[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is a condescending and false dichotomy argument though. They are only different from a functionality and purpose perspective. From a taxpayers' view - they are similar. Taxpayers' money is being spent on something that is perceived to be public good by the government-in-power. What do you think the response would be to Apple, Google or Microsoft willing to build a new campus in Calgary in exchange for public funding? So, there are at least some similarities in the approach.

Library, Bell Centre, Drop-in Centre, Fieldhouse, Bow Towers are all built using public funds to address some public needs - cultural, charitable, safety, well-being etc. Those public needs are somehow conveyed to the government and selected to be addressed using priorities, which we, the public, have very little insight information about. It's fair to guess, however, these priorities are based on which public groups are more vocal, more influential, more needy. Also, they are based on Council dynamics (in case of a municipality), i.e. the balance of councillors pro-business vs. pro-social, pro-conservative vs. pro-liberal etc. Do you think Library construction would have passed a referendum vote if only the taxpayers would have voted? I am not so sure. And I would have voted "yes".

It is absolutely fair to say that to the tens of thousands of Calgary taxpayers, the new arena is very important; perhaps, more important than a new library or a new fieldhouse building. Dismissing this notion is unproductive.

sooooo the answer to his question is no then?