[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're confusing growth with consumer spending. Arena districts centralize consumer spending. Someone who lives in Inglewood spends a lot of their money in that neighbourhood. An arena district transports those dollars from local Inglewood restaurants over the west village. People aren't really spending any MORE money, the areas where they spend the same amount change. This is good if you are trying to 'revitalize' the area but comes at the expense of cannibalizing other neighbourhoods. This is the chief concenr about developing the WV before the EV has a chance to solidify itself.

No I am not confusing the two. Again, go back to your original comment about WV losing out on more profitable residential construction. You can't have it both ways. And yes, sometimes investment DOES increase total spending - it's called the money multiplier and I know you're familiar with it.

Also, I think the argument that WV would cannibalize the growth of EV is garbage. In a city of 1.2M+, there is ongoing investment in multiple areas. Assuming WV can't begin until EV is complete is short-sighted and small-minded IMO.

Yes, it would stimulate investment, but it wouldn't stimulate enough investment to cover the costs lost due to a lack of taxable revenue for the city because the actual area that the arena district occupies isn't nearly dense enough for that part of the city. There just isn't enough available land after putting in a stadium to attract the investment necessary to make it financially viable. The costlier an area is to develop, the tighter density must be to offset those costs.

The West Village is one of the costliest areas in the city develop, and the Flames are asking to put in one of the least dense developments imaginable.

Unless you have a study to quote, I assume this is speculation on your part. Again, I go back to the argument (your argument) that, if it was going to be built, it will be built somewhere else anyway, so if there isn't room in WV, those projects will get built elsewhere, providing direct revenue for the city. But I doubt your original premise that there isn't room for investment - there is lots of surrounding area (whether it be inside or outside of the CRL zone) for growth in that part of the city.

Isn't this what the Flames asked to do, and then when pressed said if the city said no they would look to private equity for a loan? Why not just do that in the first place, what's the benefit to you if I borrow a thousand dollars off your credit card and promise to repay you. What benefit do you see?

Lower interest rates are the benefit. Plain and simple. No cost to the city, but a benefit to the project.

And why should the city do that? If this venture is so spectacular, why do the Flames need the cities tab for the loan, and what does the city get out of having less potential investment dollars for other areas of the city?

Again, the benefit is lower borrowing costs.

But far more importantly, the bolded part is inaccurate: the city would not (unless they are near their borrowing limit - at which point they would not agree to the loan) have 'less potential investment dollars for other areas'. It simply doesn't work that way.

So again, admitting to it without admitting to it, what is the reason the city should take on that risk? Why should the city be underwriting a loan for a wildly profitable, established private business?

Again, lower cost of borrowing. You are attempting to make an issue out of something that simply isn't an issue.

I dunno, I usually apply for a loan from the bank, not the city of Vancouver. Maybe we just do things strangely out here on the coast.


If I buy a house, borrow money from the bank, and pay the bank back, it isn't disingenuous to say I paid for my house.

If the Flames want to buy to take out a loan to buy a piece of land to develop for a new stadium, why don't they just go to a bank like the rest of us saps? It's obviously for the more favourable terms. What does the city get out of it? "Prestige"? A "World Class" arena?

Is it so unpalatable to say that the Flames want the city involved because it's cheaper for the Flames?

No offense intended, but these comments suggest that you simply don't understand how this works.

To the bolded, yes, once you pay off your mortgage, you have paid for your house. Similarly, once the ticket tax pays off the loan, users will have paid the $250M (to the lost revenue of the Flames, essentially putting the cost on them).

If you think your comment through, you should see my point, which is that the bank didn't pay the mortgage (or in this case the city). Again, the bank (city) doesn't front the money. The bank works as an intermediary, borrowing the money on behalf of home-buyers because they don't have the clout to borrow the money themselves. THE EXACT SAME THING is happening here - the city could borrow the money at a cheaper interest rate than CalgaryNext could. However, that does NOT mean that the bank/city actually puts up any money.