Wednesday, November 23, 2011

River Run Vistas Investors-Information

We will be having a meeting with Jon Mintoft for all interested Vistas investors on Saturday November 26 from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

The location is the Fish Creek Public Library located at 11161 Bonaventure Drive SE in Calgary.

I urge everyone to attend. This is our opportunity to determine whether the revised proposal from Olympia Trust is in our best interest.

Please come prepared with your questions for Jon. There will be an open mic where you can come forth to pose your questions. If you are a little uncomfortable getting up to speak in front of the group, then please email your questions directly to me and I will ask them on your behalf.

Questions that are emailed to me will be asked in the order that I receive them, starting immediately. I will log every question that I receive and place them in a queue for presenting to Jon at the meeting.

Although we will be making an audio recording of the meeting and posting it on the Internet, I'm looking for a very good turnout because few investors have actually met Jon Mintoft. This is your chance at long last!

Jon and I look forward to seeing you on Saturday, November 26. [Please arrive about 10 minutes early.]

Remember to get your questions ready.

All the best,

Myron Achtman


Anonymous said...

With all the BS that's gone on with this outfit. I just called the Fish Creek Library they confirmed the meeting for me. It's on the third floor in the program room.

Anonymous said...

No offence Dean, in fact good job, but how sad, that the CNP tax payers are hearing this for the first time on a blog!

Anonymous said...


Can you post your email address and if I can't make the meeting where will I find the audio on the internet


Anonymous said...

I have been reading for the last week or so all these comments about something happening with the River Run. The commentor that's been talking it up keeps talking about how the Mayor of the Crowsnest Pass is on board with this. All week you have had another group of people saying this is all nonsense. I even read on two individual Councillors blogs that they have no knowledge of anything going on. So I brush it all off.(Just idle gossip)
Until today I come on here and this sounds now like there really is something going on.
The commentator that everybody has been brushing off all week maybe he really does know what he is talking about. Now that parts of his comments have been proved to be true. Does it present the possibility that the rest of his comments are true if so. Those councillors need to be getting the real story on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so they are having a meeting which is great.I hope they can find a way to get this project off the ground.
My concerns are :
1 - where will the money come from?
2- No infrastructure, no sewer, no water, no electiral etc.
3- No road. Will they be allowed to use the access close to the trailer park or will they be forced to build a bridge?
4- Back taxes, will the municapality waive these considering the circumstances?

The one poster on this blog kept hinting that our mayor knew this was in the works.If this is the case and he does not even share this info with the other council members it is quite the shame.
I will not get my hopes up until I see them actually putting in some infastructure.I do wish them all of the best.

Anonymous said...

Well its going to come down to "money".
All of those things the previous poster mentioned are "money".

Will the original investors put in more money?
Or have new investors been found that are willing to put in new "money".
If they are new investors they are going to want security. Which means in my humble opinion that the present investors are going to have to waive at least a portion (if not all) of their first mortgage rights.

Nobody is going to put in new money and allow the present investors to be secured ahead of them.

I suspect the original investors will be lucky if they see pennies on the dollar.
I guest at the end of the day its better than nothing.

Anonymous said...

That message from Myron seems to be addressed to investors. It may have been posted here by someone else without his knowledge.

His email

Anonymous said...

Zombie corporations revived:

RIVER RUN LAKES CORPORATION Named Alberta Corporation Incorporated 2007 DEC 18. Struck-Off The Alberta Register 2010 JUN 02. Revived 2011 AUG 05. No: 2013698226.

RIVER RUN SPRINGS CORPORATION Named Alberta Corporation Incorporated 2007 OCT 05. Struck-Off The Alberta Register 2011 APR 02. Revived 2011 AUG 08. No: 2013546151.

RIVER RUN VISTAS CORPORATION Named Alberta Corporation Incorporated 2007 OCT 05. Struck-Off The Alberta Register 2011 APR 02. Revived 2011 AUG 08. No: 2013546417.

Alberta Corporate Registry

Anonymous said...

Just heard that the Cameron school project is on hold because the municapality is asking for a 700,000$ deposit.
I know we need to protect ourselves so that another bridgecreek does not happen, but does this seem like a major detterant.
I think we have to work with developers and try and find a way to make it fair to all involved.In this case I think the developer owns the land and just wants to build some condos so I do not know why they would require such a large deposit.Dean do you have any thoughts on this?

Anonymous said...

What's the Cameron School Project? Are they going to knock that old thing down and develop the land?

Anonymous said...

Development maintains historic building
By Joni MacFarlane - 25 Oct 2011

"Cameron Village, as Bueckert has named it, will consist of high-end condos including 18 units in new buildings around the school and another 10 units inside the school."

Anonymous said...

This is a meeting for existing investors (victims) only.

Anonymous said...

Awesome. Thanks for posting the link!

Anonymous said...

No new money without giving up your position in line.
So sad I feel for anybody that invested.

Crowsnest Pass Home said...

Security on the Cameron School.

Yes I believe there should be a security deposit on every project.
Nobody should make the mistake that we made with the River Run site.

I argued for security deposits in the worse way, what aggravates me is I can remember one councilor telling me I don't know what the big deal is you just send a cat over there for a couple of days and push the dirt back in the hole. I can remember our CAO and Mayor telling us again and again that we had nothing to worry about.

$700,000 seems like a lot but who knows if thats even true.

The municipality as got to be careful that they strike the right balance on one hand having enough security in case things go wrong but not asking for so much that it becomes a deterrent to actually doing the project.

Anonymous said...

Dean can you explain why the municipality needs a security deposit on the Cameron school project? I have a cousin in Calgary who builds condos and the City of Calgary only requires a small deposit in case they damage the existing city sidewalk. Does the M of CNP have 750,000 worth of sidewalks at risk in front of the Cameron School? Building 18 condos at Cameron School is nothing like the grandiose Bridge Gate scheme.
I have a neighbour who started building his house four years ago and there is still some tar paper not covered in places. What are we going to do next, take a 100,000 deposit from everyone building a new house and finish their house for them?
750,000 deposit smells more like a plan to reduce condo competition.

Crowsnest Pass Home said...

Just for further information on security deposits.
We need to keep in mind many factors one of which a security deposit is a form of insurance to gaurantee that the developer will do the work he committed to do in the first place.
If all terms of the development agreement are met the developer gets the deposits back.
Also development agreements can be written in such a way that the money is refunded in stages so that once certain committments are met a portion of the security is returned.
In this day and age if the developer lives up to all his committments in a timely fashion the only additional cost for them will be the carrying charges on the money put down which in todays era of low interest rates would be very minimal.
Having said all that the deposit still needs to be a reasonable amount thats relevent to the type of development being proposed.

Anonymous said...

So any news yet?
When are they breaking ground?
Do they have new money coming in?


Anonymous said...

I disagree with you on this Dean.You make it sound like it is no big deal to put up a deposit as you get all your money back except for the interest charges. If you are a relatively small developer and are being asked to put up 700,000 it will likely stop the project on the spot. With very little risk to the municapality on a project like this one we must work with the developer.I am now curious as to how much of a deposit has Ironstone put down as there project is no where near done?I also wonder what other areas are charging.I think the difference between the projects already mentioned and the ones where you need to put in infastructure like the Bridgecreek ones have to be treated considerably differant.If the cameron school project needs 700,000 then I would assume that the riverrun project would need a 5 to 10 million dollar deposit.No wonder developers are afraid of this area.

Anonymous said...

So when you were on council, was it the normal practice to take security deposits from developers? If taking security deposits was the normal practice, how did you decide which developers got pass a on this requirement?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure it is necessary for a developer to come up with cash for a security deposit. Can they not post a surety bond. Presumably the cost to the developer will depend in part on their track record. It's essentially an inusrance policy.

Anonymous said...

Anom 27Nov 6:01
This comment is right on the money. Security is needed when new lots are created and the developer has an obligation to build infrastructure to service the new lots created. The Town signed off on creating 300 new lots for Bridgegate with nothing in place to ensure the water, sewer and streets would be built. By neglecting to take security before creating 300 new lots for Bridgegate, the Town was the enabler for them to perpetrate fraud on the investors. Brdigegate went from having one 50 acre piece of land worth a million or two to 300 lots (or should I say 300 lots on paper at the Land Registry Office) worth what, 30 to 50 million. They supported this inflated value with an appraisal which the appraiser assumed the Town had followed their normal practice of taking security.

Crowsnest Pass Home said...

Just a few comments

Yes I agree with having security in place on all developments.

Yes their are different ways to do it bonds etc.

This municipality should never take the risk of having a second river run on its hands.

The amount of security on the other hand gets back to the project.

The size of the project, is it going to have a significant impact on the surrounding enviroment.
Are there large excatvations involved (man made lakes). Are there issues with infrastructure, engineering concerns etc.
These are issues where obviously Council themselves do not have a lot of expertise they count very much on the advice of their administration.

11:42 yes when I was on council it was the normal practice for the municipality to take security.

The one development that got past that stipulation.

Just like investors a lot of people around here got caught up in the excitment of this huge project that was going to make everybody a lot of money, that was going to create the tax base that this community so badly needed.

We had a member of council who was an employee of Bridgegate, we had a Mayor who appeared in their promotion video's. I went through four years of listening to how the sun shined out of Bridgegates ass every morning at 5am.

I and several other councilors argued and argued for security deposits, we were told again and again by our administration and Mayor that we had nothing to worry about. That those would come in due process.

For those 4-5 years you could not say a negative word about these guys in this community. I remember voting against their land use bylaw for the river run site. The next day I had business people in this town giving me shit. "Did I not realize how badly we needed these guys, give them what ever they want"

Back to the issue that was raised the Cameron school.
1. Is the $700,000 the real number?
2. Do any of use know all the details of the proposal?

I will repeat the statement I made previously.

3. The municipality as got to be careful that they strike the right balance on one hand having enough security in case things go wrong but not asking for so much that it becomes a deterrent to actually doing the project.

Lastly I do not take lightly for one second that $700,000 is a lot of money.

Anonymous said...

"I went through four years of listening to how the sun shined out of Bridgegates ass every morning at 5am."

That's the best line I think I have ever heard you make. :-) lol!

Anonymous said...

Dean the guy doing all the yapping about River Run sure went quite.
Does that mean they won't be breaking ground in the spring?

Anonymous said...