Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Still kind of irrelevant to his argument the NHL would be petty and never return to Calgary if they don't build an arena now. NHL will go to markets that can make money and are successful. If the Flames were ever allowed to leave, if Calgary did build a new arena down the road, there would be a team back as soon as there was a market in trouble (oh wait, there's like four of those already, who apparently are immovable according to Bettman,, but moving from a major corporate hub will be allowed? Hmmmm.....)
As to the bolded well....Montreal has pretty much everything, yet Calgary has significantly more corporate head offices. You could have every single major sport in North America in Calgary, but if the corporate tax rate in Alberta was the highest in North America, you're not attracting any businesses whatsoever. Also, this kind of thinking, that sports are way more important than social good is exactly how you end up with President Agent Orange. Sports are not more important than a library or homeless shelter, and it's pretty offensive to suggest otherwise.
|
First, they would likely be back... in at least 5-10 years after public money is used (perhaps exclusively public money if there isn't a clear suitor) anyway. So why not cooperate now?
Second, Calgary is not quite the major corporate hub it was with 3% unemployment and mass disposable income... don't expect the NHL will bow to get the 4th largest Canadian market back when there is a perfectly adequate team 250km to the north with a new stadium keeping the TV deal intact. So, yes, Calgary would be high on the list, but I think the NHL would rather roll the dice on Seattle, Portland, Kansas City and maybe even Hartford 2.0 before another Canadian centre because they want new TV revenue. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so I'm not sure why so many people are being so arrogant about the NHL needing Calgary when they already have an Alberta market.
Third, using Montreal is a bit disingenuous, and I suspect you know that. Quebec has an aggressive tax regime, language issues, and political questions that makes it a less enticing area for head offices. Calgary would be competing with centres that do not have a tax disadvantage to Calgary. The issue is livability when the bigger considerations make sense. No one moves to a high price jurisdiction, but when they are considering better jurisdictions, they'll go to the centre that ticks the most boxes.
Fourth, spare me the sports vs. libraries argument, because no one is making it. There's a big difference between reasonable library facilities scattered throughout a city for maximum utility and blowing the wad on a 9 digit vanity project and then crying poor for something else that the city relies on.
As for the homeless shelter comment, the point is, the vanity projects are located next to something that people consider undesirable, it affects the desirability to live, raise children, and interact in that area. Sorry if that is a bit "President Agent Orange" of me to point out, but if you're spending half a billion dollars, you can probably do a lot better in checking a few boxes (including pure public good endeavours and having proper sports/entertainment venues) than two massive projects with no hope of any economic return in a blighted area.