New Poll on Arena issue

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So, since they have a new rink, Edmonton now has an "entertainment Mecca of the world"?

My comprehension translates "major-league venues are the entertainment Meccas of the world" into, "all over the world, major-league venues are entertainment centerpieces." My apologies if that's not how it reads to other people. My comprehension is usually on point, but I'm always open to better ways of wording my thoughts.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A new hockey rink that can hold a Katy Perry concert isn't going to change Calgary's place in the world.

Although I am personally not a fan of hers, I'm not sure how someone could fail to see the business and cultural benefits that stem from having celebrities of her caliber perform in our city.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I am completely against public funding of buildings like this. I don't think there is any logical argument why teams can pay their players 75 million per year, but can't build a 500 million dollar building for them, or even a logical argument why they need a 500 million in the first place. Maybe they should use 30 million a year to finance their building and the salaries should be corrected to 45 million.

But, Calgary is not a vacuum and they have to compete against other cities both on the ice and for franchises. It is pretty tough for one city to take a stand against this unless they are in a huge market. So I guess it's a necessary evil that the city and province have to give some money, but I sure wish there was a way to put an end to this across the continent. At least public sentiment seems to be shifting away from this kind of spending.

The worst part is the spin they think everyone buys into - a legacy project....this is for the family and future generations etc. The average fans and families are going to be priced out of tickets the minute a new building opens up....just look at the ticket disaster in Edmonton since the new building opened.

Anyone in favor of handing CSEC a blank cheque should think long and hard about how much fun it will be to have this shiny new building when you can never even afford to go to the games in a decent seat. Furthermore, I would wager that most non-hockey activities are still going to choose between Edmonton and Calgary so there will never be a massive uptick in concerts/events as predicted.

[Jiggy]

When I worked for the city I couldn't believe how much of tax payers money went to waste. Just look at the peace bridge, that is already up to 24 million dollars out of tax payers pockets. I would be okay with up to 100 million of public funding.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This city desperately needs a new arena. It's not just about the Flames, either. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, major-league venues are the entertainment Meccas of the world; and The Canadian Airlines Olympic ScotiaPen Saddledome is our current contribution to that standard.

Every time a major act goes to Edmonton instead of Calgary (the Dome is too outdated to support current stage requirements) it says something about Calgary's place in the world.

There's also the residual impact on the city. A person could, quite literally, live in this city their entire life without ever setting foot inside the arena, yet still benefit almost daily from its existence - so yes, tax dollars should absolutely pay for it to be built. 100%? no, that's ridiculous; but so is 0%.

Ahh, the "world class city" argument.

The point is that there is a huge opportunity cost. If we accepted the original plan where the city pays a billion dollars for CalgaryNEXT, that's a billion dollars that could've been used elsewhere to make us a world class city.

The residual impact on the city for an arena is absolutely there for sure, and extremely hard to quantify. A lot of studies have shown that an arena has a <1 multiplier (ie. you get less than you put in). You would get more economic stimulation from sending everyone $1000 in NenshiBucks than you would from building an arena (yes, even over the expected lifespan of the arena).

I can't quantify feelings and world class though, and in my opinion, that's the biggest argument for something like CalgaryNEXT.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

When I worked for the city I couldn't believe how much of tax payers money went to waste. Just look at the peace bridge, that is already up to 24 million dollars out of tax payers pockets. I would be okay with up to 100 million of public funding.

Hilariously, in the context of my above post, spending 24 million on the peace bridge is actually one of those things that DID make Calgary closer to a world class city.

People take pictures on it, people come to see it and thousands use it every day. It's used as the face of Calgary in publications, in top 10 lists and other articles.

We've gotten far more than 24 million of value from the peace bridge than most other grand things we've built.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

When I worked for the city I couldn't believe how much of tax payers money went to waste. Just look at the peace bridge, that is already up to 24 million dollars out of tax payers pockets. I would be okay with up to 100 million of public funding.

Except it sees thousands of users per day and doesn't cost a penny to use.

I'd be OK with 100% public financing of a new rink if the admission fee was free.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Hilariously, in the context of my above post, spending 24 million on the peace bridge is actually one of those things that DID make Calgary closer to a world class city.

People take pictures on it, people come to see it and thousands use it every day. It's used as the face of Calgary in publications, in top 10 lists and other articles.

I am not one who was ever all that worked up about the peace bridge. Cities need architecture and public spaces that provide intrigue and improve access in general. I would urge caution with that assessment though.

The simple reason the bridge is used in publications and is making it to top 10 lists is because the city is propping it up. It has to do so considering how much was spent on it against public opinion. I would bet that no tourist is specifically putting the peace bridge or any similar structure in another city on their must see list.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Hilariously, in the context of my above post, spending 24 million on the peace bridge is actually one of those things that DID make Calgary closer to a world class city.

People take pictures on it, people come to see it and thousands use it every day. It's used as the face of Calgary in publications, in top 10 lists and other articles.

We've gotten far more than 24 million of value from the peace bridge than most other grand things we've built.

There's also the celebrity effect of having a piece of our city designed by Calatrava. World-renowned architects attract other world-renowned architects, which eventually leads to more of that un-quantifiable global status.

Tangibly or intangibly, all of this stuff attracts people (and therefore business, and therefore dollars) to a city.

Edit: I admit that this stuff is hard to put on a balance sheet in such a way that it helps to zero out the cost, but the effects exist nonetheless.

[Mazrim]

I put my vote in for $200 million only because I imagine when all is said and done, with concessions the City could make on things like property or infrastructure around a new Arena, that final number of support from the City will be closer to $200M than $50M.

If they're going to use the threat of relocation to get that money though? I'd be very disappointed with the team.

[FanIn80]

I should also point out that, rightly or wrongly, I ignored the "threat" part of the question; choosing instead to vote as if it read:

"How much public funding would you support the City and Province putting towards a new arena?"

[TheAlpineOracle]

A lot of internet tough guy talk in this thread. This whole "Not a dime of public money" and "If they threaten to leave, don't let the door hit them on the way out" posturing is an absolute joke. 70% of this city would be crying in their cereal each morning if that happened despite the soap box they stand on in here.

The spin off to the Flames to the local economy is huge. They leave, it hurts the hotel industry, the restaurant/bar industry, the retail industry, and on and on and on without even considering that the city loses 25 millionaires instantly that contribute to the local economy. How about all those charities that get millions and millions of dollars from the Flames? Where they going to make that up? How about all those people who make some extra money to spend 40 nights a year working at the games?

I'm not for the City/Province paying the tab here, but they absolutely have to be willing to spend some of the public's money here like they do in each and every other city that has a major professional team. Anyone who sits here and says "Not a cent" or " Let them leave" quite frankly, is absolutely clueless.


If the Flames leave, people realize that doesn't change the fact that Calgary needs a new stadium don't they? We'll get one, except this time it will be completely funded by the City and sit empty 70% of the year and be an absolute anchor on the City's yearly budget. Ask other cities how that is going for them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kevman

Except it sees thousands of users per day and doesn't cost a penny to use.

I'd be OK with 100% public financing of a new rink if the admission fee was free.

Hundreds of thousands watch the Flames on TV for free and feel part of the team. That never seems to get mentioned.

Not saying it justifies the cost. But people constantly whine about an arena being built for the few who can afford tickets, when that isn't the whole picture.

Sure, tickets are expensive and therefore somewhat exclusive. But there is also a benefit for everyone. The team is ours as a community. And it's (essentially) free for all to enjoy.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I am not one who was ever all that worked up about the peace bridge. Cities need architecture and public spaces that provide intrigue and improve access in general. I would urge caution with that assessment though.

The simple reason the bridge is used in publications and is making it to top 10 lists is because the city is propping it up. It has to do so considering how much was spent on it against public opinion. I would bet that no tourist is specifically putting the peace bridge or any similar structure in another city on their must see list.

not too sure about that; initially in their own publications, you can make that argument...

however, when its something that is independent and has editorial independence that puts it out, its a different animal...

the Peace Bridge was recently on Archdaily, which is one of, if not the, top sites for design and architecture traffic http://www.archdaily.com/806102/12-i...s-for-bicycles

that's not driven by the city... that's determined by their editors...

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Torture

My poll answer

If the Flames threatened - None.
Working out a deal, probably around $50M

If they're bargaining in bad faith they don't deserve public dollars. If they can negotiate a deal that benefits the public I'd be ok with some sort of contribution around $25-50M (depending on how it benefits obviously)

just curious, how is the Flames threatening to move any worse than the city refusing to give up a dime? Either would be bargaining in bad faith.

[Mccree]

I have been to Edmonton more the past few years to watch concerts that did not come to Calgary that I think an investment by the city is worth it. How much I don't know.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hundreds of thousands watch the Flames on TV for free and feel part of the team. That never seems to get mentioned..

It never gets mentioned because it's not true. Unless you're illegally streaming Flames games they are certainly not free.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hundreds of thousands watch the Flames on TV for free and feel part of the team. That never seems to get mentioned.

Not saying it justifies the cost. But people constantly whine about an arena being built for the few who can afford tickets, when that isn't the whole picture.

Sure, tickets are expensive and therefore somewhat exclusive. But there is also a benefit for everyone. The team is ours as a community. And it's (essentially) free for all to enjoy.

Didn't realize the Flames broadcasted their games over the air for free. I thought Sportsnet owned the rights to their games and gave a chunk of money to the league (including the Flames) for that right.
They're practically a charity!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hundreds of thousands watch the Flames on TV for free and feel part of the team. That never seems to get mentioned.

You mean those people paying $100 per year in cable carriage fees to Roger's sports channels are watching for free? If you are going to bring them up, how about many more hundreds of thousands of people who don't watch a game, and still pay $100 a year for sports channels they don't watch, and as a bonus pay taxes towards an arena they don't use?

[Jbo]

Take my tax money. Seriously.

I would much rather my taxes go toward something like this then a) Bike lanes b) public art c) Bridges d) Library e) hell even snow removal.

Give me a new building!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hundreds of thousands watch the Flames on TV for free and feel part of the team. That never seems to get mentioned.

Not saying it justifies the cost. But people constantly whine about an arena being built for the few who can afford tickets, when that isn't the whole picture.

Sure, tickets are expensive and therefore somewhat exclusive. But there is also a benefit for everyone. The team is ours as a community. And it's (essentially) free for all to enjoy.

Obviously as others have mentioned, this is preposterous. And that doesn't even include the fact the Flames make money off the TV deal, and the less you watch, the less money they make (in future deals, that is).