Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
One plays much better to the electorate than the other is my guess.
Im so confused on this stuff, but from what i understand it appears that the city EVENTUALLY wants the entire thing paid for by the CSEC.
Which is fine, but just say it as such.
|
Well, they haven't actually released any details yet. They might say 1/3 is a public financing deal - paid through a commercially assessed arena and surrounding district, or in lieu of a property tax paying building, pay the City rent. They currently pay the City rent for the Saddledome, I believe, but have big tax abatement based on the 1995 renovation deal. In that case it wouldn't be much different in operating costs as they have in their current deal.