Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology
If you call a ticket tax an opportunity cost to the Flames in that the Flames are not able to price their tickets higher and maximize revenues, then the city land contribution has to be considered an opportunity cost as well. That land could be sold to someone.
Typically CRL would be used to fund infrastructure upgrades in the CRL area, would it not? Not to subsidize an anchor tenant.
|
Totally agreed about the logical look at both these factors. Although I think about 90% of posters railed against the fact that the ticket tax counted against the Flames.
However, in this case it doesn't necessarily translate as the City themselves have named the development area they would like. In it they include a stadium. So its hard to claim "we've lost opportunity" when they are getting the exact opportunity they are looking for.
Finally don't know about the CRL infrastructure argument, but in the same vein it is bold for people to whine about the City having to pay for the demolition of any elements in the development zone as a pure contribution to the Flames and not the development as a whole.