New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by valo403

How does funding to "culture and the arts" (quoted as that term could mean virtually anything) do "the most good"? Relative to what? How do you quantify doing the most good?

I would guess he means actually supporting starving artists instead of millionaire artists who put on shows in huge hockey rinks.

[Tinordi]

It's not about comparing the most good between options. It's about getting good for public money. The alternative to building an art gallery for example is not building it. The alternative for the public to not fund a sports arena is for the private sector to fund it because there's an actual business there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

I would guess he means actually supporting starving artists instead of millionaire artists who put on shows in huge hockey rinks.

Well that's just a matter of determining what is valuable, and to be quite honest it seems that the market has done a pretty good job of that. Would supporting a Damien Hirst gallery not qualify because his pieces sell for millions?

I love art of all kinds, I frequent galleries and museums regularly, but I can't say that funding to some guy doing a piece where a bunch of IV's dangle in a dimly lit space (real thing I saw, and actually really cool) counts as "doing the most good" over funding an arena. Neither one is likely to bring back a direct fiscal return, so we're left with determining what has the better social impact, which is going to vary from person to person. Saying that one is definitively better than the other simply doesn't make any sense.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's not about comparing the most good between options. It's about getting good for public money. The alternative to building an art gallery for example is not building it. The alternative for the public to not fund a sports arena is for the private sector to fund it because there's an actual business there.

Right, I agree with that line of thinking. I do think that there's role for government to play in the building of these projects, but it should be a diminished one. Some funding, some taxation policies etc., in order to facilitate the construction can be a good thing when you consider the spin off benefits. It's the full scale funding, or massive tax breaks, that result in increased profits to a private entity that shouldn't exist. There's room for public/private partnership, but the terms need to be that of an actual partnership, not a fleecing.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that's just a matter of determining what is valuable, and to be quite honest it seems that the market has done a pretty good job of that. Would supporting a Damien Hirst gallery not qualify because his pieces sell for millions?

I love art of all kinds, I frequent galleries and museums regularly, but I can't say that funding to some guy doing a piece where a bunch of IV's dangle in a dimly lit space (real thing I saw, and actually really cool) counts as "doing the most good" over funding an arena. Neither one is likely to bring back a direct fiscal return, so we're left with determining what has the better social impact, which is going to vary from person to person. Saying that one is definitively better than the other simply doesn't make any sense.

I would say, and this is only my opinion, that if you want public money supporting the arts it is allow more people to be artists instead of focusing money on those artists who are already profitable. Kind of like how I'd prefer public money be put into funding youth hockey instead of NHL hockey - build many public rinks instead of one NHL rink.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by valo403

How does funding to "culture and the arts" (quoted as that term could mean virtually anything) do "the most good"? Relative to what? How do you quantify doing the most good?

Hockey is part of culture, and concerts are part of arts.

People who suggest spending money on culture and arts are, quite ironically, promoting the building of such arenas without realizing it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

I would say, and this is only my opinion, that if you want public money supporting the arts it is allow more people to be artists instead of focusing money on those artists who are already profitable. Kind of like how I'd prefer public money be put into funding youth hockey instead of NHL hockey - build many public rinks instead of one NHL rink.

Then where does funding a museum or performing arts center fall? Neither of those enable more people to be artists, they enable existing artists to display their work, much like an NHL arena.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by valo403

How does funding to "culture and the arts" (quoted as that term could mean virtually anything) do "the most good"? Relative to what? How do you quantify doing the most good?

Arts and culture is in the discussion because it was brought up as a completely baseless benefit of publicly funding a new arena by another poster.

You do the most good by doing the smart thing and not writing cheques to private hockey teams. There isn't a lot of funds to go around these days and the province certainly doesn't need to be playing charity with billionaires at the expense of valuable public funding.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...a-deficit.html

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

Arts and culture is in the discussion because it was brought up as a completely baseless benefit of publicly funding a new arena by another poster.

You do the most good by doing the smart thing and not writing cheques to private hockey teams. There isn't a lot of funds to go around these days and the province certainly doesn't need to be playing charity with billionaires at the expense of valuable public funding.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...a-deficit.html

You're throwing things out there and then following it up with more meaningless babble.

What's the "smart thing"?

What's "valuable public funding"?

What's "doing the most good"?

Who is the "good" for?

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Bridges, parks and hospitals are not built to help the richest people in the country make more money. Nor are they rebuilt every 30 or so years.

Except that bridges, parks, and hospitals are rebuilt ever 30 or so years.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by sevenarms

Except that bridges, parks, and hospitals are rebuilt ever 30 or so years.

Another important distinction is that bridges, parks and hospitals aren't profitable to build and therefore wouldn't be built by the private sector if left to their own devices. These PUBLIC goods, goods that are beneficial and valuable to our society but do not provide private returns due to their nature or to our current policy frameworks, need public funding support to exist.

An arena is not a public good because it's would be profitable to privately provision. The alternative to us not funding a walking bridge over the Bow is that the bridge would not be built. The alternative to us not funding the arena is that private forces would fund it to be built.

Now obviously it gets a bit murky because owners will say it would not be built privately because they could get a better deal in a different city. This race to the bottom mentality is a real concern in negotiations and does imply the need for some government involvement. With that said, unless municipalities start acting accordingly and take the first step to ending public subsidies to sports team owners this dynamic will not change.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by sevenarms

Except that bridges, parks, and hospitals are rebuilt ever 30 or so years.

Probably more often. All three have huge upkeep costs between the complete overhauls as well.

How often has the centre street bridge been worked on in the last 10 years? At least two major overhauls that I remember.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Another important distinction is that bridges, parks and hospitals aren't profitable to build and therefore wouldn't be built by the private sector if left to their own devices. These PUBLIC goods, goods that are beneficial and valuable to our society but do not provide private returns due to their nature or to our current policy frameworks, need public funding support to exist.

An arena is not a public good because it's would be profitable to privately provision. The alternative to us not funding a walking bridge over the Bow is that the bridge would not be built. The alternative to us not funding the arena is that private forces would fund it to be built.

Now obviously it gets a bit murky because owners will say it would not be built privately because they could get a better deal in a different city. This race to the bottom mentality is a real concern in negotiations and does imply the need for some government involvement. With that said, unless municipalities start acting accordingly and take the first step to ending public subsidies to sports team owners this dynamic will not change.

But you also have to look at the reasons for building something like a bridge over the bow, namely the demand for that good/service from residents and the benefit that adding such a good/service has for the municipality. If those don't exist then a bridge shouldn't be built, there's no desire and no benefit. There comes a point where those factors (and others, this is obviously over simplified) become strong enough to justify the construction.

You can apply the same logic to government support of an arena project. If there's sufficient support for government funding among the electorate why shouldn't a city utilize it's funds to meet that demand? The same goes for a situation where the benefits of support become strong enough to justify going forward, and remember we're not just looking at gains provided we're looking at losses as a result of a failure to act as well.

Arena's do bring returns to the public sector, the question is how far do you go in quantifying them in your analysis and how do you recapture them after the fact.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hockey is part of culture, and concerts are part of arts.

People who suggest spending money on culture and arts are, quite ironically, promoting the building of such arenas without realizing it.

This has little to do with spending more money on a public program like you're suggesting and all to do with taking money away from them. When you talk about publicly funding a private arena (x2) you're talking about pulling existing dollars directed to public programs, not finding new untouched funds.

If you hand over hundreds of millions to the Flames/Oilers quite obviously funding is going to be cut to programs that are already struggling (like arts and culture, health care, education etc). Programs that don't have billionaire owners to fund them if they felt like it.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're throwing things out there and then following it up with more meaningless babble.

What's the "smart thing"?

What's "valuable public funding"?

What's "doing the most good"?

Who is the "good" for?

With this post is obvious why you should never cut education funding.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

With this post is obvious why you should never cut education funding.

Ha, it sure is, the fact that you can't respond to pointed questions and critiques of your position (not to mention the tremendous sentence structure and typos) makes you the poster boy for middle school drop outs.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by valo403

But you also have to look at the reasons for building something like a bridge over the bow, namely the demand for that good/service from residents and the benefit that adding such a good/service has for the municipality. If those don't exist then a bridge shouldn't be built, there's no desire and no benefit. There comes a point where those factors (and others, this is obviously over simplified) become strong enough to justify the construction.

Sure, no problems there. When we need public services we typically tend to pay for them.

You can apply the same logic to government support of an arena project. If there's sufficient support for government funding among the electorate why shouldn't a city utilize it's funds to meet that demand? The same goes for a situation where the benefits of support become strong enough to justify going forward, and remember we're not just looking at gains provided we're looking at losses as a result of a failure to act as well.

That doesn't look like it's the issue here. From my read it looks like most of the electorate is not in favour of funding this arena and that opinion is actually a rationally formed one supported by lots of evidence that this is a bad deal. So I guess under this framework you'd be okay then that the arena not receive public funding because you're a champion of democratic values and processes?

Arena's do bring returns to the public sector, the question is how far do you go in quantifying them in your analysis and how do you recapture them after the fact.

Jesus murphy how many freaking times does this myth have to be repeated for people like me to address it. Sure there may be some public return. That return, even under generous assumptions in valuing it comes no where near the cost of funding an arena.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure, no problems there. When we need public services we typically tend to pay for them.



That doesn't look like it's the issue here. From my read it looks like most of the electorate is not in favour of funding this arena and that opinion is actually a rationally formed one supported by lots of evidence that this is a bad deal. So I guess under this framework you'd be okay then that the arena not receive public funding because you're a champion of democratic values and processes?



Jesus murphy how many freaking times does this myth have to be repeated for people like me to address it. Sure there may be some public return. That return, even under generous assumptions in valuing it comes no where near the cost of funding an arena.

I'm not discussin Edmonton in particular, and I don't have sufficient details to do so so I won't be, my statement was on the concepts underlying these situations in general.

As to your last point, perhaps you should re-read what I have written. I have at no point argued that the returns equal the costs, so you can take your Jesus murphy myths thank you very much. The point I made is that cities need to determine how far they reach out when determining what returns they can expect to receive, and that they need to find ways to effectively recapture those returns following construction. Reaching too far in predictions and falling short in recovery seems to be par for the course here for most municipalities.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ha, it sure is, the fact that you can't respond to pointed questions and critiques of your position makes you the poster boy for middle school drop outs.

Your pathetic attempt at derailing this discussion is even more evident since your meltdown about me asking you a question a few pages back. A person who needs to repeatedly ask for definitions of simple items and can't read between the lines obviously can't participate in a grown up discussion.

"Valuable public funding" - You really need that one explained to you? I guess in your world tax dollars grow on trees.....

How about asking legitimate questions that fuel discussion .

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

Your pathetic attempt at derailing this discussion is even more evident since your meltdown about me asking you a question a few pages back. A person who needs to repeatedly ask for definitions of simple items and can't read between the lines obviously can't participate in a grown up discussion.

"Valuable public funding" - You really need that one explained to you? I guess in your world tax dollars grow on trees.....

How about asking legitimate questions that fuel discussion .

These aren't defined items, these are things that are only given value by the way that the public perceives them. Building a waterpark is a lot more valuable in the eyes of the public in a place like Phoenix than it is in Anchorage. Why is that?

That's why saying "do the smart thing" doesn't make sense without more. The same goes for something like "doing the most good". Who are you doing good for? What kind of good? Financial good? Aesthetic good? Cultural good? These are very loose terms and you're treating them like they're definitions that can be looked up.