Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
False
Baseless claim
Not supported by peer reviewed research
Do not repeat this myth
That goes for you too thunderball
Fact: a new arena Costa much much more than any incremental public benefits than it provides, it is not even close to net positive from the use of limited tax payer dollars
|
Bingo - this debate always ends up the same. People like to talk about how we need it to be a world class city, etc., but at the end of the day it always reverts back to the alleged ancillary economic benefits a new stadium would provide - which are completely baseless and false. There is no economic benefit to building a new stadium.
The argument pretty much comes to being considered a world class city and civic pride. To me, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that is a stretch considering that the people profiting off it are perfectly capable of fronting the money themselves.
Although, I find the "we need it to be a world class city" argument hilarious. When I think of Paris, Rome, London, New York, etc. the first thoughts in my head aren't "how new and impressive is their football/soccer/hockey stadium?".
The funniest part about a new arena for the Flames is that it's exciting and cool, but at the end of the day it will end up screwing the common man more than anything. Haven't the Flames already gone on record of saying the stadium will house around 2000 less people? Add in the fact that more of those seats are going to be allocated to luxury boxes and premium seats than the Saddledome and there's going to be significantly less tickets for the everyday fan. Add in the higher ticket prices in general for all seats and the corporate interest to snatch up tickets to impress clients with a trip to the new arena and it's not going to be nearly as easy to attend games anymore. I'd imagine the civic pride of a new arena drops considerably when it's impossible to get tickets to get in the damn thing (that we all end up paying for with our tax dollars).