Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
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.
|
Major difference being none of the infrastructure thing are for profit businesses, which of course the Flames clearly are. This is subsidizing an already profitable company in an effort for them to make even more money. Forgive me but that's ridiculous and not something taxpayers should be doing. It's essentially corporate welfare, of course I don't blame them for wanting the money, I just hope they realize it's a massive uphill climb for them to convince people they should get it.
If the Flames were shedding money and needed a new arena to survive, so be it. But this is about, and Burke says it, "NHL economics" which is about more luxury suites and more lower bowl seats (which they can charge more for). Support infrastructure is fine (and if the West Village location is the choice, it's essential), but paying for the arena will never fly.