[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

To me the Edmonton situation almost makes sense for the city. They moved the arena to an area where they could build up around it. Calgary isn't doing that. They are building the arena where the arena currently is. They aren't improving much about that area overall, that couldn't have already been done. Sure there will be some more stuff down there, but it's not going to drastically improve a dead area, like Edmonton.

If its a good investment you wouldn't have billionaire investors fighting to not invest. Case closed. It's a bad investment, especially for the city. I'd find it much easier to accept the original deal where the City paid a third, but still, I find it aggravating.

The cost in the long run is a big issue as far as I'm concerned, we're cutting money, jobs, increasing taxes and now we're handing billionaires money for something that doesn't have a ton of benefit when it's all said and done. Families can't really afford to go to games, and they will still spend their money, it's not like people spend their money at flames games or nothing.

I've also been a flames fan my whole life, so I understand the other side, of the argument, but just looking at it with no bias, it's not a good deal.

I don't know that the buildup around Stampede Park wouldn't happen anyway. But the "build up a dead area" was the Flames pitch for the west side, and that one was rejected.