[Eubee]

After reading this thread I went looking for examples of lost net economic benefit on cities due to teams leaving. I found this instead, which I found interesting. It is from 2015 and deals with the environmental impact of a new stadium in Seattle. Specifically the appendix F which is the economic impact. Its a bit long but fortunately I have a real love of appendix F's, specifically ones over 500 pages. And before I get roasted for it, I get it that this is not apples-to-apples stuff. But some of it is relevant.

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/BuildingConnections/SeattleArenaFEISAppendicesFG.pdf

It has a lot of great examples of benefits derived from developments in other cities. If you have a passionate opinion on the subject it may be worth at least a skim. A library will not stimulate the subsequent jobs, area investment and tax revenue that an arena will. However it will provide other, non-tangible benefits that may be just as important. Voters/taxpayers need to decide which is more important.

Because Calgary is one of the NHL's top markets I personally feel that the owners can threaten to move but ultimately will not. I agree that on the surface, why should the average tax payer pay for a building they may never enter because of the cost? That being said, although I can enter a library downtown, I may never do so. And I help pay for it. The difference is that I can, if I want to, and get benefit from it at no cost. That is a big difference.

I don't believe there is a right answer here. Why should the city give the owners $200MM or whatever to build an arena that will line the owners pockets? At the expense of the tax payers. On the flip side, owners argue that although there is a short term cost to the city, it should definitely be a long term win. If the city can't see that, there are other cities that do. They own the team and it is their prerogative to move it.

I think its undeniable that Calgary will suffer more if the team makes like a tree and gets out of here, vs taxpayers shelling out $200MM for them to stay. However the real question is can the city play a game of chicken with owners and win? I think we can.

On a final note I have a friend who worked for the consultant that the Oilers hired to 'explore' the option of moving to Seattle. He said Katz never intended to move the team. It wasn't happening. But his group was hired to explore the option, gather some material facts that could be put out to the public, and also provide insight on how the perception of the team moving could build leverage to get cash from the city and/or province. Main point was, regardless of public money or not, they were not leaving.

EDIT - its worth noting that the majority of the report was a 2013 report, but it was updated for assumptions such as impact on parking, train logistics, etc.