Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
But think about who they pay taxes to. Even the visiting players pay taxes in many jurisdictions.
Look, I'll just say this:
I have read opinions that a new rink should have no funding, or no more than 'x' dollars. But that makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is what is the flames alternatives? If Seattle, okc, houston or whoever give them a better deal they should take it. So IF they have options (I have no idea what their options are) then Calgary needs to match them. If most people were honest with themselves, if given a choice of a bad deal in Calgary and a lucrative one elsewhere, you go where your wanted (and get paid). Just reasonable behaviour.
KK has no tact, I know that. But when he says look, if we get a good deal we will look at it, and who knows we might act on it, so many people get mad at that. That's not my reaction. Mine is to fully understand what other cities would offer them. That's all.
As for studies, I had read one fully and one partially a very long time ago and thought they were garbage. Written by people trying to push an agenda, not using proper valuation methodology or properly considering opportunity cost. So maybe there are better ones now, but I'm skeptical.
|
Their taxes go to the provincial and federal government? The city gets the shaft. The provinces release their budgets every year largely independent of what cities do. The province didn't give a penny to Edmonton for their arena, and I can't see Calgary getting one too. If the Province makes cuts, guess what, the city is at a further loss. It's bad optics on the provincial government to provide Calgary with an significant increase in funding after a 1 billion dollar arena props up.
So that's the thing, Calgarians get the shaft. Their fines, parking and property taxes go up to fund such an item -- some of whom don't even watch hockey -- while the City yeilds no revenue. Meanwhile some little town in Alberta doing something politically appetizing so they get extra funding from all these NHL tax revenues. Or who knows.
But I will revert to my IKEA example. Very expensive capital expenditure, people love to shop there (it provides good service), and it provides jobs and tax revenue. Still, nobody is suggesting the public paying for a new IKEA warehouse? Why the double standard?