Originally Posted by New Era
You got that out of reading that proposal? Here's what I got out of that proposal.
* The Flames are putting up $275M for the construction of the arena.
* The City will front the rest and the recover their money through the CRL.
* The building will be City of Calgary owned, meaning the Flames will not have to pay property tax.
* The Flames up front contribution is also their long term rent obligation, over 35 years ($7.85M per year).
* The Flames argument against the City's proposal was that the Flames would pay $185M, be the revenue source for $185M via the ticket levy, and then still have to pay property taxes, on a building they don't want to own, meaning they are paying the full boat.
Why shouldn't they bring it up? It is the most applicable comparison. It establishes precedent in the province. Like it or not, Calgary and Edmonton are joined through a long ugly umbilical chord and what happens in one directly affects the other. The Edmonton deal is a very relevant deal and should be discussed. The Flames proposal is based on a similar model, but is so much better for the city in comparison, it is hard to fathom that anyone would not look at this and say, yeah, this is a fair deal too.
What the Flames have done is put up their rent, up front, for construction purposes. They are making a commitment to the city of $7.85M of rent, and assuming all operations costs, for use of, and revenues from, the new arena. The Oilers put up $26.5M up front (including the exhibition hall space) and are paying $3.5M a year for all use and all revenues. They also got development rights around the building. So this is a substantially better deal for the City of Calgary, and I think a much better proposal than the City's rule of thirds proposal. I can understand why people could have a beef with it, because there is no property be generated by the building (it shouldn't, as it is a City owned property being rented). I get that, but the rent on the building is fronted for construction, meaning the city doesn't have to front those monies themselves, which is a great value to them.
One thing that is missing from this presentation that fans should like, is no ticket tax. The money is recovered from a CRL rather than a ticket tax. For all the people that were concerned about being priced out of their seats because of a ticket levy, that is not there.
The Flames have placed the onus on the City to generate the revenue through the CRL, meaning if the City does want that money back, they have to make a commitment to getting the entertainment district around the arena built out as quickly as possible. I think this is smart, as the City has a history of being slow in delivery of the back end of deals. It would suck to have a new arena built, then the city drag their ass on getting the amenities and infrastructure around the building completed.
The sad thing about this is it doesn't matter what was proposed. It wouldn't have mattered what the Flames presented, the vast majority of the minds here are already made up. The Flames are the bad guys and the City are the good guys. The issue here is not finding a solution that meets all needs, its about there being a winner and a loser in this ridiculous fight. I think this proposal is a winner. I think it addresses everyone's wants and desires, and is fair to both the hockey team and the City. It also places the onus on the City to deliver the infrastructure and services to support the entertainment district the City claims they are so hell bent on providing Calgarians. I would like to know what specifically this does not address and where it is a bad deal for the citizens of Calgary, and I mean more than Ken King was involved in it?
|