Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
I think the Flames haven't sold well. However, there are some people who will never be sold on the concept they want to go with. More precisely, for some here, there's basically no public contribution that's acceptable, whether it be money, free land or free rent, which is a perfectly valid opinion. I just think those who hold that view should just say it and not criticize location/facility/communication style/sales pitch. They also seem to think that, because Nenshi seems to have the same view, any manner in which he communicates that is just fine.
If this is the view of the City, they should just say so as well, and not say "we will look at your proposal" or ask for studies. I am not sure that stops the Flames from pushing it and trying to get public support, but at least residents will know the stance.
|
I think at the same time, people that want the city to pay for the Flames should just admit that they love the feeling and the prestige of having the Flames in Calgary, and don't use any economic arguments. There is literally zero (if not negative) economic impact for using public money for a stadium.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publicati...rts-Facilities
Any arguments for using public money is really out of fear of losing the Flames, the emotions that an amazing 2004 stanley cup could bring to each of us, and of course for 20,000 people for 41 nights a year, the chance to experience a live NHL game. There are zero economic benefits.
I will admit - and I have posted many times about it, that I do not want any public money going towards the Flames. I would use public money to clean up the land, and then developers can take it from there.