Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
No, this would be huge over-simplification of how these things get done. You don't put forward a detail application on something like this without some significant preliminary agreements and concessions. The costs of doing an actual application for this project would be in millions. Why spend them if there is no consensus on principles? CSEC decided to take a chance and see the public/government reaction to their idea. Yes, bad idea. Yes, not well-thought. Yes, on the wrong site. These are all of the things that are going to be vetted and phased out pretty quickly. But, this should also have been a catalyst for the initiation of a constructive dialogue. And Nenshi very rudely said, "not interested unless you have something new to say". I'd say, a very bad and near-sighted call. He should be interested. Flames franchise is worth hundreds of millions of $US dollars. If sold and moved to a US buyer, the owners stand to take huge profits (at the time when all of them are bleeding losses in their O&G businesses). While Calgary hockey community and general community both stand to lose big time from the loss of the franchise, if that's in fact is the risk. So, there are mutual benefits to solving this collectively and cooperatively.
Anyone thinking or saying that this should be 100% paid for by CSEC are living in some weird world of reality denial or posturing. All NHL franchises in North America are in one way or another supported by public financing through taxation relief, special guaranteed usage rights, subsidized leases, sponsored loans and direct cash investments. How much of each and what specifically this financing could include should be the real question on the table and it is for CSET and City Council to negotiate.
|
I would compare the City's response to this as a Vendor selling a home and the potential buyer just sent in a low-ball offer. You don't counter, you just wait until they get the hint and send a better offer; if not, don't waste my time.
No one here is truly expecting that no benefits will be awarded to the team with respect to the new arena. But most are unwilling to put up money for the construction cost. Some are willing to have land supplied, some are willing to have subsidized leases or property tax breaks. Those are within the realm of possibility; but we aren't even close to that type of argument yet.
Many in Council have said as much, but until the Flames come up with a better financing structure, they can effectively pound sand.
Not to mention the issues with the site and building, etc. that have been discussed at length here and where many other continue to hold staunch opposition to the proposal. If they want to build a stupid mega-complex, then have at it, but they should pay for it. Until the city can have input on the design, location, etc. then why should they be expected to consult?
Also, if we think the city should give money to the Flames because "this is how it has always been done" then you are part of the problem with North American professional sports