Quote:
Originally Posted by Realtor 1
Enjoyed a breakfast event with the COO at the saddledome this morning. He says that regardless of NEXT the city acknowledges a strong need for a field house and it will happen. What would something like this cost if the city built their own?
the 240 million revitalization levy is only going to be hitting those who choose to live/own businesses in close proximity to all the project offers.
250 mill ticket tax is only for those who want to enjoy the product
200 mill from the flames organization
and the 200 mill from the city (minus whatever they would be spending to build their own....)
|
The vast majority of CRL projects fail - the boastful numbers that developers present really don't materialize (similar to "multiplier effects" and other such BS talking points). The Bow being part of the East Village is the only way that the CRL is on track in that project. Even then, it's a huge chunk of property tax that the city doesn't get to see, and makes all of our taxes higher.
Ticket tax for a couple decades - imagine 20 years from now, the west arena is a piece of crap and the Flames don't sell out. The city is stuck with payments that it can't make. Why should the city be the one to front this risk? The Flames should take on the loan, and take on the levying of the users for the tax.
The fieldhouse is earmarked, but it hasn't been funded. It won't be funded for the near future. If the Flames said "Look, we'll chip in for the fieldhouse, reducing your costs if you'll help us get this built," then it's somewhat of a consideration. Consider that they expect the City to not only build their fieldhouse full-price, they expect them to IMMEDIATELY drop all other priorities and front the cash.
You literally get more multiplier effect of throwing a billion dollars out of a plane, because at least it's 1 to 1. A stadium has been proven to not even return its investment ever (ie. less than a 1 to 1 ratio). Why would the city want this aside from emotional pride?
If you do believe in corporate welfare, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Developers (and real estate agents) are generally all about governments subsidizing their work, so I wouldn't be surprised.