rent ! Enough is enough! This project will bankrupt us or raise taxes 15 to 20 %. Especially if it goes downtown.

[wardog fan]

well i hope you get a understanding what is going on in moose jaw. if only we had lawyers who would stand up for the people. i really dont know how to sum it into words but big league players trying to convince the lil people on a major development for downtown. and its going to cost us our team. thats not fair. i wish people would step up and understand the whole story here, we could have had this rink built or anything to help save our team months ago but it comes down to this thing called the old mighty doller and people trying to get richer by building the rink downtown and the other major players are hoping on board with promises and threats. now with the league , they will take our team away because of it, and its not fair. i wish i had a way to go to that meeting in calgary and bring this up, might get laughed at but you know what , the league is here for development of young hockey players and for the fans, not to make people rich , ok retract that last statement cause people are getting rich off it. but the bottom line is we lose this team its not because of support its because of dollers and cents and people who want to become more rich and a league who demands 4,000 people and all these advertisement ****. i know one think next week is going to be interesting and ugly in the city of moose jaw....

[wardog fan]

Chad Novak from Moose Jaw, SK writes: Ahhh yes, our wonderful steering committee. Even though the cost to clean up the downtown site is $7-8 Million, and you can't buy half the properties, let's keep considering it as an option! You'd figure by this point in the game, common sense would have kicked them in the butt, but apparently not.
Posted 06/06/2008 at 3:08 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







concerned taxpayer from saskatchewan writes: Well as long as a recommendation for a downtown location from the steering committee falls within the parameters voted for in the plebiscite, I would say great lets hear it. But if it does not meet the parameters of the plebiscite I don`t think it would be a wise choice to even mention it, especially after being so quick to remove the refurbishing of the Civic Center from the table.
Posted 06/06/2008 at 3:57 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Wow from Sask writes: Hahaha, get off of it. this is all BS it makes most people sick. Do you not realize just how ridiculous it sounds. It is disgusting to see you on here all the time. I am tired of reading it. I just had to say something.
it is not 8 million for clean up.. .it is 100 000. Come on. Stop lying to people in this community.
It is going to cost 3-5 million more to build it downtown. That is where it should go and that is where it will go. Get over it man. Time to move on and pick a better fight to win.
Posted 06/06/2008 at 9:10 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Realistic from Sask writes: Not favouring any one site. Sure.

But isn't all this a little premature?

I mean, there is still the matter of the missing $70 million to build this thing.

And they are talking about location.

Seems like these projects are always backwards in Moose Jaw.

Decide what color the drapes are going to be now and we'll figure out how to get the money to put in windows later.
Posted 07/06/2008 at 12:46 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Just a dude from Sask writes: Last time I checked the tab was 7 million to purchase the land, and that was under the assumption that said land owners would jump at the price the city was offering them. Then there's the cost of demo, clean up plus whatever extra money the city uses to persuade the ones holding out to part with their property. Now I'm for the multiplex I voted on, but the way I see it is that all this money (8-10mill, who know's) could go to building the thing instead of kicking people out of their homes and taking away parking from the buisnesses downtown. That's my 2 cents, thank you and goodnight.
Posted 07/06/2008 at 10:46 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Lillian from Saskatchewan writes: Wow, if the kid a break. The cost to purchase the properties have been estimated to be 7-8 million and if you believe that all it would take is $100,000 to clean up the contamination you are the one who is spewing BS. If you read the report the cost of clean up was based on a clean up that was done by the city in the year 2000 and like everything else the cost for clean up has increased based on the last service station that paid over $250,000 to clean up. And also keep in mind there are more than one site that needs clean up. And then the environmental report also stated that they were not able to gain access to all properties so there could be more clean up in addition to how far the contamination in the was of diesel has migrated within the existing acquifers underground.
Read the whole report, don't just take the intrepretation of a very bias steering committee who made in known right from the beginning that the downtown site is the only site they would be seriously looking at, asking for report after report, study at study was all smoke screens to make it appear as if they were doing their job .
Posted 07/06/2008 at 1:26 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Sam23 from Moose Jaw, Sask writes: Mr. Wow, you sound very ridiculous!

How in the world do you know that it will cost only $100,000 to clean up the downtown sight? That number is ludicrously small... A small town's gas station had to clean up their sight when gas leaked from a tank and the total bill was $97,000. How in the world can the entire downtown sight be cleaned for this same price????

How about you stop lying to the people.

$3 - 5 million more for the downtown location? What planet have you been living on? Again, that number is absurdly small with the cost of property aquisitions, environmental cleanup and some kind of flood protection added to the cost. More like 15 - 20 million +.

So Mr. Wow, get off your high horse (or is that just high ). If you are going to attack someone in a public forum, at least get your facts straight.
Posted 08/06/2008 at 10:18 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Gary from MJ from Moose Jaw, Sask. writes: “wow”, in fact, it’s going to cost at least $6,434,540 to prepare the downtown site. My figures are taken from both steering committee minutes and city reports and are not the latest. I have read the total figure may now be anywhere from 7m to 8m.

Let’s have a look at the projected costs regarding the downtown location. Purchase properties $4,610,000 give or take 10%. Demolition is another $1,124,540 with $100,000 allocated for clean up of contamination. This does not include removal of any additional hazardous materials which may be present inside the buildings or landfill costs to the City.

As well City Engineer's estimate of up to $600,000 for servicing fees i.e, Provincial Utilities, City Utilities connect/reconnect/modification gives us a total of $6,434,540.

In total that’s half the money the City borrowed to fulfill its' commitment to the project spent before the proverbial spade hits the ground!!!
Posted 09/06/2008 at 2:25 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







observer from saskatchewan writes: I though the supposed majority voted to but in 10 million to build a soccer,hockey and curling facility. Now it looks like that 10 million will little more than clean up the site for the facility let alone build it! I think it is high time to go back to the voters.
Posted 10/06/2008 at 9:01 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment

[Arthur Fonzerelli]

Thanks Wardog, you are providing great reporting for those of us who get out Warrior news from this site. I getting the feeling that MJ is going to keep the Warriors and that is great news for hockey in the Heartland.

[Toswammi]

Well Fonzy, i have to disagree with you. I am still holding my breath about this one. It just seems to me that with the council (or who ever they are) basically demanding it is in downtown MJ (which is retarded for me).
My big concern is costs are only going up right now (construction costs, gas costs, employment costs, etc) so the price tag will only get bigger and the project will go over budget i will guarantee it.
With the city in need of cash infusions in other places (i used to live there, streets, side walks, snow removal come to mind with me) and talk of a need for replacing the cities plumbing....it seems that there will be a good tax increase because of it.
So while i think that in the end they will have a team, there will be a spin off in other areas. I do hope that they get it though

[AlanC]

well i hope you get a understanding what is going on in moose jaw. if only we had lawyers who would stand up for the people.
...
but the bottom line is we lose this team its not because of support its because of dollers and cents and people who want to become more rich and a league who demands 4,000 people and all these advertisement ****.

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of Warriors fans....I don't think anyone wants to see them lose their team. But the fact is that there obviously is a lot of opposition to building a new rink in Moose Jaw. If everyone in the city thought it was a great idea, it would be built already.

You can blame city council, but remember who voted them in: the taxpayers of Moose Jaw. It has been years now that it has been known that a new rink was needed and if the politicians felt they had a strong mandate from the citizens to build one, it would be done already.

And don't blame the WHL....they're trying to sell and grow their product (which means more money for everyone the stronger the league and its product gets) and one of the things they need to do to accomplish this is to improve the situation for the league's financial "weak sisters". The teams that struggle to break even financially cannot hope to compete with the teams that make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. So, given that the #1 source of revenue in the WHL is from ticket sales, it's not unreasonable for them to want every team in the league to have a building that meets certain minimum standards. 21 other cities in the league have had no problems with building or renovating their arenas to meet the standards; why should the Warriors get an exemption?

I really hope this gets done because like I said, nobody wants to see the loyal Warriors fans lose their team. But nobody wants to see the Warriors struggle along, losing money year after year either. If the political willpower isn't there to get an arena built, then so be it....

[wardog fan]

Steering committee completes recommendations
SUZANNE BOYER
The Moose Jaw Times Herald

Burning questions will be answered at Monday’s city council meeting when the Moose Jaw Multiplex steering committee presents its recommendations.
The committee’s work on its draft report has largely occurred behind closed doors and many councilors as well as Moose Jaw citizens have been waiting in anticipation for its conclusions. The report is to include an overall proposal, a location recommendation, a cost budget and a process for awarding the construction contracts for the proposed recreational facility.
“We are united and unanimous and the committee feels very good about what will be presented,” said committee Vice-Chairman Bevin Leipert.
The report will be presented to city councilors “on a confidential basis” by 5 p.m. Tuesday, as per a motion passed by the committee at its last meeting that morning. It also passed a motion to make the report public when it makes its presentation to city council Monday evening.
Leipert said the committee was determined that councilors would be the first to see the 42-page document and its appendixes, and it was “the decision of the committee” not to release the report publicly before the meeting.


10/06/08



Related Articles:
Multiplex steering committee still considering downtown 9 09/06/08 2:49 PM
Spa holding off on expansion until multiplex decision 5 05/06/08 10:42 AM
Most businesses vote in favour of downtown multiplex site in chamber survey 9 05/06/08 7:24 AM
Multiplex steering committee still a meeting away 11 30/05/08 9:12 AM


Comments:
This Conversation is Semi-Moderated. What is moderation?
What does moderation mean?
The Moose Jaw Times Herald is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.

This is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes directly to the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.

All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.


(Post a comment)





Sask Guy from SK writes: Wow! Now that's what I call a quick report. From what I remember, there was to be a meeting today at 10AM (or 9?), and here it is 10:39AM and we have a story already! Wow is all I can say. This meeting must have been just to make it official and to give the councillors the heads up by 5PM today. Here's hoping it covers all bases, including THE most important factor, how to finance such a project.
Posted 10/06/2008 at 10:41 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Stick from Saskatchewan writes: Does anyone want to bet on the location? Anyone want to bet on how to finance this (tax increase). I hope these guys have done a good report!
Posted 10/06/2008 at 10:46 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Bugsy 2008 from Moose Jaw, SK writes: The arrogance of this clipped-wing committee! THEY voted to decide when the public gets to see it?!? Are they for real?

The elected members of council are the ones to make these decisions. They are the ones accountable to the electorate and they are the ones who will be held to the millstone for decisions the taxpayers don’t agree with – including appointing this committee.

More proof of just how out of step and how full of themselves this steering committee really is.
Posted 10/06/2008 at 11:24 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







observer from saskatchewan writes: If they feel so good about this report why are they afraid to present this report in the same manner that is required by anyone else making a representation to city council. What gives them the right or authority to dictate how reports are presented to city council?
Posted 10/06/2008 at 11:55 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







Kim from sask writes: The steering committee, a group of regular citizens appointed by city council, delivering their long awaited, often predicted and overdue public final report, in a public meeting of council, to be considered and voted on.

And they make a motion to make it public after the meeting.

Talk about restating the obvious.

This wreaks of the SIAST report all over again. Don't make it public until corrections will be made.

By the time I started attending hockey games on River Street I think I would have figured it out on my own.
Posted 10/06/2008 at 1:16 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







John from saskatchewan writes: Looks like they want to ram this project through city council as quick as they can before the public sees or even has a chance to comment on it. Not surprising as it has become obvious over the past year that this project is not in the best interest of the taxpayers at this time.
Posted 10/06/2008 at 1:23 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment
ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


Comment is inflammatory
Comment is offensive
Comment is advertising/spam







R.M from Moose Jaw, Sask. writes: Petula Clarke said it best : Downtown, Downtown! Who cares that it will raise taxes, The Moose Jaw Real Estate Mafia want it downtown!. Forget the torpedos, the public purse suddenly belongs to Liepert, Jameson, Thorn, Boechler Beesley Boughen and Chow. Taxpayers be gone, they want all of our money, all of our savings, and all the operating costs plus a mortgage for 25 years. Enough, lets have another plebiscite. this mess is not what we voted on 2 years ago! 70 million plus here we come.

[wardog fan]

in tommorrow times herald will be 3 stories about the state of the warriors. i talked to a friend of mine and its in the works now. sounds like the whl has upped their demands on the club and it is clear the team will be voted on to be moved next week. he couldnt really say much but all i can say is the developments on the state of the moose jaw warrior hockey club has changed now to red line. heres what he wrote me

There's no real word. The WHL is upping their demands. Which is a good thing if the City responds quickly. I think there was a chance they would vote to move us at the AGM next week. They still could, but I think that's less likely now and we may have bought ourselves a few months to get everything in line. There'll be three stories in tomorrow (provided I get off here and finishing writing one of them) and they should flesh the picture out a little.

There's still a lot of unanswered questions to figure out in the next six days.

It's a fine line between us getting the kick in the ass we need to move and getting kicked out of the league.

[wardog fan]

to try and sum up everything is going on is nuts. im torn as im one of many who is loseing something we grew up loving. nothing compares, its all we have in a small town in rural saskatchewan, we arnt a major city far from it. we lack in major corporate players, the workforce is bleek at the moment. but this is how i see things now, for one how many cities can say they have two major players willing to commit millions and millions of dollers of their own money not tax payer money their own money into a downtown core that is runned down and looks more and more like a war zone? not many im sure , well moose jaw has that chance . the spa owned and operated without tax payers dollers, wants to drop 40 million dollers into the downtown, a calgary based investor has spent millions already buying up land downtown and wants to drop more in making a tourist themed block for shopping and a hotel. what does that show me, committment and work creation which im for. im born and raised here and work is what this city needs , we need to move on from the old and grab some change for once. to build the rink downtown means we get all that and its a risk but we all take risks in buying a new car or used car or a house .
my understanding is our taxes are high already and more then likily after its all said and done the rink itself will be thrown on our taxes, i understand theres people who own land or bussinesses downtown do not want to sell at no cost, the question is why? shouldnt we be on the same page in development and work creation? you cant tell me that all this work that is promised wouldnt benifit us in the end?
i know its a tough life right now houses are threw the roof and work is low in this city but you know all i see is new houses going up, theres money in this city somewhere. the city only has to commit 15 million to the rink am i correct? the tax hike if any shouldnt be that bad when the city has a surplus of 80 million in the bank. its not the new rinks fault the roads havent been fixed, those same roads have been that way since i was a kid. the hosiptal im for but you know what we are only 30 minutes from a major center, do we really need to go all out on a major renovation of our hosiptal?
the bottom line i have is the push by the major players is downtown, its like we have a gun to our heads and its downtown or nothing and at what cost? our hockey team.. and its not fair, i know so many people are sick of it all and in fact some are quick to say its the peoples fault . well its not and i will fight that tilll the end. we voted yes 2 years ago, and here we are now on the brink of loseing a hockey team we all grew up loveing , the likes of theo fluery, kelly buchberger, mike keane, mark mackay, reed low, and others who called moose jaw home for years and still come back to this city on occassion and treated like gods. i dont care where the rink goes im in favor of improvements but when we have a gun to our heads and this could have been avoided months ago maybe even years ago something isnt right......