Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
How does that argue his point?
|
Whether that's the right point or not, people need to stop thinking of business cases for whether the city does or doesn't (or at what level) contribute to a project like this as a one size fits all. What happens in Seattle or New York, while I won't say completely irrelevant as there are things that do overlap, but they aren't really great comparisons for Calgary. Point being, the business case for a new rink (from a municipal perspective) in Belmont, does not directly translate to the business case in Calgary.......at all.
Lots of factors go into it, but people seem to be ignoring the fact that major Canadian cities, and specifically major Western Canadian cities are far more "isolated" than a lot of the cities in question. For example, how far do the residents of long Island have to travel and how accessible are other facilities that could host the events (hockey and non) an arena draws to their communities? Despite the earlier conversations in here about travel, the answer is not very far relatively speaking to enjoy the Barclay Center, MSG, arena's in NJ, and much of it accessible via public transit. This reduce the public need for facility directly in their area, but on the flip side could increase demand from local businesses to try and keep that traffic closer to home.
That's not the same for us isolated residents in Calgary. If we don't have a rink in Calgary, we have a 3hr car or paid bus ride to the nearest facility up in Edmonton, and that's only because they decided to fund one with partial public money. If it wasn't for that, the answer would eventually have been 10 hrs by drive or 1hr by plane to Vancouver. This factor alone drives up th cities stake in a new arena in Calgary IMO and their "need" for one if they want to attract events and sporting events to the region that drive up quality of life of it's citizens and help drive the economy by having money get spent on local businesses (as well as attract companies to set up shop here).
Of course the city should use this as an example of a deal they might like, as should the Flames use Edmonton as a yard stick. But people really need to start wrapping their heads round the fact that the business case for public money on projects like this are far from a one size fits all approach. What works on Long Island or Edmonton isn't necessarily the right solution for Calgary.
Also, I don't really know, but that $40M lease for 49 years sounds like a pretty sweetheart deal to me for that much land in Belmont (I could be wrong) and as others raised the tax implications would be nice to know. Just a note that "public" funding can come in many different forms, from direct investment, to tax breaks or sweetheart deals on things like leases. It certainly skews public perception if you do it creatively, but in the long run it ends up being same #### different pile.