Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[Stealth22]

Clicked on this thread hoping for an update. Had to read through 7 pages to find the bump.

Left disappointed.

[PeteMoss]

The whole reason to build the new arena is so the owners can make more money.

The current arena is old but its not falling apart. They could still use it. Why fund something that is only being put in place to make the owners more money.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Encana and Cenovus provide positive economic impact to the city and create jobs. Having a world class skyscraper like the Bow is important to the city.

The government should chip in for the Bow.


I don't get what part of the arena argument is unique that can be applied to any other building that any other business operates in.

Hockey is a sport that is shown to be economically self sufficient in Calgary. I'd rather the money go to sports/arts/music/museum facilities that can not exist without government funds yet provide positive impact on citizens of Calgary. I know it's all hard to measure, so please don't throw wrenches in my utopian line of thinking.

For the most part - new commercial development pays property tax at a lower rate than existing property. They are also tax breaks given out for developing. They don't come around and drop off bags of money but there are government incentives to build/develop a business.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

For the most part - new commercial development pays property tax at a lower rate than existing property. They are also tax breaks given out for developing. They don't come around and drop off bags of money but there are government incentives to build/develop a business.

So you're saying they subsidize buildings

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So you're saying they subsidize buildings

The Flames will get those same incentives. They also want the bags of money to help pay for it that most other business' don't get.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The Flames will get those same incentives. They also want the bags of money to help pay for it that most other business' don't get.

Link?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL how does the Bow benefit a person like me that is not employed by EnCana nor is my job in any way influenced by EnCana?

Pretty sure he was using this example to prove his point that an arena shouldn't be something special that should be funded publicly....

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Link?

I don't have a link. But its the basis of the entire discussion we are having here. If they don't ask for public funds they will an extreme outlier versus every other team owner and they will have problem getting the thing built.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Economists have measured these benefits and tried to put actual dollar figures to how much the intrinsic value is to people. When push comes to shove these benefits are about two orders of magnitude less than whatever the public cost was.

I've been beating this drum for a while now but there isn't one honest methodologically sound analysis that shows that public subsidies of private arenas is a sound economic decision.

And yes all the arguments you raise have been well explored.

Let's call this as it is. A bunch of billionaires see an opportunity to have someone else pay for their stuff. Who wouldn't try to bilk the unwashed masses and dress it up as civic pride?

That's the problem though.

I am asking the question, does there have to be an economic value to make it something still worth doing? I am not trying to convert intrinsic value to economic value.

Surely there are things in the world that cost money and don't return a profit, but are still worth having.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I don't have a link. But its the basis of the entire discussion we are having here. If they don't ask for public funds they will an extreme outlier versus every other team owner and they will have problem getting the thing built.

Of course they will ask. They must see the sweet deal Katz got and are salivating.
The 'debate' is how much and how. Infrastructure will also be a significant cost, outside of the actual building cost. Should the Flames also pay for it?

Zero public funds in the entire scope of the project isn't an acceptable amount, imo. Neither is the ridicules amount of public dollars that are going into Edmonton's building.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the problem though.

I am asking the question, does there have to be an economic value to make it something still worth doing? I am not trying to convert intrinsic value to economic value.

Surely there are things in the world that cost money and don't return a profit, but are still worth having.

I think the short answer is yes. A new arena would raise the city up a few notches from a qualitative/instrinsic point of view, in addition to any economic factors.

[DriveByPunch]

I'm really looking forward to about 4 more years of this debate.....

Perhaps before getting all worked up about this, lets wait until there is actually something to debate. As far as I'm aware there has been no formal request as of yet.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Of course they will ask. They must see the sweet deal Katz got and are salivating.
The 'debate' is how much and how. Infrastructure will also be a significant cost, outside of the actual building cost. Should the Flames also pay for it?

Zero public funds in the entire scope of the project isn't an acceptable amount, imo. Neither is the ridicules amount of public dollars that are going into Edmonton's building.

Maybe the city should give the land and pay for the infrastructure, and the Flames should finance the entire building construction. That seems fair to me.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by heep223

Maybe the city should give the land and pay for the infrastructure, and the Flames should finance the entire building construction. That seems fair to me.

Something anyway.

As bad as Edmonton is on one side (public funds), Ottawa was ridiculous on the other (private). For example, having to pay 17M to build the off-ramp to the arena.

[Radio]

It's "ridiculous", not "ridicules"...I don't want the other kids to make fun of you.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

People act as though "corporate welfare" is not a common practice. The government through numerous ways (tax breaks, subsidies, ect..) actively encourage businesses to locate and operate in this city and province all the time because it's good for the economy of the region.

It's just very few of these things are as above board and noticeable or as scrutinized as a new arena for a hockey team. Back in the Klein days, they literally branded the tax reduction / subsidy program that gave big enterprise business tax breaks and exemptions the "Alberta Advantage". Don't kid your self, this stuff happens all the time with for profit businesses and is a key pillar of our local economy.

Ok, but if the government is wasting money on one thing doesn't mean they should waste money on something else to even it out.

For example, just because Murray Edwards and CNQ are getting a boat load of $$ with a government guaranteed contract for the north west refining partnership and Murray Edwards and Enhance Energy are getting a boat load of $$ from the government carbon fund for the carbon trunk line, doesn't mean Murray Edwards and the Flames should get a bunch of $$ for a new arena.

What it means is we should stop subsidizing businesses and billionaires, and have lower taxes for everyone. (Or more money for health/education, or something that isn't corporate welfare)

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Tax breaks are one thing, but are there good examples of government directly subsidizing buildings to be used by private companies?

There are lots of parallels, though perhaps not wth the same single wealthy tenant.

The east village is public infrastructure in the hopes private enterprise will come in and make a profit, where no higher purpose is being served other than the city just wanted te development.

The Epcor centre exists so private performers have a place to make money, and was built (kinda) by the city.

the convention centre is a city building that exists for private enterprise. For many years the airport was the same - though it's different now, it's still public infrastructure that exists to make private commerce possible.

The Calgary film studio is almost exactly an example of what you mean.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You need to be more distinct. What exactly about Museum showings, CPO, Heritage Park are not available now that were then? There are all still here. And how much does the City actually do at these privately owned facilities?

Additionally, you list five items of the entire Public Art collection that you arbitrarily do not like. Personally I happen to like a couple of those pieces, as well as a number of other public art initiatives. Are you saying the quality of public art is now worse? All of the public art collection is crap? Or are you disagreeing with providing funding for these things in the first place?

If you support public art, you are more than welcome to contribute to the artist-led focus groups and sit on a citizen selection panel. The West LRT Public Art program is doing just that, for example.

OK. You asked me what I enjoyed art's wise in 1980 and I listed the above items. The public art items I chose above are in fact not worth the money that is spent on them, not because the art isn't good or well done, but because of the cost and locations they are located. I personally have an issue with any municipal government spending cash that could be better used to benefit the needy on their pet projects (my words only). I don't want to sit on a focus group as I think it is a waste of money that is inflationary in costs to projects, and as this is a concern of mine I do take up the issue with my Alderman.

If you like the public art spending good for you and please continue to support your choice. I just happen to think that the city should support a new facility with some of MY tax money. When the Public Art Policy is inflating the cost of projects it should be a concern for all citizens (See 16th Ave cost overruns).

[Jer Bu]

Is there a viable model - aka profitable - where the city would build the entire thing, and then collect revenues from the Flames (long term lease), food/booze sales, entertainment etc?
The city locks the flames in for 30 years at a fair rent, and then rents it out to all the great entertainment that will be coming to town once this thing is built?

Can this stadium end up being ACTUALLY profitable for the city, as opposed to trying to measure the value of arts and culture, and status, and all soft emotional stuff. Has building a new stadium ever been measurably profitable for a city or state?

Bu

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jer Bu

Is there a viable model - aka profitable - where the city would build the entire thing, and then collect revenues from the Flames (long term lease), food/booze sales, entertainment etc?
The city locks the flames in for 30 years at a fair rent, and then rents it out to all the great entertainment that will be coming to town once this thing is built?

Can this stadium end up being ACTUALLY profitable for the city, as opposed to trying to measure the value of arts and culture, and status, and all soft emotional stuff. Has building a new stadium ever been measurably profitable for a city or state?

Bu

You can be profitable on a year to year basis, but likely not enough to cover the initial cash outlay if you aren't also the primary tenant.

EDIT:
I'll add to this since there is a ton of variables (as background i used to work in the finance department of the (likely most successful mid-size facility in Canada - not NHL sized so there could be variances that I missing). In most cases, you'd end up having to hire a company to manage the place. The city could try to do it themselves but that's a risky venture, those companies aren't cheap and will want a share of any profit.

You'd have to make the rent reasonable for the Flames, this is particularly a big issue in Calgary since the Flames and Hitman are owned by the same group and cover so many dates. They would get a share of all the in-building advertising and concession money. Big acts that come through aren't big money makers. The require a big guarantee to get them in the building and the union people who come in to do the set-up are not cheap.