Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
Anything objective I have read pretty convincingly debunks public financing of stadiums as having very little economic benefit, and is generally considered to be about the poorest investment a government can make with its public funds. If you can find something that makes a convincing case otherwise, feel free to share.
I do think there are some intangible benefits to having a sports team though, and the fact is Calgary has to compete with other cities that do benefit from public financing, so in some ways it is probably a bit of a necessary evil if you want to keep a competitive team. It's too bad though that all the levels of government can't get together and agree to get out of this business.
It really doesn't pass the "smell test" that a team can have payrolls approaching 100 million/year, but can't finance a 500 million dollar asset. To really over-simplify things: What's a mortgage on a 500 million stadium? 30-40 million per year? Seems like the obvious answer is to pay players less and pay for your own damn building? It seems that all public financing does is inflate salaries. And directing money to player's salaries is not really great for a city when the players who are making that money likely end up spending the bulk of it elsewhere over the course of their lifetime.
But Calgary is not a vacuum and they probably just have to suck it up and go along with the rest of the continent.
|
Anything I've ever read or been sent to read by those that feel there is zero value to cities on projects like this lack any sort of well conducted financial analysis what so ever. I'd be very open and interested to read one that does, despite my stance in my post, I'm not passionate about the position. My head simply can't fathom a scenario where there is zero benefit for the city in question. I can though wrap my head around a scenario where there is little tangible benefit for the city, or at least little benefit in comparison the investment governments often end up making.
However, there has to be some value at least. Take these scenarios. If just one person decides to come into town for just one night, to see a game or a show at a rink, that one person buying a ticket, getting a hotel room, paying for a cab, buying drinks and a meal on a trip they would not have made if the event wasn't going on, has just made an incremental positive impact to the city. Now of course, one person wouldn't justify any spend on such a facility, but how many people do that, I don't know, or how many locals spend money each night of an event that they wouldn't spend in Calgary if a game or concert wasn't on. The previous scenario happens every night there is an event on at the dome, it create value, in my mind that's not debatable, but how much value, and does it create even close to enough to warrant spend by the city.......that's very debatable for sure.
Or the other scenario that is much harder to figure out. How many businesses / companies have set up head offices here or significant presence here, that wouldn't have done if they didn't feel Calgary could offer the quality of life to its employees (and attract employees) to its company. Catch here, is the Flames and a top notch arena facility are only a small portion of that equation which includes countless number of things from safety of the city, to parks and green space, art scene, restaurants, etc....... Again, what does a major league sports team and a great facility for shows contribute to that, and what is that worth? I have no idea, but it's definetly worth something, but enough to warrant any major spend...... Again I don't know.
Point being, I've never scene a study that does a good job of trying to quantify the value of the above, and make a good case in either direction.