Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
My last post got me thinking. What do you think the city's stance would be under any of the following scenarios. In all scenarios assume CalgaryNEXT does not pay property taxes.
1) Flames agree to pay for all $1.8B themselves with no city input
2) Flames agree to pay for $1.7B in CalgaryNEXT+infrastructure costs and the city pays the $100M creosote cleanup costs.
3) Flames agree to pay for the entire $900M inside-battery-limits scope (i.e. CalgaryNEXT) and the city pays for the $900M infrastructure and cleanup costs. The fieldhouse is still considered a public facility.
I'm pretty sure they say yes to 1 & 2. Because the tradeoff of a sooner but smaller tax base is probably better than a later but larger tax base. But even that's a debate.
I'm not sure about 3 though. They do get a free "fieldhouse" out of it, but its in a suboptimal location with less than complete access. But that's probably worth the $200M savings. Then it becomes a debate around spending $900M now for a smaller tax base or $900M later for a larger tax base. Man, I'm not sure. #3 is certainly not a slam dunk on first thought.
|
1 and 2 would be slam dunks. I think 3 would pass pretty easily as well, in my opinion. For as much hair there is on the project, it would tick a lot of boxes.
So many possible scenarios and variables. I understand CalgaryNext should address the Stampede grounds location, but I wonder if their plan B is actually just the arena in WV. Smaller footprint might provide for a workable CRL, perhaps lessen the infrastructure costs, allow for the fieldhouse plans to remain in Foothills Athletic Park.