Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Public good is an exceedingly nebulous term that seems to be used to support someone's political views or agenda.
For example, Rec Centres are a public good, sure. But if they're built in Seton or Rocky Ridge rather than the Beltline or East Village or other areas the city is aggressively (spending tens or hundreds of millions) trying to densify, aren't they promoting things like sprawl and forcing infrastructure costs since they are encouraging unsustainable and expensive expansion? Then who's "public good" are they serving? There's an equally valid counter argument the other way, but it should be clear how easy it is to bend "public good".
Professional sports aren't a "public good" on their face, but if they give back millions to amateur sport, market the city, promote discretionary spending that supports thousands of jobs, and encourage development in trouble spots, they might be. We're all aware of John Oliver and the papers that denounce public funding on professional sport facilities, but yet, its something that most markets agree is a public-private partnership (though majority private since most direct economic benefits go there).
While CalgaryNext may or may not check those boxes... Plan B probably will and the city and province can't be expected to reap the rewards of a new Arena and Stadium without chipping in something, whether its direct cash, or cash in the form of land, upgrades, tax breaks, etc. Every reasonable argument acknowledges that to some point.
The suggestion I made showed how the Province can do that with essentially money that exists because of the Calgary Flames (or Edmonton Oilers in their case). Multimillionaire players would not be paying Alberta tax in a "Seattle Flames" scenario.
A cynical argument might be that rather than wasting billions on shuttering coal plants a few years early pushing an agenda that many would say is radical and not campaigned on, the Province may as well spend millions on something that enriches the culture, economy, and livability of its largest city.
|
You know most of that is part of their marketing operations and for tax purposes, right? I know a lot of small businesses who sponsor minor hockey teams and give back to charities for tax purposes, as well marketing themselves as philanthropic and community staples.
Edmonton just built their new arena near an old, povershed neighborhood, leaving behind the concrete wasteland that's now an empty Rexall place. Firstly, the new Rogers place didn't revitalize China Town and Boyle Street across 97th Street. It's still hideous. Secondly, Rexall place now needs "revitalization", so what, they just replaced one micro economy for another.
My biggest problem with these endeavours is the cycle. I get the NHL wants to promote its brand and wants new, fresh buildings for its customers, much like any business, but if theres public dollars going towards it, then this 3-4 decade cycle needs to be stretched. I think the Saddledome is good for at least another 10 years. Perhaps I'm just not of the spoiled breed and can have a good time without fresh paint and lazer shows, but it's also return on investment that needs to be considered.
Plus keep in mind there are other, large captial expenditures that are drivers of micro economies and revitalization of communities. An large Ikea cost hundreds of millions to build but you don't see them threatening cities for public dollars? And arguably an Ikea serves a broader spectrum of citizens than only the 25 thousand who attend 41 evenings of hockey.
So why are sports teams special? Because homer fans are extremely price inelastic and cannot rationalize the alternative perspective when they're literally fanatical and extremists about a given brand and product.