Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
They have offered to pay for some, a significant some at that... unless what you're doing is towing the CSEC party line that they (CSEC) should be exempt from the same capital costs and taxes that every other business in the city pays.
Sorry, I don't accept CSEC ludicrous position that *gasp* paying taxes means they're paying for more then everything. The Flames dress it up in language of "partnership" but they have a seriously disturbing vision of partnership where any money they put in counts as investment but the only thing that counts as investment for anyone else is what they lose.
|
I'm not towing any line. The city wants and needs this arena, the Flames want and need this arena. When you look at the costs all in, no matter what format or source they come from, my only belief is that the city and the Flames both have very very significant stake, desire and needs for this project, so both should be paying.
I don't think either side has come with reasonable proposals (that we've heard yet) and the truth is I do actually feel the CSEC evaluation of the cities 1/3 a 1/3 a 1/3 proposal was closer to accurate than how the mayor articulated it, but that doesn't mean that I'm on board with the CSEC statements or angles either.
A lot of propaganda to date from both sides, but it's just easier for the City to articulate and gain sympathy for their argument, because the private business vs. public entity is a very polarizing and easy argument to make that works in their favor, which makes any point of view that suggests the city might have more to gain from this seem like a very pro CSEC point of view.