Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
but it is accurate to portray it as close to 50/50. Ticket tax is money out of the owners pockets. It is effectively a tax on their future revenues.
|
They're not fronting the money (and therefor sharing in any of the risk) so I don't consider that an equitable split of costs. If the user rate falls short of projections (which we haven't seen) the city is the one left holding the bag on the shortfall. Another thing is that we don’t have any details regarding CS&E’s “200M” IIRC in Edmonton they initially made it look like Katz was fronting more of the money then he actually was since he was including the rent on the lease as part of his “contribution” (their proposed terms of the lease is another aspect that they’ve been notably silent on). Then we get into the revenue related problems of the “100% city asset” ownership aspect of their proposal… 100% city asset means no $$ for the city on the foregone land sales and no resultant property tax.
If the Flames want to partner with the city I’m fine with that… but make it a real partnership and not some sham of a deal where the public pays most of the cost and private enterprise reaps most of the revenue. I want a fair deal for our city and a fair deal for our city in a PPP is a deal that using realistic projections results in it at least breaking even in terms of direct revenue received less direct cost incurred.