View Single Post
Old 07-11-2014, 12:04 AM   #1896
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17 View Post
Call me Rick Bell, but show me where the millions of dollars we have spent on "art" has made anyones life better. The money could be utilized to fund after school programs, shelters etc., way better than any art work is doing.
It's simple:

Art makes the city more attractive.
A more attractive city helps attract/retain wealthy people.
Wealthy people invest in the economy.
The economy grows.
The city's tax base increases.
The increased taxes, if you like, could fund after school programs, shelters, or any other red herring that people who only care about their taxes bring up.

This is why we have art - the quality of a city is directly tied to its prosperity. (The Peace Bridge, however, is a heavily used piece of transportation infrastructure, and falls outside this discussion.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustygoon View Post
I love the since he's rich he should pay. He should donate his money to charity which he does before being a good pal and buying an arena.

We all can agree that the Econ impact from arena et al project is good for community and coffers.

Local govt doesn't have to write a cheque. Could be just no taxes of any kind until owners recoup original investment. Lots of ways to do a PPP deal
No, we can't. The whole crux of the matter is that if anything, the consensus is the opposite.

And if charity is better use of money than an arena for the Flames owners, then surely it's also a better use of money for our governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heep223 View Post
it's simply not the case that owners in Calgary are making piles of cash on the Flames.
Cash flow, no. Lots of net income though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle View Post
But the fact remains, the city benefits from the Flames, at least a little, and because of that should have some "stake" in making them viable to stay.
It's no a question of whether there are benefits, it's a question of whether there are net benefits. And then whether those net benefits are greater than the other things the city could spend money on instead.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post: