So the Flames proposal essentially amounts to this: you build us a house (which we will have exclusive possession, use of and revenue from). In exchange, we will pay you a rent that covers none of your capital investment and does not even cover the cost of your annual property taxes. Of course, we have generally offered to pay you this incredibly subsidize and insufficient rent up front.
I think that the City could legitimately claim that they are paying ~120% of the cost of the arena in this proposal. They pay the entire construction cost of the arena and then they still have to subsidize the property tax because the rent is not enough to cover it.
I just don't see how the City could ever justify such an agreement.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
|