Confirmed with Link: Katz Group in legal battle with Boyle Street

[AM]

It's not that simple, and it's worth more than that to Katz or he wouldn't have made the offer. Land value is determined by what someone will pay for it.

It's not just the value of this specific property, it's the correlation to the value of all the properties Katz owns around it.


They don't care about homeless people, they care about homeless people near the Katz district

No land value is worth 1 dollar more then the second person who would buy it.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Your response may have some truth to it in terms of aligning belief systems but I don’t think it’s a major factor here in the uphill climb places like Boyle street face to fundraiser for something like this in this climate.

First of all giving is often counter cyclical. When the need is the greatest for things like support for this in poverty is also when people feel less secure to give. With rising interest rates, increased cost of living and a feeling of economic stability people are not inclined to increase their donations, which is what you need to fundraiser for capital - more on that in a bit. Those same economic factors are also a massive reason for why the demand for support for those living below the poverty line is the greatest.

So with the above taken into account I can also tell you that fundraising for poverty support is hard, super, super hard. I know it firsthand from some work I do as a board member. Fundraising is hard in general, but places like the Stollery or the Cancer Society have a leg up. Everyone knows someone, everyone feels the randomness of those illnesses striking, watches the stories and buys the lotto ticket or writes the cheque. They don’t question if the newest gamma knife is the best purchase(just using that as an example) they just give. Poverty is different, depending on your life circumstances you may never ever actually have a relationship with someone who is unhoused, although you almost certainly do with someone who lives in poverty - you just may not know it. Judgement also gets passed by many - they made bad choices, they are welfare bums, would never happen to me, just a druggie, and judgement gets passed in the support needed - just get a job, mandatory addiction treatment, etc. Every dollar is hard fought for.

Now onto fundraising for capital, it is also a tricky dance, regardless of the sector. If you go to an existing donor and say I need money for a new building you need new money from them. If they give you $500 today which funds your operations and say that’s great here’s $300 for your new building and here’s $200 for the rest of what I normally donate you have an immediate problem. So Boyle Street went big game hunting, they looked for deep pockets and big organizations who didn’t normally fund them to kick in. They were super persistent, I know it for a fact and were using some very credible names in the community. They didn’t do a massive community drive for I think the reasons I have stated - they may not have believed they could motivate the community at large and just feared they would steal dollars they need to keep the lights on and pay their staff.

Did they always bank in the $5 million? Maybe so and they have not been perfect here. The Katz group may even have a legal argument here, I don’t really know. I just know it’s a bad situation no matter how we look at this, and a black eye for Katz as the billionaire never comes out of his well, but I suspect it’s not all that helpful for Boyle either.

TLDR - fundraising is hard, even harder for poverty based organizations and it’s a bad situation.

I'm well aware of what you raise in this post and I'm well aware some missives are less supported now because of belief systems. Which you also touched on. Theres a strong divide now between people that continue to believe in self autonomy, and that being critical to health, well being, and those that just figure everything should be handed to them. Most of us have relatives that came here with a loaf of bread and limited funds and took any job they could. At times in the last Century where help was non existent and people persevered. Provinces like Alberta are born of that work puritan ethic. So that of course theres vast differences in funding something like Cancer or diseases that are terrible fortune and random affliction, and COULD happen to anybody vs funding things that could be perceived as self harm, self directed tragedy. If you don't think that divide in thought exists I don't know what to tell you.

Theres pushback too, and one can see it in nimbyism everywhere in that people don't want proliferation of certain community endeavors in their own neighborhood. One can even argue that the presence of same attracts social problems rather than address them. Studies have addressed this. So that programs like Boyle Street Coop that push for such programs in outlying areas where the general population do not want them of course experience lack of fundraising. Its the disconnect I mentioned where the endeavors are no longer supported by the majority population.

Such missives as ending homelessness, these are stated absolutes and have been largely unachievable anywhere, for any period of time. When these kinds of utopian precepts become missive its arguable that they become counter productive. If every able bodied person is just promised a home, a living, free income, why do anything for it? Why bother to be productive, to make contributions to society? This is the dire consequence of any domain that seeks to be a welfare state. There are always people that will remain productive but subsets of people that will just take, that faction grows to breaking points where funding it is no longer tenable. In the end it isn't beneficent.

I worked for decades in community orgs that were fully aware their mission statements and missives needed to be in response and connection to wants and mores and values of greater society and not opposed to them. Any org pursuing the latter realm will fail.

 

[Drivesaitl]

It's not that simple, and it's worth more than that to Katz or he wouldn't have made the offer. Land value is determined by what someone will pay for it.

It's not just the value of this specific property, it's the correlation to the value of all the properties Katz owns around it.


They don't care about homeless people, they care about homeless people near the Katz district

This is known. But the Ice District improved land cost and potential in the area and is the reason the ICE District, public funding proportion of it, CRL levy etc all occurred. Further to this if the mission is to gentrify, and it was, that was the sole mission to gentrify and create draw potential, than the sale of the adjacent Boyle Street Coop lands also made sense and with the City supporting all this missive and expand out gentrification.

Maybe the city isn't caring either.

 

[VainGretzky]

Before the pitchforks start jabbing I would be curious to know how much money Katz has donated to these types of centers over the years, Mustard seed, and so forth. I'm pretty sure it substantial

 

[sepHF]

Seeing some people saying that Boyle Street was on pace to cross the threshold for the donation but then purposely stopped fund raising to stay just under the line to receive the money. Any truth to this?

 

[Skar]

Publically owned arena.

The City of Edmonton owns Rogers Place and the land that it was built on.

• Rogers Place is being built for $483.5 million, including underground parking.
• The Katz Group is paying $132.5-million. $112.8-million of their contribution will be paid to the City as rent over 35 years, and cover the City’s principal and interest costs. The remaining $19.7-million will be paid as cash.
• The City of Edmonton’s contribution of $226-million to the arena building includes funding through a Community Revitalization Levy, new parking revenues, and redirecting the current Rexall Place subsidy.
• $125-million will be collected through a ticket surcharge.

So the Katz group is paying $132.5 million out of $483.5 million (for the arena itself), and will receive all profits from the arena operations. There are a few other details such as ticket surcharge which will be paid to the city as well.

I'm all for public infrastructure, but we did not make out well in this deal IMO.

 

[Arty Spooners Bsmnt]

That's what I'm seeing. They needed to raise minimum $8.5 million, Katz agreed to donate $5 million if they couldn't hit their goal with a dollar for dollar reduction on anything over $8.5.

Boyle Street raised $7.3 million with the city and province refusing to help and still waiting word from the feds.

Katz is just being a cheapass as usual. He got his playground (that we paid for), now he can put the screws in.

• Rogers Place is being built for $483.5 million, including underground parking.
• The Katz Group is paying $132.5-million. $112.8-million of their contribution will be paid to the City as rent over 35 years, and cover the City’s principal and interest costs. The remaining $19.7-million will be paid as cash.
• The City of Edmonton’s contribution of $226-million to the arena building includes funding through a Community Revitalization Levy, new parking revenues, and redirecting the current Rexall Place subsidy.
• $125-million will be collected through a ticket surcharge.

So the Katz group is paying $132.5 million out of $483.5 million (for the arena itself), and will receive all profits from the arena operations. There are a few other details such as ticket surcharge which will be paid to the city as well.

I'm all for public infrastructure, but we did not make out well in this deal IMO.

Certainly not. The city will be left owning a building that isn't modern enough, that an NHL team can't maximize revenues in and the city will be footing the demolition bills.

 

[VainGretzky]

• Rogers Place is being built for $483.5 million, including underground parking.
• The Katz Group is paying $132.5-million. $112.8-million of their contribution will be paid to the City as rent over 35 years, and cover the City’s principal and interest costs. The remaining $19.7-million will be paid as cash.
• The City of Edmonton’s contribution of $226-million to the arena building includes funding through a Community Revitalization Levy, new parking revenues, and redirecting the current Rexall Place subsidy.
• $125-million will be collected through a ticket surcharge.

So the Katz group is paying $132.5 million out of $483.5 million (for the arena itself), and will receive all profits from the arena operations. There are a few other details such as ticket surcharge which will be paid to the city as well.

I'm all for public infrastructure, but we did not make out well in this deal IMO.

To be fair he did invest a lot into the ice district as well and the city does collect on property taxes for the life of both Stantec tower and Sky residences which brings in a large amount of tax dollars for both Business and residential

 

[Sra1974]

I'm well aware of what you raise in this post and I'm well aware some missives are less supported now because of belief systems. Which you also touched on. Theres a strong divide now between people that continue to believe in self autonomy, and that being critical to health, well being, and those that just figure everything should be handed to them. Most of us have relatives that came here with a loaf of bread and limited funds and took any job they could. At times in the last Century where help was non existent and people persevered. Provinces like Alberta are born of that work puritan ethic. So that of course theres vast differences in funding something like Cancer or diseases that are terrible fortune and random affliction, and COULD happen to anybody vs funding things that could be perceived as self harm, self directed tragedy. If you don't think that divide in thought exists I don't know what to tell you.

Theres pushback too, and one can see it in nimbyism everywhere in that people don't want proliferation of certain community endeavors in their own neighborhood. One can even argue that the presence of same attracts social problems rather than address them. Studies have addressed this. So that programs like Boyle Street Coop that push for such programs in outlying areas where the general population do not want them of course experience lack of fundraising. Its the disconnect I mentioned where the endeavors are no longer supported by the majority population.

Such missives as ending homelessness, these are stated absolutes and have been largely unachievable anywhere, for any period of time. When these kinds of utopian precepts become missive its arguable that they become counter productive. If every able bodied person is just promised a home, a living, free income, why do anything for it? Why bother to be productive, to make contributions to society? This is the dire consequence of any domain that seeks to be a welfare state. There are always people that will remain productive but subsets of people that will just take, that faction grows to breaking points where funding it is no longer tenable. In the end it isn't beneficent.

I worked for decades in community orgs that were fully aware their mission statements and missives needed to be in response and connection to wants and mores and values of greater society and not opposed to them. Any org pursuing the latter realm will fail.

Lots to address here.

Starting near the end homlessness is a very difficult problem, but one very worthwhile of attacking . Finland and Denmark have done great but there are other examples. This isn’t an issue of “those that just think everything should be handed to them” or the old days when our relatives could just survive on sustenance agriculture to get buy. Surely you see the economic divide is much greater and there are real barriers, much of it inter-generational. Tell me where the free land that my ancestors were given is available right now. Was their life hard? Incredibly so, but they had what they needed to survive and a community that also supported people through lifes ups and downs.

Nobody is promising anything forever, it’s about finding the right pathways and it can be done, if we want it. The situation can improve, and many of our fellow citizens deserve far more from us then we are currently giving to help them.

Yeah, neighborhoods have pushed back against shelters and support, just as Chinatown businesses are finally saying enough is enough, stoppping make us the dumping ground. Too many people say not in my backyard and then wonder why there’s such a concentration of issues downtown.

Against this backdrop you have the juxtaposition of a billion dollar real estate play to build a house for athletes to make millions of dollars while shooing off the most vulnerable in our society, and then this lawsuit. Unless the lawsuit uncovers something pretty awful at Boyle Katz may well win and lose all at the same time.

 

[VainGretzky]

Lots to address here.

Starting near the end homlessness is a very difficult problem, but one very worthwhile of attacking . Finland and Denmark have done great but there are other examples. T

I have been around a long time there were no Homeless in the '70s

 

[Kirby]

I have been around a long time there were no Homeless in the '70s

I'm interested in how you can state this so matter of fact. Do you honestly believe their was no homeless in the 70's?

 

[VainGretzky]

I'm interested in how you can state this so matter of fact. Do you honestly believe their was no homeless in the 70's?

Because I lived in Edmonton in the 70's social services at that time welfare made sure everyone had a roof over their head Homelessness in Canada was started in the 80's when governments no longer cared about its citizens and started cutbacks in social housing in the mid 80's Governments used to build social housing this completely stopped in the 90's this is how governments pretend to care about the homeless when in reality it's this bottom tweet

 

[Kirby]

Because I lived in Edmonton in the 70's social services at that time welfare made sure everyone had a roof over their head Homelessness in Canada was started in the 80's when governments no longer cared about its citizens and started cutbacks in social housing in the mid 80's Governments used to build social housing this completely stopped in the 90's this is how governments pretend to care about the homeless when in reality it's this bottom tweet

I appreciate that lived in Edmonton at that time, and a lot of social policy as you mentioned did start drastically changing in the 80's. However, there were still issues with homeless/transient individuals, even in the 70's and earlier in Canada.

The charity that is the topic of this very thread has been providing supports for such individuals since 1971.

Boyle Street Community Services | Edmonton | Charity Organization

Since 1971, Boyle Street Community Services has been supporting people experiencing homelessness and poverty in Edmonton.

www.boylestreet.org

There are other Edmonton organizations that also had their roots started in the 1970's as many individuals and organizations noted people sleeping rough in various parts of the city, ravines, and in the river valley during that time period.

 

[AM]

How can you say they are in breach when the claim against them is only that “they didn’t fundraiser hard enough.” Who’s to say what “hard enough” or “try enough” is?? The guy who has to pay? If that guy gets to decide, he’ll never pay. It’s not like fundraising is easy these days. If the Katz group was dumb enough to pledge the backstop, they better be willing to hand it over. My information on the whole thing is obviously limited to what is in the article, but that’s my take on it with what has been presented.

I think the issue will be “at all” and to try hard you need to do it. And of course, because it’s a top off, that means you can’t redirect all fund raising when you hit the start line.

 

[fuswald]

Wow promise $ for charity in order to secure building purchase then reneg.

Good look Katz.

 

[samiam]

Wow promise $ for charity in order to secure building purchase then reneg.

Good look Katz.

Have you actually read why Katz is taking them to court? There seems to be so many making judgements without even knowing all the facts, or letting this be played out in a court of law where both sides will be heard.

Ps- I’m not trying to defend or accuse anybody.

 

[alanschu]

or letting this be played out in a court of law where both sides will be heard.

Litigation is expensive and I suspect there will be a settlement and no one outside of that will learn anything about the actual merits of the case.

 

[alanschu]

If every able bodied person is just promised a home, a living, free income, why do anything for it?

Because housing is a basic need and without that floor we still pay for it, just in police enforcement (not even factoring in abuse by the state), criminality, and so forth.

Working because "if you don't you will die" isn't a very productive motivator IMO and is just as prone to people abusing and leveraging the system... especially from owner and managerial class who can leverage desperation to keep wages low, and do things like wage theft and be abusive towards a staff knowing that mobility can be complicated.

I'm no longer a Conservative but even when I was there were some aspects that I recognized were positive for business such as universal health care. People are just "given" health care and as such businesses don't need to raise overhead costs by employing people to manage employee health care plans and so forth, something that is innately more difficult to do for smaller businesses that don't have the negotiating power that a group like Walmart does.

Got a first hand account of it from my MIL in Texas (A Trump supporting Republican to be clear) that was heavily exploited and taken advantage of because she was desperate for the health insurance the job provided given her husband (cancer survivor) health but ultimately got ousted by a vindictive new manager and then they had to go on COBRA and the insane costs that has. All the while when I visited on time, she got an E Coli infection from a mistreated Kidney Stone and while we waited in emergency without a bed the experience was similar to Edmonton hospitals.

Plenty of UBI tests have shown that reduction in stresses have improvements in people's health and increased workplace participation that can come with that. Both from working more, improved job mobility, and less health related absences.

People will in general still work because basics being provided is only a floor and they will look to advance careers for the same reasons they do now.

I went from a comfortable $110k household income to about $200k in the past two years and it wasn't because I was worried about being destitute ($110k household income is still pretty comfortable especially as we have no kids).

 

[fuswald]

Have you actually read why Katz is taking them to court? There seems to be so many making judgements without even knowing all the facts, or letting this be played out in a court of law where both sides will be heard.

Ps- I’m not trying to defend or accuse anybody.

Doesn't matter why in the court of public opinion.

Better send the money to another charity or do something great to keep up appearances.

 

[Heavy Dee]

Seeing some people saying that Boyle Street was on pace to cross the threshold for the donation but then purposely stopped fund raising to stay just under the line to receive the money. Any truth to this?

I think they redirected the funds to their endowment and programs. But you're right, getting to 7.35 out of 8 million is a bit suspect.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Because housing is a basic need and without that floor we still pay for it, just in police enforcement (not even factoring in abuse by the state), criminality, and so forth.

Working because "if you don't you will die" isn't a very productive motivator IMO and is just as prone to people abusing and leveraging the system... especially from owner and managerial class who can leverage desperation to keep wages low, and do things like wage theft and be abusive towards a staff knowing that mobility can be complicated.

I'm no longer a Conservative but even when I was there were some aspects that I recognized were positive for business such as universal health care. People are just "given" health care and as such businesses don't need to raise overhead costs by employing people to manage employee health care plans and so forth, something that is innately more difficult to do for smaller businesses that don't have the negotiating power that a group like Walmart does.

Got a first hand account of it from my MIL in Texas (A Trump supporting Republican to be clear) that was heavily exploited and taken advantage of because she was desperate for the health insurance the job provided given her husband (cancer survivor) health but ultimately got ousted by a vindictive new manager and then they had to go on COBRA and the insane costs that has. All the while when I visited on time, she got an E Coli infection from a mistreated Kidney Stone and while we waited in emergency without a bed the experience was similar to Edmonton hospitals.

Plenty of UBI tests have shown that reduction in stresses have improvements in people's health and increased workplace participation that can come with that. Both from working more, improved job mobility, and less health related absences.

People will in general still work because basics being provided is only a floor and they will look to advance careers for the same reasons they do now.

I went from a comfortable $110k household income to about $200k in the past two years and it wasn't because I was worried about being destitute ($110k household income is still pretty comfortable especially as we have no kids).

Housing can look like many things. Many of the people that are on the street are also hard to house. Such housing that is built for purposes of housing the demographic don't last long. The places are often unlivable after even two decades.

So maybe the idea of what gets provided as housing deserves some rethink. These are people (many of whom) are choosing to live on the street because they do not like being in facilities or monitored or being in shelters.

Meanwhile we have secure and safe facilities like Remand Center just sitting unused. We have Rexall awaiting demolition when it could be used as an emergency or other facility.

In the Province of Manitoba they got a new Premier and one of the first things he did was repurpose ABANDONED buildings for use for the homelss. This is a sensible approach and yet met with howls of horror here if our premier attempted such action.

 

[trick91]

Putting the homeless in places with asbestos and mold sounds like a fantastic idea. Hell, they cant even implode Rexall place due to that.

 

[AM]

Because housing is a basic need and without that floor we still pay for it, just in police enforcement (not even factoring in abuse by the state), criminality, and so forth.

Working because "if you don't you will die" isn't a very productive motivator IMO and is just as prone to people abusing and leveraging the system... especially from owner and managerial class who can leverage desperation to keep wages low, and do things like wage theft and be abusive towards a staff knowing that mobility can be complicated.

I'm no longer a Conservative but even when I was there were some aspects that I recognized were positive for business such as universal health care. People are just "given" health care and as such businesses don't need to raise overhead costs by employing people to manage employee health care plans and so forth, something that is innately more difficult to do for smaller businesses that don't have the negotiating power that a group like Walmart does.

Got a first hand account of it from my MIL in Texas (A Trump supporting Republican to be clear) that was heavily exploited and taken advantage of because she was desperate for the health insurance the job provided given her husband (cancer survivor) health but ultimately got ousted by a vindictive new manager and then they had to go on COBRA and the insane costs that has. All the while when I visited on time, she got an E Coli infection from a mistreated Kidney Stone and while we waited in emergency without a bed the experience was similar to Edmonton hospitals.

Plenty of UBI tests have shown that reduction in stresses have improvements in people's health and increased workplace participation that can come with that. Both from working more, improved job mobility, and less health related absences.

People will in general still work because basics being provided is only a floor and they will look to advance careers for the same reasons they do now.

I went from a comfortable $110k household income to about $200k in the past two years and it wasn't because I was worried about being destitute ($110k household income is still pretty comfortable especially as we have no kids).

I don’t think facts back up your argument. People work harder when they own more of their own labour. Having government pay for stuff doesn’t mean it’s free it means somebody else pays for it. People don’t just automatically have ambition to provide goods and services for others.most need the concept of getting ahead. As to government services like universal healthcare, the problem is scope creep. There’s little reason why 40% of the current scope is included. When people pay for it with their own labour they can decide what they want. And not have it decided for them.

 

[VainGretzky]

Hey bottom 6 maybe chip in here once in a bluemoon

Bouchard needs to shoot the puck

 

[Rpenny]

It sounds like part of the agreement was that the charity would do more fund raising then it did.