Simply by having events here, it spurs the economy. The Flames being here, and on game nights, it spurs economic activity.
Well this is the issue; it generates activity already, so does a new building add a lot more economic activity? The Flames are already here, selling out (mostly) and bringing in visitors. If a new building project is $1bn, then at some point you need to show increased activity to justify the expense. A few concerts a year isn't enough, despite the headline value of those events.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Simply by having events here, it spurs the economy. The Flames being here, and on game nights, it spurs economic activity.
Economists doing analysis of wide ranging impacts in multiple cities vs one example of Garth Brooks concerts where the data came from the Oilers Entertainment Group.
I think I know which articles I'll believe.
Sure it creates some economic activity, but the argument of economists is that it never generates enough economic activity to recoup the investment.
Last edited by Torture; 03-31-2017 at 01:35 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Torture For This Useful Post:
Simply by having events here, it spurs the economy. The Flames being here, and on game nights, it spurs economic activity.
The question is does it spur new economic activity or displace economic activity that would otherwise take place. So when a person from Calgary spends money in Edmonton. Edmonton is better off, but Alberta and Canada remain the same.
The city can't escape the fact that it's major stadium and arena venues are the worst of all major cities in the country and like it or not they are important venues.
Agreed, but we're also the only major Canadian city without a major art gallery, and we have a pretty pathetic large-scale museum. Personally I think a new Glenbow probably fills a bigger cultural hole in this city than a new hockey arena. But if we're putting money towards sports, I'd rather it go towards things that actually gets people to participate physically, as opposed to a place where they are just an audience.
There are a lot of needs pulling from different directions, and there's only so much public money to go around...so we should ensure the things that can be build via private funds (such as a Flames arena) should be.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
The Flames are getting hammered by a combination of a weak Canadian dollar and an antiquated arena. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told Calgary taxpayers in January they should "embrace" the idea of a mostly publicly-funded downtown arena project. Bettman's plea has gotten a tepid response from cash-strapped Calgary taxpayers. The proposal calls for the Flames owners to put up just $150 million for a $668 million project. The remaining $518 million would come from taxpayers. The team’s longtime rival, Edmonton Oilers, opened a new arena for the 2016-17 season. With the Detroit Red Wings opening a new home next season, the Flames will play in the NHL’s oldest home by a full decade. The Scotiabank Saddledome opened in 1983.
The team is currently valued at $410 million. What on Earth justifies it to have a taxpayer-funded arena built which costs substantially more than the franchise is even worth? I love the Flames and I recognise their importance to a large portion of the population, but I don't think the franchise or Bettman have much justification here to hold the City to ransom. The City of Calgary is going to be strapped for cash as it is keeping up with the infrastructure of a rapidly expanding population – I don't think handing Murray Edwards & co. a $518 million golden goose is going to be high on their list of priorities.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameZilla For This Useful Post:
I will support the petition IF AND ONLY IF CalgaryNext and the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation can provide the funds without having public funding. If public funding is used, it will be paid back in full and in an appropriate time. Otherwise, the SaddleDome is good enough until the private sector comes up with the money to build the sports and entertainment venue. I'm sure 99.9999999999% of the public will support that. I don't like Nenshi's arrogance either, but he's not just thinking for himself. There's more important things in this world than just sporting and entertainment venues that the rich and middle class can afford to go to enjoy for a few hours. But people seem to forget that there are lots of working people who can't enjoy the same thing without forking out the little hard earned money they have.
Take this perspective: 1 million people in the city, only less than 20,000 people attend the game while the rest watch the games on TV. That's 20000/1000000 = 2/100 = 2% or less of the population actually get into the Dome for any given game. Let's say the new venue supports 50,000. You've only increased by 3%. However, the cost to build it will cost each one of us by - you do the math and see if it makes sense. If that's the case, everyone should be entitled to watch the Flames play for free in the new venue for the next decade or so.
The Following User Says Thank You to CSharp For This Useful Post:
After watching the Flames arena and Stamps stadium talks go nowhere with the city over the past 2 years - I thought a petition of support was in order.
Please read, sign, and share this with as many people as possible.
I started it not even 24 hours ago and already have over 100 signatures.
change.org/p/arena
Thanks
Sean
Just FYI, this petition was started by a guy who is a near nine year member and executive board member of the Calgary Flames Ambassadors.
Literally, their goal is to promote the Flames on and off the ice. It's this kind of stuff that stifles the flow of truth and information. It also sets up the division of citizens on a particular topic.
Personally, I want this arena. I just want it to make sense and be presented with factual information.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sketchyt For This Useful Post:
