Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Province leases 2.52 acres to Brandt for $1 a year

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Province leases 2.52 acres to Brandt for $1 a year

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...tics-1.5026910

  • #2
    Should be $0. It is for charity.

    /s

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't understand why the government would do this and open themselves up to controversy, especially considering their issues with the GTH. Besides, how much would that land rent for? Less than a rounding error to Brandt or the province?

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, yes, turning our beautiful park in a bunch of office buildings, especially for 1$ lease rates, should not be anyone's priority. I hestitate to use the term "slippery slope" but ver the long term, like decades, do we want to risk turning Wascana park into a second downtown around a lake? I don't think so.

        ON the other hand, the building that this is replacing was an eyesore and a wreck, and needed to be replaced. The architectural drawings look very nice and tastefully done. The CNIB get nice new offices, and in return, there's a few businesses around them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jollyrider View Post
          Should be $0. It is for charity.

          /s
          Only partly for charity is the problem.

          Perhaps if they turn this building into nothing but offices for the CNIB and other not-for-profits with free rent, this would fly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by squish View Post

            Only partly for charity is the problem.

            Perhaps if they turn this building into nothing but offices for the CNIB and other not-for-profits with free rent, this would fly.
            But then, how would the largest privately held firm make any money on it? How much does Brandt (and affiliated companies) make in donations to the various political parties?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jollyrider View Post
              Should be $0. It is for charity.

              /s

              5% of the building is for charity. 95% is profit for Brandt.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The General View Post


                5% of the building is for charity. 95% is profit for Brandt.
                The /s means "end sarcasm".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jollyrider View Post
                  Should be $0. It is for charity.

                  /s
                  CNIB will be getting 4000 square feet out of 77,000 square feet.
                  Brandt will lease out the rest of the building at market rates which being prime real estate will be $$$$.
                  That's not charity. That's using CNIB to make a boatload of money.

                  ETA: Never seen /s as end sarcasm.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by go riders View Post

                    The /s means "end sarcasm".

                    Haha Iím sorry I obviously didnít know that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by go riders View Post

                      But then, how would the largest privately held firm make any money on it? How much does Brandt (and affiliated companies) make in donations to the various political parties?
                      Valid questions for sure.

                      Although I do hesitate to crap on Brandt, they are responsible corporate citizens around here, and have certainly done their share of sponsorships and charitable work in Saskatchewan.
                      Last edited by squish; 02-21-2019, 07:52 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Maverick View Post
                        I don't understand why the government would do this and open themselves up to controversy, especially considering their issues with the GTH. Besides, how much would that land rent for? Less than a rounding error to Brandt or the province?

                        They know they can do whatever they want and still come away with a big majority. Thereís no competition in Saskatchewan to keep them honest.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by squish View Post

                          Valid questions for sure.

                          Although I do hesitate to crap on Brandt, they are responsible corporate citizens around here, and have certainly done their share of sponsorships and charitable work in Saskatchewan.
                          And they were just compensated in a ridiculously generous manner.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by squish View Post

                            Valid questions for sure.
                            Not that I have a dog in the fight anymore as I don't live in Regina. I thought it was wrong they were letting Conexus build in the park as a result of them paying for the Dark Hall renovation. Now, you have a large private company getting ready to make a boatload of money by building an office building to replace the old CNIB building (was it basically condemmed?). The CNIB gets free office space and Brandt gets to lease out (at a premium rate no doubt) prime park real estate in 95% of the building.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by squish View Post

                              Only partly for charity is the problem.

                              Perhaps if they turn this building into nothing but offices for the CNIB and other not-for-profits with free rent, this would fly.
                              They can do that I am sure, but if I am Brandt I am not building a building for charities out of the goodness of my heart at the very least a balance between paying tenants and charities to cash flow the building and pay for the capital cost.

                              I know the anti everything is all over this and the new Conexus building, the things is there is private investment that pays for things that otherwise us taxpayers likely get the bill for. Conexus put millions into the college ave campus restoration in exchange for the land and right to build their head office, I am happy to let them pay for that rather than my taxes in exchange for a piece of land beside it, its a partnership that means we don't have to increase property taxes or take from general revenue to fix up an old building

                              as for the Brandt facility they could be a lot more transparent with their plans, I have heard other charities will be in there. I think if they explained their plan and the net benefit to the public they will satisfy a lot of questions (although there is a certain element of society that is anti everything).

                              The taxpayer is not an ATM that gives out free money we have to pick our priorities, when partnerships can take care of public things its a good thing for us all but there is a trade off I think that's the point many are missing here.

                              Comment

                              Announcement

                              Collapse
                              No announcement yet.

                              Announcement

                              Collapse
                              No announcement yet.
                              Working...
                              X