Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
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.
|
I don't disagree, and I encourage the City to be more flexible with projects that elevate Calgary to the next level, but usage has to come into play at some point when evaluating your spending options. If one type of sports facility has potential to be used by 25% of the population, and another 5%, well then at some level the City needs to consider the value. Would it make more sense for the City to fund the construction of more community hockey rinks instead of this arena, so more people can play hockey instead of just watch hockey? Or build out a more integrated cycle-track, so more people are encouraged to live a healthier lifestyle? Are there any benefits outside of the stadium for the many Calgarians who can't afford to go to an NHL game? I think these are fair questions to ask when looking to fund sporting facilities.
These types of things things (parks, bike paths, community rinks) don't get built without public funds. The Flames don't need our money to do this, they just would like it.