Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I seem to be butting heads with you all over the place these days.
So your contention is that all Cities gains zero benefit from all stadiums and arenas everywhere and as such shouldnt give anyone a dime for anything? Is that the fish thats just a fish?
I guess we only really need to pave the roads that lead from the Mayor's house to City Hall then.
My point of view is that stadiums and arenas require some amount of public help be in the form of cash, land, tax breaks, etc, but that cities should stay far away from absurd arena management contracts and that they should look to recoup their investment over the term of the life of the stadium and under no circumstances should go 'Full Oiler' and just pay for the thing for the team.
|
The benefit cities get from these facilities is that they get to continue to have a pro sports team in their city. If that's something the people deem valuable, culturally or monetarily, and they can afford it, then fine.
"Because something is fun" is not an acceptable justification in our culture. Not for drugs, not for sex, not for anything. What's going to happen when we get a new facility? It'll be fun, exciting, we'll get to have a better experience watching our team. Great.
All the plans for 'redevelopment' and the alleged economic benefits just come off really disingenuous. Nobody hangs out by a stadium unless they're homeless.
Arenas that are built downtown work best because downtown inherently has a bunch of other stuff to do that isn't by the arena. And you don't need an arena to develop bars, condos etc.
The Flames are inarguably a huge part of the city. I think there should be an element of public support. Just make sure it doesn't impact our ability to pay for things we actually need.