Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Those in the know on city taxation, CRLs etc ...
I've seen this statement, is it true? (guessing I'll hear it is and it isn't  )
"If you are a Calgary citizen, not living in West Village the extent of your contribution to this project is the $200M that the city had planned (unfunded) for the field house."
Because I think that's really key in this argument. |
i don't think we know yet. Just my opinion.
As frequitude did a great job of explaining, there *is* cost that we will all bear in a CRL.
But to some extent taxpayers are going to bear CRL cost no matter what if the city develops the west village with or without the flames.
So it's not 250m of cost v 0. It's the cost/benefit of this CRL plan minus the cost/benefit of whatever other CRL plan the city will or would do.
There's also the remediation to consider. King hinted the flames may be part of that solution - or part of getting the Feds or province to chip in saving the city in the end. Again that cost is going to happen, so will it be cheaper or more expensive for taxpayers because the flames are involved?
Assuming the flames front the ticket tax $ (big assumption) it's
200m + incremental cost of a stadium CRL v other options - whatever the flames do to help with remediation. Might still be 200m in the end. +- 100%