Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
I've noticed some of the most ardent supporters of the Flames plan are the posters who live outside of Calgary, and don't have to live with any financial consequences.
That's what's funny about this. The Flames and NHL keep trying to make this into a conversation about the need for a new stadium (as if someone is trying to stop them?) and the only way forward is with public approval/money. If the Flames feel that they need a stadium to be viable for the long-term, there is a pretty obvious solution....buy some land and build a stadium. I'm sure the City will even fast-track their approval.
I'm sure the Flames have 50 reasons why a new stadium will be good for their business. I've yet to hear one compelling, and economically sound reason, why they shouldn't be the ones paying for it's construction when they are the ones benefitting financially from it.
|
Are you talking about the arena or stadium?
By contributing $450 million, the Flames are essentially paying for the arena portion of the project. They could easily build a standalone arena at that cost.
The wrinkle is the need for a new stadium. The financials for a privately funded stadium do not work in Canada and a new venue is going to require public funding regardless of whether it's combined with an arena or not. McMahon has served us well but has reached the end of its economic life and a new stadium is needed more than a hockey arena right now. The proposal as it stands offers a way to reduce costs while providing additional public benefit via the fieldhouse. It's really the case of a good concept with poor presentation. I think that you'll see greater public support for the project once this populist outrage dies down and we see more concrete plans for the site