Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
See if a new arena were a true "public benefit" it might have some play. But this new arena, like almost all of them before it, will come with fewer seats (not good for the public), more luxury boxes to make those fewer seats happen (not good for the public), more expensive seats (not good for the public), and more expensive amenities (hello $10 beer). The owner benefits the most from this by a fairly substantial margin.
That's why PSLs, even if fans hate them, are the happy medium. The heaviest users (and beneficiaries) of the facility (season ticket holders) will pay the most for a new building. Seems fair to me.
|
I completely understand that as well. But this isn't entirely private benefit? I think its hard to argue that there aren't other benefits to the new arena/field/restaurant/entertainment district that has been thrown around. Obviously the Flames are going to benefit, but there are a number of other benefits to these projects.
I don't think that it all comes down to use either, and I'm avoiding that conversation purposefully. Thats the argument people use against things like bike paths, parks, and notable projects like the Peace Bridge. "I don't use it, so I don't want to pay for it". I hate that line of reasoning because its purely selfish and in our society we all pay for all kinds of things that we don't use. Get over it.