350 million from province for museum...None for arenas

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by MacGruber

I'm a hockey fan and even I think comparing an arena to a museum is ridiculous.

I think it needs to be reiterated that the comparison made in the thread title is pretty misleading.

It's not a one-to-one relationship where the funding of arenas is somehow sacrificed so that the Edmonton museum can be funded.

[getbak]

Speaking of the Oilers' new arena: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmo.../17903976.html

Edmonton's City Council met Wednesday night and approved a plan for financing the new arena...sort of. They've agreed to providing $250 million in funding through a "community revitalization levy" (whatever that is), and a ticket tax. The only hitch is that Katz doesn't necessarily want there to be a ticket tax. Also, the other hitch is that with the city's $250 million, and the $100 million that Katz has pledged, they're still $100 million short of the $450 million anticipated cost.


Also, according to this, there's a lot of money flowing into Edmonton for new projects and/or upgrades (about a billion with the new museum and arena): http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/co.../17915771.html

Where'd they get all that money?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by getbak

Speaking of the Oilers' new arena: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmo.../17903976.html

Edmonton's City Council met Wednesday night and approved a plan for financing the new arena...sort of. They've agreed to providing $250 million in funding through a "community revitalization levy" (whatever that is), and a ticket tax. The only hitch is that Katz doesn't necessarily want there to be a ticket tax. Also, the other hitch is that with the city's $250 million, and the $100 million that Katz has pledged, they're still $100 million short of the $450 million anticipated cost.


Also, according to this, there's a lot of money flowing into Edmonton for new projects and/or upgrades (about a billion with the new museum and arena): http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/co.../17915771.html

Where'd they get all that money?

It's the same way that the East Village is being funded in Calgary, and is also sometimes known as Tax Increment Funding. What happens is that an area is chosen, the money for the project is borrowed, and the property taxes for that area are frozen at the same amount while the project is constructed over a time period. After it is complete, the property taxes are unfrozen, and given the increased property value they will have, the taxes will be higher. The difference on the taxes from before and after goes directly into paying back the loan for however long it takes to be paid back.

Edmonton is also the first municipality to be awarded the Province's Green TRIP funding for use on a project, using $497M to help build their new North LRT line to NAIT.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Edmonton is also the first municipality to be awarded the Province's Green TRIP funding for use on a project, using $497M to help build their new North LRT line to NAIT.

So does this mean we can get $497M for our LRT?

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Mtt48

This sucks for Calgary. Edmonton already has a contemporary art museum. This sort of thing should go in Calgary, as it is needed here. It is quite pathetic that a city as rich and large as Calgary still has no contemporary art museum.

It's not an arm museum, it's the Royal Alberta Museum. totally different and belongs in the Capital

[killer_carlson]

Having been to the current Royal Alberta Museum recently, I can say I was quite impressed with the exhibits and the space. This isn't bad money, especially when you consider it brings the museum to LRT access and leaves behind an awesome building that will immediately be snatched up and re-used. Not a bad move.


On a different note, I work about half way between the 6 block window that will have the new oiler arena on one end and the museum on the other.

I'll give updates on how the construction is going

[transplant99]

I dont think taxpayer money should be used for EITHER arts/museums or arenas...or you do it for both.


I have never understood why the arts community sees themselves as any different from the sports community when it comes to these things. Just because there are players earning money from one but not the other is irrelevant...simply because you have to have those players to exist. Much like the museum needs its displays to be able to draw its patrons and i suspect that most of that stuff doesn't come for free either.

[Champion]

They see themselves different because ones public and one's private.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I dont think taxpayer money should be used for EITHER arts/museums or arenas...or you do it for both.


I have never understood why the arts community sees themselves as any different from the sports community when it comes to these things. Just because there are players earning money from one but not the other is irrelevant...simply because you have to have those players to exist. Much like the museum needs its displays to be able to draw its patrons and i suspect that most of that stuff doesn't come for free either.

Sure hope you're not

[mykalberta]

Does Calgary and Edmonton have the taxation powers to impose entertainment tax on hotels/restraunts etc like they are allowed in the US.

If not that is something I would like to see. Tax hotel and restraunt users to pay for this kind of stuff.

I am ok with Edmonton getting the museum - it is the capital and the "centre-most" big city.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have never understood why the arts community sees themselves as any different from the sports community when it comes to these things. Just because there are players earning money from one but not the other is irrelevant...simply because you have to have those players to exist. Much like the museum needs its displays to be able to draw its patrons and i suspect that most of that stuff doesn't come for free either.

Let me guess...you thought Independance Day and The Mighty Ducks were art films, didn't you?

[transplant99]

My point is (even with this ^^^ clever retort )....why cant the arts sustain themselves? Why is the government responsible for funding them?

Both are entertainment, both can logically be expected to self-sustain, yet only one always is expected to carry its own weight.

All I am saying is that if if more people enjoy/use an arena than a museum or whatever the case may be, then logically that should expect as much of the taxpayer money as the other.

I think niether should be publically funded BTW, but if one gets it then both get it. Simple really.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ A lot of the greatest art ever made was most definately not profitable for the artist in their lifetime. There is more to art than profits. There is little more to professional sports than profits.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

^ A lot of the greatest art ever made was most definately not profitable for the artist in their lifetime. There is more to art than profits. There is little more to professional sports than profits.

Nonsense.

Both are for people to go and enjoy...or not. Depends on what they like.

Taxpayer money is taxpayer money. One should never take precedence over the other simply because...well I dont know why.

If the arena is a place that generates many thousands of people enjoyment for whatever may be taking place inside of it, how does that differ from a museum doing the same thing for others?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

^ A lot of the greatest art ever made was most definately not profitable for the artist in their lifetime. There is more to art than profits. There is little more to professional sports than profits.

Patronage is an entirely different thing than massive government subsidies to artists. We live in a world where high art is more available, and cheaper than ever before.

If you like opera, or Shakespeare, or the Philharmonic, GO SEE THEM, and convince your friends to go, too.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nonsense.

Both are for people to go and enjoy...or not. Depends on what they like.

Taxpayer money is taxpayer money. One should never take precedence over the other simply because...well I dont know why.

If the arena is a place that generates many thousands of people enjoyment for whatever may be taking place inside of it, how does that differ from a museum doing the same thing for others?

Totally agree.

You couldn't pay me to go to a museum. Art is there for the people who enjoy it. The people who enjoy it are the ones who should be paying the premium.

Same goes for hockey arenas. I also think neither should get the money, but why the double standard when it comes to art and museums?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Both are for people to go and enjoy...or not. Depends on what they like.

They already have an arena.

Taxpayer money is taxpayer money. One should never take precedence over the other simply because...well I dont know why.

The preservation of our culture sometimes takes precedence over leisure.

If the arena is a place that generates many thousands of people enjoyment for whatever may be taking place inside of it, how does that differ from a museum doing the same thing for others?

Because you don't build a museum to maximize profit generation. You build it to help preserve your culture.

Should we shut down all the libraries because of the internet?

Originally Posted by puckluck

You couldn't pay me to go to a museum.

Ever been to Paris?

[transplant99]

They already have an arena.

They already have a museum as well. What's your point?

The preservation of our culture sometimes takes precedence over leisure.

I would argue that hockey is more a part of Canadian culture than anything else in existance.

Because you don't build a museum to maximize profit generation. You build it to help preserve your culture.

Ahhh...so the ONLY purpose of a museum is to preserve culture then? It has nothing to do with allowing people to enjoy what they like? If that's the case, then there is no reason for museums either...just build a massive warehouse with state of the art security and lock it up. it will always be preserved that way.

Should we shut down all the libraries because of the internet?

No idea what this means.

Ever been to Paris?

What's that got to do with anything?

[Table 5]

While I agree that hockey is an important part of Canadian culture, the arts are one of those things that is severely lacking in a place like Calgary, where as hockey is pretty well represented already. Why not attempt to boost a deficiency to make it a more rounded placed to live?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

While I agree that hockey is an important part of Canadian culture, the arts are one of those things that is severely lacking in a place like Calgary, where as hockey is pretty well represented already. Why not attempt to boost a deficiency to make it a more rounded placed to live?

The Calgary Arts are pretty decent, for example, the Opera here actually commissions original works. The problem is, I believe, mostly cultural. Sadly, most Calgarians are just not interested in the arts.