Been following this thread for a while - nothing seems to stir up emotional debate like perceived social injustice.
It is seemingly very relevant that the flames are “owned by billionaires” as this colorful, but largely irrelevant fact is always thrown in for effect. It would be equally as colorful (and irrelevant) to say that team is owned by a group of Calgarians that are amongst the most philanthropic contributors to our city. If there was any relevance to “who” the city would be subsidizing, I would pick our current slate of owners versus the alternative.
The other aspect of the argument that I can’t grasp is the completely binary point of view that assistance in any form is at the direct expense of social spending. There are many forms of mutually benefitial partnerships that would result in a net increase to City finances versus the do nothing alternative. The city owns land to the west of downtown. Guess what – this land is toxic and nobody wants it which is why it has been vacant since, well, forever. So the city can continue to own this land, make no revenue from it, and thus have no additional revenue for anything else. Or…it can structure a deal with the flames whereby this area is developed, increasing the tax base of the property and collect money that it would otherwise not have. Arguing the alternative is akin to arguing for higher taxes and not understanding that it is the tax base, and not rate, which is ultimately the most important.
|