Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
It's also ironic, looking mainly at the large letter posted above, arguing that on one hand the arena doesn't bring enough economic benefit to the city, they also then argue that free benefits be given out and that the space be used for likely uneconomic film festivals and the less fortunate.
So...they don't like it because it doesn't make returns but we'll like it more if you make it even less economic for the city.
That's "2+2 = potato" talk...like John Horgan wrote the letter or something
|
This is the debate of service bs business.
If something will exist without subsidy then the city shouldn’t subsidize it
If something will not exist without subsidy and the existence provides sufficient economic, cultural, social, intangible benefit to its citizens then the city should subsidize it.
So for something like the NHL it’s becuase it generates income it shouldn’t receive subsidy compared to uneconomic things which likely don’t exist without subsidy and therefore may warrant subsidy.
So the question around an Arena and the flames is really would the flames exist in Calgary without subsidy and at that rate of subsidy to they provide enough economocnand cultural benefit that the subsidy makes sense.
The same question should be asked for the uneconomic film festival. Is the cultural benefit worth the subsidy.