Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
And you will note that this is once again a concession to the Flames.
An arena is a terrible investment (as noted by both sides of the argument). Its value decreases to $0 and into the negatives over time.
The City owning the arena means that there's no property taxes to be paid.
The city owning the arena means that if there are lingering construction issues, they have to deal with the lawyers and the liability.
There is no good reason from the City perspective to own the building except as a subsidy/concession to the Flames.
|
Is an arena really that poor an investment? An ~18-20K seat indoor facility that features 77 guaranteed regular season dates a year between the Flames and Hitmen, with another dozen combined pre-season events, another nine(?) Roughnecks games.
On the Saddledome's own website, it says they host over 150 events a year. Given the presence of a new, state of the art Rogers Place style facility, would it not be possible to get that number up to 250 or 300 dates a year?
Does anyone think the Saddledome has been a bad investment? I don't. I think the city's gotten more than its money's worth out of that building.
Some monolithic football or baseball stadium paid for almost entirely by taxpayers in nonsense. Nobody 'hangs out' by a football stadium that hosts nine dates a year.
An arena for a city that has a history of ardent use and support for such a facility is not a bad investment.