Friends of Soccer issues invitation to All Mayoral Candidates

[Gurps]

Whitecaps deadlocked over stadium talks with Port of Vancouver
By Jim Jamieson, The Province
Published: Friday, April 25, 2008

Three years after setting out to win approval for a 15,000-seat, open-air waterfront stadium adjacent to Gastown, the Whitecaps are deadlocked in talks with the Port of Vancouver.

The two sides say they've agreed on a new site -- the fourth -- for the natural-grass venue that would put Vancouver on the map to host international matches and also on the short list for a Major League Soccer expansion franchise.

The new site is to the east of the Seabus terminal, above the Helijet landing area and straddles Waterfront Road and some of the rail tracks behind it.


But the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and the Whitecaps have been at loggerheads for about four months over the final two issues to be resolved, said Patrick McLaughlin, the authority's director of planning and development.

McLaughlin said one of the issues has to do with the details of a land swap with 'Caps owner Greg Kerfoot, who reportedly bought a total of 10.5 hectares on the waterfront in 2005 for about $22 million.

"We said, 'As part of this deal we want you to include the rail yard and transfer it to us,'" said McLaughlin. "We don't want the development rights. We want to own and operate the railway below."

According to McLaughlin, the hang-up on the issue is that the 'Caps are only willing to give up about half of the 6.9-hectare parcel. The Whitecaps have offered 3.1 hectares.

The second issue has to do with a disagreement about the valuation of the port's land, which is about 1.5 hectares. McLaughlin said the property, which is federal Crown land, would be converted into a lease.

'Caps president Bob Lenarduzzi was "shocked" to learn that the port authority had gone public with what he thought were confidential discussions. "We're shocked that they would choose to share the details of the negotiations," he said.

"Regardless of how he comes to his conclusions, we're offering them 30,000 square metres of our property for 10,000 square metres of the land that's required to build the stadium."

But Lenarduzzi said he still felt the process was very much alive: "Obviously, we're disagreeing with one another but we're still talking."

McLaughlin agreed: "The process is ongoing, but we're at a point where we need to make some progress pretty quickly."

Lenarduzzi said an expected major facelift of B.C. Place Stadium would have no impact on the Whitecaps' intention to keep pursuing the waterfront stadium. "We're focused on getting it done on the waterfront, on being in that area," he said.

[johnnybluenose]

Old News Gurps.

The Problem lies in that the Port wants the swap and Money. there is also a sticking point that is a non-issue. they want ownership of the railyards. Kerfoot has it. They want it to ensure access, which is guaranteed by an easement or right of way, so it is essentially a non starter.

they need to get the proverbial finger out and just get this done.

[Gurps]

Sorry Johnny, I don't post/read on here 24/7 like some people. Just thought I would post something I read.

[johnnybluenose]

I was simply stating we have all seen that as one of the guys posted that story in another thread

[Dial 9-1-1]

Friends, I appreciate your post and you are obviously very knowledgeable in regards to the stadium proposal. I do not think you are on crack.

Regardless of the time and money already spent on the planning policy of Hastings Park, sometimes you have to cut bait and go in a new direction as was the case with the fast ferries fiasco.

As for stadiums not earning money, that is really only the case when there is no tenant--or more accurately, tenants.

Nat Bailey was always in crappy condition, but when the Canadians left, they lost out on 80 dates a year.

Empire Stadium lost the Lions and Whitecaps to BC Place.

The Pacific Colloseum lost out to GM Place and most concerts also opted for the newer stadium.

Therefore, regardless of where this new stadium goes, you have to wonder about the future of BC Place.

In truth, however, the Lions are only in BC Place for a handful of games a year, but it does make one wonder if the stadium would be downsized considerably if they did not house the Lions.

Stadiums must be financially viable, or owners would not be dishing out their own money to build them and moving their teams to other cities when they have a crappy lease agreement. It's a nice feeling when you can sell hotdogs for $6 each, beer for $7, and parking for $20.

Regardless, I appreciate your post and your point of view. I agree that this city definitely needs a new stadium. And the fact that it is only likely to happen if it is built by a private owner is embarrassing to this city and province.

For those keeping score at home, I vote for the PNE grounds.

[FriendsofSoccer]

I agree that this city definitely needs a new stadium. And the fact that it is only likely to happen if it is built by a private owner is embarrassing to this city and province.

On this point we definitely both agree. In most cities, governments would be falling over themselves to make it happen. They would pony up either money or land for it. But, for some reason that doesn't work here.

[suburbanator]

Originally Posted by johnnybluenose

1. Surrey is a piss poor idea. There are little to no options for rapid transit.
2. Any JV between the Lions and the Caps means the Caps lose out on Atmosphere and you the spectator being anywhere close to the pitch.

And on Parking...

I can't remember the exact figure, but I thought I'd read that there was something like 10-15k parking spots within a 5 minute walk from the proposed waterfront stadium location, and will be next door to the transit hub (Seabus, Skytrain, Canadline, Westcoast express)

My vote was for downtown. But as a fan if the choice was up to me, or YOU why wouldn't you choose Surrey? Its 20 mins drive. Unless of course you are thinking of the greater good... but fack off I'm selfish. Do I want a MLS team, YES, do I support it 100% even if I cannot goto games because they are downtown? YES, Would I prefer it to be somewhere better for me? YES, Who wouldn't!

1. Transit? Skytrain runs in Surrey champ, and your closer to most of your demographic. The reports indicated that only 12% of season ticket holders were actually living in "Vancouver".
2. What JV? The lions train in surrey, it was a proposed training facility not a full service gig, the lions need 40k seats+... bunch of smelling jock straps going to ruin the atmosphere?
3. Parking? Qty is great.. Price is not.

Please don't misunderstand, the waterfront Idea and location is the best thing to ever be proposed here in decades IMO....

[Dude]

I wouldn't, but just because I like the idea of an evening out in Vancouver, watching a match w/ the North Shore Mountains in the background, and heading to Steamworks after to pint the night away.

Again- a matter of personal opinion. I'll take a stadium and team wherever they'll put it.

Dial- despite you're well written response, you are and will always be a lovable crack head to me.

Personally, I see the BC Place site as a prime opportunity to flatten the whole goddamn thing. From there, a Private / public venture in conjunction w/ the Lions, UBC, and City of Vancouver to build a 30,000 seat football only facility that will be home to the Lions and future NCAA Div 1 or 2 team (as UBC is very close to getting NCAA status), combined w/ affordable housing in the area under a similar "housing solution" plan Whistler has established w/ it's developers, and affordable commercial opportunities for small businesses working through the BDC.

Right now, it is a big concrete waste of resources...it can be so much better, and being that it is owned by our Province, they can do so much more CREATIVELY with that land to not only continue / revive community spirit w/ Professional & University football, but with offering affordable housing and business opportunities. The Lions and UBC both have the interest and resources to pay in their share.


My $.02

[Johnnie Monster]

Gurps, no offense but I gotta call you on a few points here.

Truth be told, Kerfoot does not want to swap land with the Port. I'm sure he'd much rather build on his own land, but he's being forced to negotiate with the feds, because the city will not allow him to build on the site he owns.

Condos: I'm assuming you're referring to the supposed "scoop" by the Vancouver Sun columnist whose story was on the front page last week.

At no time has the word "condo" ever been uttered or proposed by the Whitecaps in connection with this stadium. Also note that the Sun columnist did not cite a single source for the rumours. Not one. That's why it's not so surprising that the paper gave Lenarduzzi a full rebuttal in the following edition.

The original column was reckless speculation that slipped through the cracks and got a rather damaging news placement in spite of its lack of corroborating evidence.

As for the difference in land values, let's remember what's on the table.... Kerfoot is offering 30,000 square metres of dry land (half his rail yards) in exchange for 10,000 square metres of Port lands... half of which is a water-based helipad that extends offshore like a ferry terminal, and the other half is a small parking lot for Port staff that is usually empty.

What makes this so frustrating is that land values are supposed to be irrelevant to the Port. Why? Because federal law prohibits the sale of Port property for money.

The Port is allowed (and encouraged) by Ottawa to trade for land that might be useful to its operations. It think Kerfoot's offer more than meets that criteria.