Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss
On (A) I think a for-profit development can have significant public benefits. The stampede grounds could be developed to have a promanade, park space, public space, an arena, and a convention centre...all of which would have public value. The new arena and convention centre would by itself provide more value than the stampede grounds provide 355 days of the year.
And in return for developing the land with a significant public benefit component - including an arena - the flames organization would get a land portion to compensate them for the cost.
Im amazed that no one questions why prime land is basically held as "off-limits" so a festival can take place 10 days a year.
On (B) I meant that a developed stampede ground that is privated and developed with commercial, residential and retail sites would bring in significant tax revenue, while the current stampede ground brings in nothing.
|
doesn't the stampede own it? They can choose to do with it what they please, including leaving it as it? This is why I was steering towards debating taxing them.