Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
Great reponse... thanks for your input.
|
Sometimes ridiculous statements warrant ridicule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
My point with the library's was that people bitch and complain for fiscal restraint when it doesn't serve their personal beliefs or agenda. With the libraries one is an example of a facility that meets the needs adequately, and no it isn't pretty but it serves the purpose, the other is something that the citizens can feel proud about even though some people believe its a waste of money. It's no different than the peace bridge, a simple bridge would have accomplished the same thing the peace bridge does... to cross the river.
But yet when it comes to an arena people draw a line because it somehow doesn't count towards civic pride, or doesn't serve the "right" tax payers needs. There are a lot of tax payers that used the dome and would use the new arena, be it hockey, lacrosse or concerts, tax payers would benefit from a new arena in the same way a tax payer would benefit from a upgrade library.
I personally have no problem with spending taxpayers money on projects (other than the blue ring), I will likely never use or even step foot in the new library, and I have yet to walk across the peace bridge, but if they give people a sense of civic pride awesome. I support using some public funds for the arena, in my eyes, the debate needs to be over how much and where, not yes or no.
Oh and this picture brings me as much pride in calgary...
as this...
|
There are indeed lots of taxpayers that use the Saddledome, and plenty that will use the new facility. The problem is that it's a meaningless statement and a false equivalence with regard to libraries, transportation infrastructure, landfills, public parks, etc. It has about as much relevance as saying "there are lots of skiing enthusiasts that use the Saddledome" or "there are lots of wine drinkers that use the Saddledome."
In the context of the equivalence you're trying to draw, "use" means different things when talking about the Saddledome than it does when talking about a bridge or a landfill or a library. People attend events at the Saddledome (largely hockey/lacrosse games and concerts) by paying money to a for-profit enterprise who organizes and puts on the event to turn said profit, even after paying out the performers/entertainers/athletes handsome sums for their part. The quality of the interior of the venue and the prestige/brand/attraction of the exterior of the venue is usually proportional in some way to the profitability of the events. If CSEC continues to operate in the Saddledome, they will (and have) turn a profit. If they build a new facility, they will turn a larger profit, but have to weigh that against the cost of said new facility.
In contrast, the landfills, libraries and transportation infrastructure provide a public good. They are (often essential) services to the public that provide value but are generally not provided on a for-profit basis by the private sector due to various economic principles (very long term and non-monetarily-quantifiable returns, natural monopolies, etc.). These projects also provide an opportunity to add artistic, architectural and place-making value to the public on top of their primary institutional/utilitarian functions. Further, they are free to access for all or have a nominal user fee.
These are fundamentally different things and are not equivalent in the way you are trying to illustrate.
As for the Airdrie comments, it's very nice that you "personally have no problem with spending taxpayers money on projects (other than the blue ring)." Also, thanks for sharing that "I support using some public funds for the arena, in my eyes, the debate needs to be over how much and where, not yes or no.' Frankly though, this input should be swiftly deposited in the round file with other Airdronian input into City of Calgary affairs.
Most other posters who don't live in Calgary have stated such as a caveat before submitting their views on the public money for the arena, outright held their tongue on the matter or said that their views on that subject shouldn't count or hold weight.