New Edmonton Arena Construction will begin in March 2014

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

That's correct. It would cover the $100 million gulf.

Council would decide but they've really already decided. They're not taking money away from other projects because there will be an increase to the MSI and that is what will go to the arena.

Calgary will be getting the same increase, which makes me wonder what they will do with it.

This is the thinking that makes Edmonton look like a bunch of rubes. There is a finite tax base in that city and a finite amount of money from the provincial government. I know the CRL is created by an increase in the property values around the arena, but the Oiler's aren't spurring economic activity past what they already do and the arena is the same, so in reality they're just trasfering the tax base from one area to another, then using the money to build an arena. It's another subsidy from City for the arena/Oilers and should be looked at that way. You can argue that it's a targeted subsidy that effects the people that will benefit most, but its not the same as Boeing building a factory in Leduc and creating 2000 jobs that weren't there before while using government money to subsidize the factory construction.


I mean I can put up with Oiler fans telling me their team's going to be awesome "one day", but to come in here and tell me that the CRL is money that's being created from this brilliant idea and not just a subsidy is garbage. The MSI is also a finite amoutn therefore the arena project takes away from any other project that would be going ahead in Edmonton, there is no arguing that unless you can show me that Edmonton's economic activity increases enough to offset the cost of the arena.


Now don't get me wrong, a city should build amenities, that's what makes it great, but the boys up north shouldn't lie to their populace. Katz is right, to compete in the NHL the Oiler's need a new building and the economics of a place like Edmonton just don't work on a 35yr lease. That's why no private investors wanted to touch this deal. Accept that...then tell the public flat out that for Edmonton to be an NHL city long term they need every citizen to fork over $200 for a new rink. Doesn't matter how you dress it up that's the bottom line up there. Will Calgary have to do the same thing...we will wait and see.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

Katz is right, to compete in the NHL the Oiler's need a new building and the economics of a place like Edmonton just don't work on a 35yr lease. That's why no private investors wanted to touch this deal.

Great post except for this part. Katz doesn't want to put up the money because he figures he can get it with other people's money instead. Private investors other than Katz don't want to touch it because without a stake in the NHL team attached to the rink its a money pit.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Great post except for this part. Katz doesn't want to put up the money because he figures he can get it with other people's money instead. Private investors other than Katz don't want to touch it because without a stake in the NHL team attached to the rink its a money pit.

I agree that is Katz motivation. I believe he has a similar model of using other peoples money in his drug stores.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

This is the thinking that makes Edmonton look like a bunch of rubes. There is a finite tax base in that city and a finite amount of money from the provincial government. I know the CRL is created by an increase in the property values around the arena, but the Oiler's aren't spurring economic activity past what they already do and the arena is the same, so in reality they're just trasfering the tax base from one area to another, then using the money to build an arena. It's another subsidy from City for the arena/Oilers and should be looked at that way. You can argue that it's a targeted subsidy that effects the people that will benefit most, but its not the same as Boeing building a factory in Leduc and creating 2000 jobs that weren't there before while using government money to subsidize the factory construction.


I mean I can put up with Oiler fans telling me their team's going to be awesome "one day", but to come in here and tell me that the CRL is money that's being created from this brilliant idea and not just a subsidy is garbage. The MSI is also a finite amoutn therefore the arena project takes away from any other project that would be going ahead in Edmonton, there is no arguing that unless you can show me that Edmonton's economic activity increases enough to offset the cost of the arena.


Now don't get me wrong, a city should build amenities, that's what makes it great, but the boys up north shouldn't lie to their populace. Katz is right, to compete in the NHL the Oiler's need a new building and the economics of a place like Edmonton just don't work on a 35yr lease. That's why no private investors wanted to touch this deal. Accept that...then tell the public flat out that for Edmonton to be an NHL city long term they need every citizen to fork over $200 for a new rink. Doesn't matter how you dress it up that's the bottom line up there. Will Calgary have to do the same thing...we will wait and see.

I posted an article a while back on that very subject. A UofA Economics professor called the CRL a 'shell game.'

Simply taking money from elsewhere and shuffling it around. Nothing new is being created.

[Bingo]

I've said in my office for years now that we should all be able to log into a city of calgary website and spend our X units of tax dollars on various projects.

Take infrastructure and essentials out of it and then leave it to a true plebiscite on every other dollar spent, including an option for tax reduction.

It would end the bickering. If the 99.5% of tax payers picked other options the Flames would get nothing, and maybe the Peace Bridge wouldn't get built.

If however 44% allocated money to a new building then people couldn't bitch about it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've said in my office for years now that we should all be able to log into a city of calgary website and spend our X units of tax dollars on various projects.

Take infrastructure and essentials out of it and then leave it to a true plebiscite on every other dollar spent, including an option for tax reduction.

It would end the bickering. If the 99.5% of tax payers picked other options the Flames would get nothing, and maybe the Peace Bridge wouldn't get built.

If however 44% allocated money to a new building then people couldn't bitch about it.

Although it has a certain superficial democratic appeal, its difficult to imagine a less efficient way to allocate government/community resources.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Although it has a certain superficial democratic appeal, its difficult to imagine a less efficient way to allocate government/community resources.

Efficiency? In Government? Are we even talking about the same things here?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've said in my office for years now that we should all be able to log into a city of calgary website and spend our X units of tax dollars on various projects.

Take infrastructure and essentials out of it and then leave it to a true plebiscite on every other dollar spent, including an option for tax reduction.

It would end the bickering. If the 99.5% of tax payers picked other options the Flames would get nothing, and maybe the Peace Bridge wouldn't get built.

If however 44% allocated money to a new building then people couldn't bitch about it.

City spending decisions made democratically is a terrible idea, really. Necessary infrastructure upgrades might never be done. Way to many "sexy" projects would be done. It might not be a peace bridge, but roads and interchanges would get advanced instead of upgrading water and sewers services, would could end up in disaster.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've said in my office for years now that we should all be able to log into a city of calgary website and spend our X units of tax dollars on various projects.

Take infrastructure and essentials out of it and then leave it to a true plebiscite on every other dollar spent, including an option for tax reduction.

It would end the bickering. If the 99.5% of tax payers picked other options the Flames would get nothing, and maybe the Peace Bridge wouldn't get built.

If however 44% allocated money to a new building then people couldn't bitch about it.

Monorail

Monorail

Monorail...

Monorail!

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

He did say to take essentials and infrastructure out of it.

At the same time how you define essential and infrastructure would then just be the game and we would be back to square one because I believe an overpass on Crowchild to reduce Cochrane commute times is much less essential than the Peace bridge.

Exactly. For any expenditure, you could find a group of people that think it's absolutely essential.

Thanks to limited municipal funding, there are essential projects that aren't done simply because we don't have money for them.

I'm not totally against a few democratic votes on specific projects/issues, but for the most part, it's simply a bad idea. The general public isn't educated on all the issues related to a project. That's why we "theoretically" pay people to represent us, to spend time educating themselves to make informed decisions. (and I realize that not nearly all decisions are made by council)

I wouldn't trust the public to make a informed decision on arena funding for one. The project is far too "sexy."

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Monorail

Monorail

Monorail...

Monorail!

MONO! D'oh!

[Fluffy Bunnies]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Monorail

Monorail

Monorail...

Monorail!

Is there a chance the track could bend?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Exactly. For any expenditure, you could find a group of people that think it's absolutely essential.

Thanks to limited municipal funding, there are essential projects that aren't done simply because we don't have money for them.

I'm not totally against a few democratic votes on specific projects/issues, but for the most part, it's simply a bad idea. The general public isn't educated on all the issues related to a project. That's why we "theoretically" pay people to represent us, to spend time educating themselves to make informed decisions. (and I realize that not nearly all decisions are made by council)

I wouldn't trust the public to make a informed decision on arena funding for one. The project is far too "sexy."

Far too sexy or maybe the truth is that many of the projects some people deem essential really aren't that essential. We have been coping without these essential projects just fine over the years. The only thing constant in Calgary over the last decade is road construction everywhere. At what point do motorists just have to suck it up and live with an extra 10 minutes in their commute?

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Monorail

Monorail

Monorail...

Monorail!

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

This is the thinking that makes Edmonton look like a bunch of rubes. There is a finite tax base in that city and a finite amount of money from the provincial government. I know the CRL is created by an increase in the property values around the arena, but the Oiler's aren't spurring economic activity past what they already do and the arena is the same, so in reality they're just trasfering the tax base from one area to another, then using the money to build an arena. It's another subsidy from City for the arena/Oilers and should be looked at that way. You can argue that it's a targeted subsidy that effects the people that will benefit most, but its not the same as Boeing building a factory in Leduc and creating 2000 jobs that weren't there before while using government money to subsidize the factory construction.

Sure there's a finite amount (aside from tourism, which the Oilers no doubt help generate), but the city -- and all cities -- benefit from a strong core. Less sprawl means less infrastructure needed in the fringe areas, less traffic, etc.

One of Edmonton's biggest issues has been that since West Edmonton Mall was developed, that economic development was displaced at that time to the suburbs. They've been trying to reverse that for years and this looks to be the best catalyst to do so. There's at least 5 condo tower projects just waiting for this arena to get the green light so they can start building. The one that has started (Ultima, 30 stories) sold out in two days so it seems it's what the citizens want, too.

It moves economic development from other parts of the city to downtown but that is exactly what the city wants. It's what their vision is.

[Tinordi]

Seems to be a broader movement to end these publicly financed stadiums:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3281667

MIAMI -- Art and wine collector, philanthropist, luxury auto dealer, former owner of the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles. Now Norman Braman can add this: staunch opponent of a giant $3 billion public works deal that includes a long-sought stadium for baseball's Florida Marlins.

Braman is suing to stop Miami's so-called "global agreement" in its tracks, contending it was illegally hatched in secret and improperly uses money intended to cure urban blight and help poor people. Braman wants voters to decide projects of such magnitude, rather than politicians.

"Taxpayers in this town have been ripped off constantly over the years," Braman said in a recent interview in his downtown Miami office.

"It's time that as citizens of this community that we say enough is enough -- that we're not going to put up with this any more," he added.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by Fluffy Bunnies

Is there a chance the track could bend?

How about us brain-dead slobs?

/Lyle Lanley FTW!

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by Fluffy Bunnies

Is there a chance the track could bend?

not on your life my hindu friend!

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've said in my office for years now that we should all be able to log into a city of calgary website and spend our X units of tax dollars on various projects.

Take infrastructure and essentials out of it and then leave it to a true plebiscite on every other dollar spent, including an option for tax reduction.

It would end the bickering. If the 99.5% of tax payers picked other options the Flames would get nothing, and maybe the Peace Bridge wouldn't get built.

If however 44% allocated money to a new building then people couldn't bitch about it.

God help us if that ever happened.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've said in my office for years now that we should all be able to log into a city of calgary website and spend our X units of tax dollars on various projects.

Take infrastructure and essentials out of it and then leave it to a true plebiscite on every other dollar spent, including an option for tax reduction.

It would end the bickering. If the 99.5% of tax payers picked other options the Flames would get nothing, and maybe the Peace Bridge wouldn't get built.

If however 44% allocated money to a new building then people couldn't bitch about it.

It would be great except that most people are dumber than a bag of hammers. The shell game would just be moved to coming up with creative ways of classifying essential services.

Would I support any type of public funding for a new arena? Most likely no but, would I support public funds for an arena, convention centre, new central library, light rail/commuter rail transportation hub? Probably would. Hopefully the Flames are working on something a little more creative.