[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Well, because HE deems that hockey is important to him, so that’s why he thinks everyone else should get stuck with the bill for it.

He’s probably the type of guy who goes to dinner with a bunch of people, eats all the appetizers and only pays for his own meal.

You mean like any public project ? Library ? LRT line on your side of the city . Every year lots of things are built using taxpayers dollars that certain people don’t use .

It’s fine to hate that private industry is getting a subsidiary. It’s fine to not care about hockey and wish you weren’t spending your tax dollars on it . But guess what . I haven’t ever used the library or any of the new LRT lines . But I still understand why they were built and don’t accuse those using the facilities / services as being the type of person who would cheap out on a meal !

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Poster

By the way. Economically, why didn’t we just build it all our self and charge the Flames rent?

Also have details about development rights been released? I recall in earlier versions the Flames were trying to lock up a lot of that for themselves.

Anyhow, why not just charge rent to the Flames? I’m guessing becuase then they will threaten to leave if they can’t access all that revenue?

We are actually, except for $40 million that CSEC will provide in cash upfront.

The arena itself plus the attached community rink, parking, and indoor plaza (ignoring all the other adjacent elements), is estimated to have a construction cost of $897.7million. Arena $800m, parking $35.4m, indoor plaza $9.5m, and community rink $52.8million

CoC will pay $537.3 million of that $897.7million. The province will cover $26.4million, CSEC $40million and the remaining $294million will be financed (assumed by the City).

CSEC will pay $703.8 million over 35 years of the lease + $52.5 million to community sports.

[Rick M.]

Will Notley back out of the deal if elected Premier?

[InternationalVillager]

If the CSEC is paying $703.8 million over the term of the 35 year lease, what exactly is the issue here?

I am assuming their $330M is on top of that.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

Will Notley back out of the deal if elected Premier?

She says that she is open to the idea but cannot give a firm commitment until the details of the deal are made public, having not been given a copy to read herself.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Don’t give me this “I understand it but you won’t if I explain it”. That’s nonsense


I am absolutely genuinely asking you to explain it

He doesn’t explain it, so I’m curious how you will


I’ll get you started

He does reference 538 million and 5% (which is the IRR they said they use as NPV). Ok. Over 35 years, that translates to a year 1 value of ~27.58 million

2022 property tax revenue to the city was 2.005 billion. The city is budgeting for avg 5.1 percent per year in growth in this over the next 3 years

https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...ns-budgets.pdf


Over to you

Do you actually think that 538 million now is worth 27.58 million in year 1 (which happens to be next year)? Are we in some sort of massive deflationary crisis that I am unaware of? You think if the city left that money in reserved it would lose 95% if the value in 12 months?

Like I said, I did not think you would understand.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Bonded

If CSEC was putting up the construction money upfront and the city was paying into over 35 years then it would be a way better deal lol

“If my uncle was my aunt.”

Way better deal, and in no way a reality of getting something of this magnitude built.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

If the CSEC is paying $703.8 million over the term of the 35 year lease, what exactly is the issue here?

I am assuming their $330M is on top of that.

The net present value of that 703.8 million is actually 316M. Plus it's earmarked towards construction costs so the City never actually gets a dime of it... it just passes through the City to financiers.

From all appearances the city isn't getting any cash return on this deal... it's just a straight transfer of public money to private interests.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Do you actually think that 538 million now is worth 27.58 million in year 1 (which happens to be next year)? Are we in some sort of massive deflationary crisis that I am unaware of? You think if the city left that money in reserved it would lose 95% if the value in 12 months?

Like I said, I did not think you would understand.

Sorry, friend.

If you take 27.58 M, escalate 1% for 35 years (the basis of the figures presented) and calculate the NPV of that payment stream using 5% IRR, what do you get?

Only one person here is showing they don’t understand

Retweet and appeal to authority is fine. No further questions

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Instead of building an arena in the middle of a parking lot that really is only good for the owner the city is trying to upsize the project to create a usable public space - at least that's my take on it.

I'd rather have the city spend $570mil and end up with a great public space than have the city and CSEC go 50-50 on a building that ends up being Saddledome 2.0...a lonely building surrounded by parking lots.

How does the city and CSEC going 50-50 take away from the public realm? It would free up more city money to spend on the public spaces, while CSECs share can go to the private ones, because they don’t give a crap about any public spaces which is why they’re trying to privatize as much of the public realm as they can. Public spaces take away controllable private ones which mean less revenue opportunity.

It’s a private venue. It is only good for the owner and in each iteration of the deals it has gotten worse for the public and public spaces and better for the private owner tying up more public money that could have gone to the public spaces.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

She says that she is open to the idea but cannot give a firm commitment until the details of the deal are made public, having not been given a copy to read herself.

Yet she is sure there are some secret side deals that havent been announced as of yet...im just curious how she knows that but not enough to commit to the deal.

“While broad numbers on the Calgary arena deal were released yesterday, we learned today that there is a confidential financial agreement between the parties that identifies additional financial contributions by taxpayers, contributions beyond the $870 million outlined yesterday.”

She also said there’s a hidden agreement giving Flames owners development opportunities in adjacent lands. That is actually disclosed in city releases already made public. The provision was also in the earlier deal that collapsed.

Notley added that if elected, she would turn the agreement in principle over to “accountants” and “experts” to check its fairness to taxpayers.

Accountants AND experts? Cool.

And who did she "learn" this information from? Apparently every councillor voted for it, so it wouldn't make sense one of them leaked this secret clause.

It certainly didn't come from CSEC or the UCP.

Im not a huge fan of the deal myself but also live in reality and understand it was always going to break down to something along these lines. Expecting the ownership group to build it entirely on there own dime was pie in the sky fantasy at best once the Edmonton deal was agreed too.

Its why I cannot understand the viotrol being hurled at Smith (well i can but its pretty clear its because its her and little to do with this agreement) while the city/Gondek aren't being roasted for agreeing to it.

If its such a bad deal....why sign it? I'm guessing they figured out that getting some private investment was better than nothing and know this needs to get done or its pretty likely the club would be movin on at some point.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

If the CSEC is paying $703.8 million over the term of the 35 year lease, what exactly is the issue here?

I am assuming their $330M is on top of that.

Nope. That would be a fair deal

[GirlySports]

sorry i haven't read all the pages and pages of details

who owns the event center/arena? city or csec? Like when Taylor Swift comes, who gets the booking?

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Parallex

The net present value of that 703.8 million is actually 316M. Plus it's earmarked towards construction costs so the City never actually gets a dime of it... it just passes through the City to financiers.

From all appearances the city isn't getting any cash return on this deal... it's just a straight transfer of public money to private interests.

So you're saying the lease proceeds from CSEC to the City are part of the $550M that the City is contributing?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

sorry i haven't read all the pages and pages of details

who owns the event center/arena? city or csec? Like when Taylor Swift comes, who gets the booking?

Unclear what the revenue sharing is which is part of the issue.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You mean like any public project ? Library ? LRT line on your side of the city . Every year lots of things are built using taxpayers dollars that certain people don’t use .

It’s fine to hate that private industry is getting a subsidiary. It’s fine to not care about hockey and wish you weren’t spending your tax dollars on it . But guess what . I haven’t ever used the library or any of the new LRT lines . But I still understand why they were built and don’t accuse those using the facilities / services as being the type of person who would cheap out on a meal !

The arena isn't truly a public project though. An ordinary citizen of Calgary can live their entire life without stepping foot into the Flames' arena, whereas almost every Calgarian will use both the library system and LRT network at least once in their lifetime. The central library was also a well-managed project that is globally renown.

It doesnt matter if each taxpayer is only paying a few dollars per year for the arena. It's incredibly poor optics and use of public funds for a private-use arena with minimal social benefit to be the second most expensive project ever funded by the city...which is what the new arena deal is.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

So you're saying the lease proceeds from CSEC to the City are part of the $550M that the City is contributing?

City puts up 550M in cash. CSEC puts up 40M. Province puts up 300M. CSEC then pays an escalating rent as their contribution. So they are basically turning their cost of doing business into an arena and taking on very little risk.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Bonded

City puts up 550M in cash. CSEC puts up 40M. Province puts up 300M. CSEC then pays an escalating rent as their contribution. So they are basically turning their cost of doing business into an arena and taking on very little risk.

That's complete and utter bull####.

Will have to see the revenue sharing piece and the economic impact analysis. Now I see the outrage. Thanks.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

sorry i haven't read all the pages and pages of details

who owns the event center/arena? city or csec? Like when Taylor Swift comes, who gets the booking?

I assume things like that will be the same as the previous agreement where CSEC would be the building operator and would receive all revenue generated by the arena (while presumably assuming the operation and maintenance costs of the building as well).

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Scary Eloranta

If a Flames fan forum is divided on this, just imagine what the rest of the province is thinking. Is there any chance this thing ever gets off the ground? And we thought we had problems with this team on the ice?

We are truly cursed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people outside of the metro Calgary area and Calgarypuck spent about 3 minutes thinking about this and most I talked to just said "about time".