Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Coke
But now look at it that the Flames already have a not tax no rent deal, and want the city to participate in a new facility that is of benefit to both the Flames as well as the city as a whole. So the city says we will chip in, but then you'll have to pay tax or rent to compensate us.
It ends up as close to zero sum, and minimal incremental cost to the city for a new facility.
I certainly appreciate the argument against any funding for a private corporation, it is a totally legitimate view. But it also helps to look at it from the other side (some lack that I ability, I get that) and realize that giving one thing but taking away another of equal value (compared to what they get now) isn't some awesome and generous gesture. And realistically I don't think the city really thought that was their best deal, and expect to continue to move towards a middle ground as evidenced by the Mayors comments of the length of time other arena deals took to finalize.
|
Is it? Let us know the economics of the project? One has to assume right now an new arena will generate massively higher incremental revenue than the suggested $5m increase in incremental cost through property taxes.
Easy solution to this problem for the Flames if this is true - open up their financial model for revenues. Are we supposed to just take their word for it, that this is a losing proposition?