Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
The biggest thing for me with a new arena is that it isn't actually creating anything NEW - it's simply a replacement for what we already have.
Many people disagree, but I'd rather live out the full lifecycle of the Saddledome (another 10-15 yrs IMO) and use the money for projects that are actually NEW. In the meantime, implement a ticket tax to build a small kitty that can help close the negotiating gap between the parties.
The Saddledome is a perfectly capable, fully loaded 2004 Honda Odyssey without any pending maintenance needs beyond oil changes (we just replaced the tires, brakes, and timing belt after the flood). It's fully paid off and costs next to nothing to operate.
We want to trade it in for brand new F350. Insurance costs a lot more (ticket prices), gas costs a bit more (concessions). The vehicle seats fewer people, but it does let us go further off-road 2-3 times year when we go camping (so-called big concerts skipping us for Edmonton). Don't get me wrong, there are some great new features like a better stereo system and wireless phone charger, but there will also be some unanticipated drawbacks (maybe harder to park, etc. - people in the E=NG thread have talked about how their new building feels 'soul-less')
We've always known we would need a new car eventually, just as whatever new one we get will need replacement eventually, too. I've just never been one to trade in the essentially 'free' years of a depreciating asset (with minor inconveniences compared to new versions) to take on a whole bunch more debt.
There are far more pressing things in this city to be replaced or created than the arena.
|
It all comes down to what CSEC is willing to pay for. The argument for the timing of construction changes when you have another party also investing in it. On the surface, CSEC's willingness to contribute should be highest now, and decrease as we get to the end of that life-cycle if that is how the city would view the replacement timeline importance as well. So there is a point where the city could potentially be putting themselves on the hook for more the longer they wait. So that would have to be taken into account with this line of thinking. Plus the looming trump card that the team could very well leave if nobody is willing to keep them here because the city doesn't operate the arena, the team does. What are the lease conditions and when it is it up? How much money will have to be spent keeping the Saddledome going for those 10-15 years to keep the arena operator?
Then there is the case for how the arena/event centre timeline matches with CMLC's vision for Victoria Park. Does waiting for the Saddledome to depreciate to the end of a more reasonable life cycle make sense if it also delays the development of the Victoria Park revitilization process? If it is considered a major driver of that vision, waiting 10-15 years has a significant negative effect on the other development for the area (leaving an empty parking lot at the heart of an entertainment district) which reduces the property taxes generated that fund the CRL.
Then there's the thinking on just hoe much integration with the BMO Centre or Green Line are they planning? How much does the cost go up to retrofit that kind of inegration in vs. building it at the same time? To get 10-15 more years out of the Dome are we just adding $10M, $20M, $100M to the eventual project? That would also have to be considered. Then to cap it all off you'd have to take into account what the inflation will look like in 10-15 years time in the construction industry.
So it's a bit more complicated of a formula for the city than just 'let's let this '04 Odyssey go a bit longer because it will cost the same to replace it later.'