New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

How would it be devastating? The Oilers have been a joke of a franchise since their dynasty ended.

If anything a hypothetical loss of the Oilers (I really don't think there's much chance they'll ever leave Edmonton) would help the Flames since they'd have their broadcast region all to themselves which would translate to richer broadcast deals.

A strong rivalry revived courtesy of a few playoff series may be more beneficial to the Flames (and Oilers of course) since it would generate even more interest in the teams province wide. You may be able to generate more revenue from the casual fanbase that gets interested in a heated Battle of Alberta. If it was just Flames alone, they should generate a greater fanbase province wise, but maybe not that much that's far out of the Calgary region.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

How can any of you think that the loss of the Oilers would have ANY benefit at all for you or your team? That's what I hate about sports. It brings out the stupidity in people. It would be utterly devastating for the Flames, the NHL and hockey in general.

It has nothing to do with sports. Spending taxpayer dollars on private businesses is a bad idea, or at least I thought that was the Alberta position.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

What about taxpayers who have no interest in subsidizing artists and the arts? The average person can't afford their works, and yet they pay for them to live that lifestyle.

What about taxpayers who have no interest subsidized post secondary education? Particularly when the outcome isn't a career required for society, such as education, healthcare, engineering, law or accounting? The average person sees no benefit from someone else's Social Science, Fine Arts, Humanities, or Communications degrees...or worse, non-University diploma level versions of those. Yet, we pay to the tune of 70% of the tuition per student.

What about taxpayers who have no interest in bilingualism? Most provinces have less than 10% francophone speakers, and would be better served funding programs to help new Canadians learn English, or to fund Spanish or Mandarin immersion schools, languages with far more foreign commercial/trade value, and in many cases, more native speakers than French in Canadian provinces.

Point is, society works because we don't listen to every dissenting voice when there are reasonable policy arguments.

Why does Calgary (or Edmonton) need a fancy world class Arena/Stadium? The same reason we needed a designer pedestrian bridge instead of a cheap concrete version, or a world class National Music Centre instead of a small cheap venue, or a grand Central Library (likely to have an International architect I'm sure) instead of keeping the existing one and building a couple cheap ones in the suburbs. Because it makes us special. Its the dick waving that any City that wants to be special does. Is it a waste of money? Sure, but so are many other things that others may value.

It attracts attention (and usually tourists), they attract non-sporting events, it improves quality of life and it adds an aspect that promotes workers to call a city home. This is a problem places like Calgary and Edmonton face when so many migrant workers from other provinces and countries come here. World class cities spend on world class luxuries. Stadiums are near the top of that list.

Does it really make it so bad that someone might make money? Stadiums and their host teams create a ton of tax revenue. If governments took that money and put it aside for when teams came calling, I'm sure you'd find ample amounts for new facilities.

Excellent post. It conveys exactly how I feel. Tell me what library or art museum can make a city go nuts like the 2004 Cup run. Everyone was in on the fun, even non hockey fans. How is that not money well spent? As a single guy with no kids, I can tell you 10/10 times I would rather my tax dollars go towards building a world class arena over a school, library, art gallery, or museum. I'd get way more enjoyment out of it.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Joborule

A strong rivalry revived courtesy of a few playoff series may be more beneficial to the Flames (and Oilers of course) since it would generate even more interest in the teams province wide. You may be able to generate more revenue from the casual fanbase that gets interested in a heated Battle of Alberta. If it was just Flames alone, they should generate a greater fanbase province wise, but maybe not that much that's far out of the Calgary region.

It's been more than 2 decades since they even had a playoff series. The odds of them playing each other in the playoffs even once a decade is now pretty small.

Revenues are pretty close to maxed out in the two buildings in Alberta now anyway. Selling more merchandise doesn't have that big an impact. Casual fans are even more likely to buy Chinese knockoff jerseys as well, and neither team makes any money there.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

How can any of you think that the loss of the Oilers would have ANY benefit at all for you or your team? That's what I hate about sports. It brings out the stupidity in people. It would be utterly devastating for the Flames, the NHL and hockey in general.

He's bluffing and everyone knows it. All that crap when he forced the sale to buy the team about how he grew up an Oiler fan and wanting to keep the team in his home town. Does Katz plan on moving too? Otherwise he's not attending games. This is all a charade, its comical at best.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Tell me what library or art museum can make a city go nuts like the 2004 Cup run.

That will never happen again because the police don't want it to. They're afraid we might pull a Vancouver (/Montreal/Edmonton).

Of course, if we weren't such damn puritans we could have it every year and call it Mardi Gras.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Excellent post. It conveys exactly how I feel. Tell me what library or art museum can make a city go nuts like the 2004 Cup run. Everyone was in on the fun, even non hockey fans. How is that not money well spent? As a single guy with no kids, I can tell you 10/10 times I would rather my tax dollars go towards building a world class arena over a school, library, art gallery, or museum. I'd get way more enjoyment out of it.

Tell me what library or art museum is built in order to allow millionaires and billionaires to get richer and richer. Which library in any city generates the revenue stream a major sporting venue does. I don't see the Sobey's Museum of Modern Art in any city. I don't pay $60 for standing room only, 300 feet from the exibit at a museum. The librarian doesn't doesn't make 6 figures for reading books to kids every day.

It isn't about what enjoyment you might get out of it, taxpayers money isn't about individuals, its about society as a whole. Post secondary education makes our society better, it encourages growth in the sciences and in turn makes our lives better. Do you really think these cancer research doctors make 40 Mil over 6 years? And only work 8 months a year?

This is absurd to compare subsidizing an arena for private business - and allowing the rich to live off the lives of the poor - to public works projects.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Tell me what library or art museum is built in order to allow millionaires and billionaires to get richer and richer. Which library in any city generates the revenue stream a major sporting venue does. I don't see the Sobey's Museum of Modern Art in any city. I don't pay $60 for standing room only at a museum. The librarian doesn't doesn't make 6 figures for reading books to kids every day.

It isn't about what enjoyment you might get out of it, taxpayers money isn't about individuals, its about society as a whole. Post secondary education makes our society better, it encourages growth in the sciences and in turn makes our lives better. Do you really think these cancer research doctors make 40 Mil over 6 years? And only work 8 months a year?

This is absurd to compare subsidizing an arena for private business - and allowing the rich to live off the lives of the poor - to public works projects.

Tell me what museum or library generates tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue per year, creates as much spin off commercial benefit and creates strong international awareness of a region.

As for Post Secondary, that education only makes society better when its in a field that helps society, otherwise, its extremely expensive to fund "leisure degrees". Someone going to school to get a master's in Canadian Studies or Film Studies is a poor investment for society compared to someone getting a B.Ed or MD or B.Eng. or BN or LLB. If we only subsidizied programs that result in "beneficial" programs and degrees, then that argument might float. Otherwise, its simply paying people to pursue their interests, that, if we're lucky, will benefit society.

Back on point, Professional sports teams add a dynamic to a city that is extremely beneficial. Every major city on earth has at least one or two major sports teams that the local governments support with tax deals, land deals and stadium deals.

You simply can't think of it as poor taxpayers sponsoring rich athletes. When you break it down, its really spending about 20 million per year on a venue that can attract top tier athletics, concerts and other shows. 20m x 25 years (facilitiy lifetime)= $500 million. It looks daunting because governments don't plan for it. Pretty sure the AB income tax (10% of ~65m) of the Flames players and ownership alone over that time would cover the provincial share.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Tell me what museum or library generates tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue per year, creates as much spin off commercial benefit and creates strong international awareness of a region.

As for Post Secondary, that education only makes society better when its in a field that helps society, otherwise, its extremely expensive to fund "leisure degrees". Someone going to school to get a master's in Canadian Studies or Film Studies is a poor investment for society compared to someone getting a B.Ed or MD or B.Eng. or BN or LLB. If we only subsidizied programs that result in "beneficial" programs and degrees, then that argument might float. Otherwise, its simply paying people to pursue their interests, that, if we're lucky, will benefit society.

Back on point, Professional sports teams add a dynamic to a city that is extremely beneficial. Every major city on earth has at least one or two major sports teams that the local governments support with tax deals, land deals and stadium deals.

You simply can't think of it as poor taxpayers sponsoring rich athletes. When you break it down, its really spending about 20 million per year on a venue that can attract top tier athletics, concerts and other shows. 20m x 25 years (facilitiy lifetime)= $500 million. It looks daunting because governments don't plan for it. Pretty sure the AB income tax (10% of ~65m) of the Flames players and ownership alone over that time would cover the provincial share.

It's not like Edmonton and Calgary do not have venues for these events. They may be a little old but Rexall Place and the Saddledome are both adequate to the task. The city isn't being asked to subsidize a venue to improve the city because one doesn't exist. They are being asked because the current one doesn't have enough luxury boxes, because other cities have newer ones so we need to also, because it has capped it's revenue generating ability. So it's not like they can't place hockey in these buildings, it's that they won't because they want to make more money.

When the teams were in danger of having no attendence and moving because of it I could understand the municipality stepping up to keep it here, but to pay half on a new building that in multiple research will not contribute any negligible should not be a priority of government.

Your math is nice, but when the city is attracting the likes of U2 and Paul McCartney already and the new building will add maybe 1000 seats or more the revenue increase will be no where near what you project.

The owners are local business people aren't going to be up and moving because the city doesn't build an arena, most of their real money is tied up in the province or they wouldn't be here in the first place.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by SebC

That will never happen again because the police don't want it to. They're afraid we might pull a Vancouver (/Montreal/Edmonton).

Of course, if we weren't such damn puritans we could have it every year and call it Mardi Gras.

We call it Stampede.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Ya and in those 13 years the minimum price of an Oiler ticket has gone from $20 to $50, the games have gone from having huge empty holes to packed every night, and now the owner, who spends maybe 2 months a year actually in Edmonton wants the taxpayer to shell out for a building to make him even richer?

This isn't about not wanting to be a top tier city, if the city put up half the costs and got half of the revenues then I'm cool with it. I am not cool with lining the pockets of a billionaire who is too busy flying around to other cities on his private jets then actually fronting the money for a venture that will undoubtly pay off in the long run.

The government is not supposed to be in the business of subsidizing private industry, so until Katz is willing share the profits I'm not willing to share my income to make him richer.

you are missing the bigger picture dude, it's not about how much money Katz will or won't make/spend. he's rich now he will be rich later.

it's about how much money the rest of us can make because of the growth downtown, more development means more businesses which means more money overall...tax revenue, wages, opportunity for advancement, raising the proifile of the city which drives even more investment and drags more money in.

look at how many new develpments are already proposed for downtown...the arena is driving that development.

in the end we all benefit. besides, I'd much rather go to a game or concert downtown than way out in the northeast...that area is a dump

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by -TC-

you are missing the bigger picture dude, it's not about how much money Katz will or won't make/spend. he's rich now he will be rich later.

it's about how much money the rest of us can make because of the growth downtown, more development means more businesses which means more money overall...tax revenue, wages, opportunity for advancement, raising the proifile of the city which drives even more investment and drags more money in.

look at how many new develpments are already proposed for downtown...the arena is driving that development.

in the end we all benefit. besides, I'd much rather go to a game or concert downtown than way out in the northeast...that area is a dump

False

Baseless claim

Not supported by peer reviewed research

Do not repeat this myth

That goes for you too thunderball

Fact: a new arena Costa much much more than any incremental public benefits than it provides, it is not even close to net positive from the use of limited tax payer dollars

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by -TC-

you are missing the bigger picture dude, it's not about how much money Katz will or won't make/spend. he's rich now he will be rich later.

it's about how much money the rest of us can make because of the growth downtown, more development means more businesses which means more money overall...tax revenue, wages, opportunity for advancement, raising the proifile of the city which drives even more investment and drags more money in.

look at how many new develpments are already proposed for downtown...the arena is driving that development.

in the end we all benefit. besides, I'd much rather go to a game or concert downtown than way out in the northeast...that area is a dump

I understand the bigger picture and I am not completely anti-arena. I was/am fully behind the 100M investment the city has already agreed to. It will help, however there has to be an end. The fact that Katz is already coming back with his hand out and the unsaid threat to move the team is too much.

The city had figured out what the benifit would be worth, how much they could afford to invest to assist in that, but it's not enough, and will never be enough. Ground isn't even broke yet and there are already overages.. what happens when this thing is half complete and another 20M is needed? Why should the city be held ransom to now house their office in his office tower?

It would be a nicety to have, it might rejuvinate downtown, then again it might just be empty office rooms and a nice pedway for the homeless to take shelter during the winter when there isn't an Oiler game on.

Living on the southside I hate having to travel all the way to the NE and fear getting stabbed everytime I walk around there. But the city can't let themselves be held hostage in this. They've pledged an amount and they have to stick to their guns on it. If that means its a little less asthetics and a little more form, it will still be better than the current arena.

But again, the actual increase in revenue will be very minor until this thing is paid off. Rexall is already home to sporting events, concerts etc and yes there may be a few more but overall the increase will be minor overall adn that increase will go to paying this arena off.

I'm happy the city helped get the project going, but I am not happy if they simply open the city's coffers every time Katz needs more money.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

False

Baseless claim

Not supported by peer reviewed research

Do not repeat this myth

That goes for you too thunderball

Fact: a new arena Costa much much more than any incremental public benefits than it provides, it is not even close to net positive from the use of limited tax payer dollars

Bingo - this debate always ends up the same. People like to talk about how we need it to be a world class city, etc., but at the end of the day it always reverts back to the alleged ancillary economic benefits a new stadium would provide - which are completely baseless and false. There is no economic benefit to building a new stadium.

The argument pretty much comes to being considered a world class city and civic pride. To me, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that is a stretch considering that the people profiting off it are perfectly capable of fronting the money themselves.

Although, I find the "we need it to be a world class city" argument hilarious. When I think of Paris, Rome, London, New York, etc. the first thoughts in my head aren't "how new and impressive is their football/soccer/hockey stadium?".

The funniest part about a new arena for the Flames is that it's exciting and cool, but at the end of the day it will end up screwing the common man more than anything. Haven't the Flames already gone on record of saying the stadium will house around 2000 less people? Add in the fact that more of those seats are going to be allocated to luxury boxes and premium seats than the Saddledome and there's going to be significantly less tickets for the everyday fan. Add in the higher ticket prices in general for all seats and the corporate interest to snatch up tickets to impress clients with a trip to the new arena and it's not going to be nearly as easy to attend games anymore. I'd imagine the civic pride of a new arena drops considerably when it's impossible to get tickets to get in the damn thing (that we all end up paying for with our tax dollars).

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Fact: a new arena Costa much much more

Mama Mia!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Mama Mia!

Now that's funny. Take some notes Cecil.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

How would it be devastating? The Oilers have been a joke of a franchise since their dynasty ended.

If anything a hypothetical loss of the Oilers (I really don't think there's much chance they'll ever leave Edmonton) would help the Flames since they'd have their broadcast region all to themselves which would translate to richer broadcast deals.

Ouch, what does that make the Flames and our *ahem dynasty of one cup to fall back on?

[EddyBeers]

Well hopefully real facts have finally put to rest the idea that an arena spurs on economic growth.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

There's no doubt that an arena spurs economic growth in the area around the arena. Look at Columbus, Los Angeles, etc. Heck, Edmonton has 5 condo projects, a casino and an office tower ready to go when the arena gets a thumbs up (all within 4 blocks of the arena site).

The argument is, is this new growth or is it simply taking growth away from other parts of the city? In a city like Edmonton where downtown revitalization is such a priority for this mayor and council, do they care about this argument?

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

It has nothing to do with sports. Spending taxpayer dollars on private businesses is a bad idea, or at least I thought that was the Alberta position.

Which doesn't relate to my point. The point was the loss of your closest rival would be devastating for the Flames and hockey in Canada. I hate most of the Canadian teams due to the rivalry but I don't want any of them gone. In fact, if it was viable, I'd like teams in Saskatoon/Regina, Victoria, Hamilton, Quebec City, etc. I want more Canadian teams, not fewer; it's best for all.