[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ok, but you do know there have been repeated studies of these projects and they consistently show little to no value to the public long term right? So it's just as disingenuous when the sports team makes some of the claims it does about what stadiums do. Being dishonest, misleading, or straight up lying is simply part of the process and both sides do it. These projects often claim to be waaaaay more beneficial than they end up being. Everyone is selling in this process of course.

There have also been studies that have shown they have a positive affect on cities too. I guess it all depends on what study you wish to believe. We agree there is a lot of dishonesty on both parts, which is why I tend to trust independent audits that are co-sponsored by both parties. A little bit of transparency on both parts helps these things go much smoother.

Yeah I got that. As mentioned already though, the teams often lie as well. It's a competitive sales pitch between two sides with strong belief that they are right. But if sports stadiums had any sort of value generation to them, you would expect the sports teams to willingly fund them. I understand the risk, but of course that cuts both ways. Public money is finite though, so the diligence should be much higher on the public side.

Don't disagree with what you are saying here. That is why I think there needs to be a big public access component to these projects to make them viable. The "entertainment" district concept that comes with these projects is very important. The public access to facilities is also crucial. You get that into the mix and the project is much more likely to be successful.

Which is why they of course went the route of circumventing public input. I think we should always have a say in something like this, but as we've seen with Olympic bids recently being soundly rejected when they become something the public votes, letting the public decide usually results in strong rejection. I definitely think CalgaryNEXT would be dead if there were any vote on any public money. Of course this could become an election issue in 2017...

The reason the whole CalgaryNext concept was so poorly received was because there was no disco ball. Had the presentation been made with much better renderings it would have been better received. If the presentation had 3D holograms and sharks with "lasers" this would have been a slam dunk and it would have been a rush to get shovels into the ground. It is amazing how little imagination people have and how they can't visualize what the bigger concepts look like. I think the Flames over-estimated the sophistication of their audience and that put them behind the eight ball.

To the bolded, well, no lol. If that were the case this project would be a slam dunk. Instead the majority of people on a Flames forum don't want it. Imagine the NDP not being able to rely on environmental hippies to vote for them. They would cease to exist as a political party. The Flames can't get their core fanbase on board with this. As far as major red flags go....

Not enough sharks with lasers. We saw how the needle moved when the latest renderings came out. The support would be there with a better presentation.

To the rest, only the arena is what is needed. They can easily go finance that themselves with the ticket tax and their own money. The fieldhouse idea is just an attempt to get a new stadium for the Stamps, a stadium that is unjustifiable financially on its own. But the fieldhouse becomes a $200 million facility, fully publicly financed, that will have significant restrictions in access during the busiest time of year for public facility usage. Not a great deal for the city here, and the location is problematic as an access point, which should never be the case for a public facility. This is still a significant driver city, this isn't Montreal. Downtown is not the ideal spot for the fieldhouse.

Downtown is the ideal place for the fieldhouse. You need this facility centralized and accessible by mass transit. Putting a facility half an hour away from everywhere is acceptable. Putting a facility where people in one end of the city have to drive an hour or more is not acceptable. That is what has killed, and I mean absolutely killed the Coyotes and the Glendale facilities.

Unfortunately for the Flames ownership group you only get one chance at a first impression. Obviously no one could claim this first impression was anything but disastrous. They made a very tough sell an even tougher sell with their poor first presentation. Ultimately I feel pretty confident no public money will go to this and it will be the arena only, but realistically that is what the vast, vast majority of people really want.

I disagree. I think of the Flames roll out the disco ball and wow people with a new presentation they will get the support they need. The Flames have a lot of good will with the majority of Calgarians and I think they would be given a second chance to flesh out more details. If the Flames are forced to go this alone I think Calgarians are going to be shocked and disappointed by the result. They definitely won't like the prices they are going to experience. Careful what you wish for.