[News] Red Wings Plan new $650 Million Arena

[valo403]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Wow - don't "first of all" me, of all things!

They can't pay the interest on their debt. They're negotiating with lenders for them to forgive 90% of their loans - rather than file for bankruptcy. It's a last ditch effort to avoid filing bankruptcy.
If you want to get bogged down in technicals - they didn't declare bankruptcy - however they will file for bankruptcy undoubtedly - should their lenders refuse Orr's offer to pay back only 10%.

Also, government doesn't have to "build stuff" to revitalize neighborhoods. They need to use their cheap living expenses to attract businesses to Detroit to create jobs. If the arena is going to attract customers - then there will be a line up of private companies willing to spend their own money to revitalize the neighborhood. 60% of buildings in Detroit have been abandoned. Spending money on a few blocks will only push them further into debt. They need to spend their money on police, schools, and their debt. Anything else is out of the question.

Very troubling how gullible people are to believe that government has to build things to get the economy going, this is main stream media propaganda at its finest. Regulations need to be removed so there are cost advantages for businesses in Detroit vs. other cities and countries.

Don't first of all you? How about you get your basic facts together then. Your statement was 100% false, either due to an attempt at hyperbole or just a general lack of knowledge.

And yes of course, I've been hooked by the mainstream media. It's not like I have spent years around Detroit and have numerous friends involved in efforts to revitalize the city or anything.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Private businesses are the most efficient allocators of capital - this has been shown to be true time and time again.

You're proposing that the solution to Detroit's debt problem, is to take on more debt. That's unequivocally wrong. Get rid of regulations and let companies come in and have cost advantages. Whenever there's a regulation, a company has to spend money to comply with the regulation - this is a cost of compliance. Or in Obamacare's case - employers refuse to hire workers to meet the minimum cut off to participate in that program.
It's free to eliminate regulations.

No it hasn't, this hasn't been proven "time and time again." That's a myth, something sounding like common wisdom repeated ad nauseum until people treat it as truth when it's not.

A quick counter example is the health industry in the US. More money spent on less. Very poor allocation of capital. By private businesses.

[Magnum PEI]

They better make it so that people's heads arent constantly blocking the camera.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by valo403

What number is bigger, 6 or 2? Would you rather have 6 million invested in your city or 2?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by those numbers, but they aren't going to throw 300 million dollars into the river if they don't spend it on the Red Wings, are they? It's not a "invest in hockey or invest in nothing" scenario, far as I can tell.

Like I said, I've never even been there, but I know they aren't able to pay for just the basic services. To me that means there is a long list of things that take priority over hockey.

Originally Posted by valo403

If that city wants to exist in a decade it needs to provide a reason for people to be there. This is providing a reason to visit and a reason to stay in the form of office and residential space.

Btw, the only area of Detroit that anyone from the surrounding counties visits is the stadium area. It is literally the only reason that almost everyone I know ever goes into downtown Detroit. It has kept the area alive more than anything else.

The way this reads to me is that only way to get anyone to even visit downtown for a few hours is for the taxpayers who actually live in the city to pay for a hockey rink they won't be able to to use. That sounds like a raw deal to me.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by those numbers, but they aren't going to throw 300 million dollars into the river if they don't spend it on the Red Wings, are they? It's not a "invest in hockey or invest in nothing" scenario, far as I can tell.

Like I said, I've never even been there, but I know they aren't able to pay for just the basic services. To me that means there is a long list of things that take priority over hockey.




The way this reads to me is that only way to get anyone to even visit downtown for a few hours is for the taxpayers who actually live in the city to pay for a hockey rink they won't be able to to use. That sounds like a raw deal to me.

Apologies, I was a couple cocktails in and typing on my phone, so not the most eloquent response.

My point is that Detroit is in a position where it needs to entice development or it will die. A city like Calgary can entice development to certain areas by doing things like they did in the east village, relatively minor things with little city cost, because there's plenty of desire to develop in Calgary in general and the city's aim is more about directing that development to certain areas. With Detroit there is very little independent appetite to develop. Businesses are not going to invest in Detroit without being incentivized, and it's going to take more than it would in pretty much any other city. The only way Detroit gets that $400mil investment by Ilitch is by partnering and putting in $200mil of it's own.

It's a case of spending $200 to get $400. You could spend it on other resources (actually you can't, these funds are earmarked for development but let's assume you could), but in all likelihood that arena is being built out in Oakland County and that $400mil of development cash is gone forever. To me it's a matter of developing a base from which the city can survive going forward. In the short term an upgraded hospital would be great, but if you haven't developed an economic base for the city that upgraded hospital will be out of money in short order either way. Detroit needs to bring business back to the city, and this project does that through large scale office developments along with the arena, it gives the city more to build itself back up upon, and hopefully it creates an economic base that allows for a stable future where funds are being generated to pay for both essential and non-essential services.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Don't first of all you? How about you get your basic facts together then. Your statement was 100% false, either due to an attempt at hyperbole or just a general lack of knowledge.

And yes of course, I've been hooked by the mainstream media. It's not like I have spent years around Detroit and have numerous friends involved in efforts to revitalize the city or anything.

The best you can do is a credibility attack saying I don't have my facts together
-after providing a link to an article, and posting a quote from that article, which says the city is asking is debtors to restructure their debt.

Please valo - take a deep breath and stop taking things personally.

If you believe government should build communist blocks - just like Eastern Europe - I can tell YOU first hand central planning don't work.

Whoever said sell the land for $1 has the right idea. Detroit failed at spending $11 billion, so it's laughable to suggest they should be in charge of a "revitalization".

There's no revitalization to be had because there's no jobs! All the jobs are out of state in boring states that are benefiting from shale gas. If you want to attract businesses, lower taxes, regulations, instead of subsidizing a company with a free building.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Apologies, I was a couple cocktails in and typing on my phone, so not the most eloquent response.

My point is that Detroit is in a position where it needs to entice development or it will die. A city like Calgary can entice development to certain areas by doing things like they did in the east village, relatively minor things with little city cost, because there's plenty of desire to develop in Calgary in general and the city's aim is more about directing that development to certain areas. With Detroit there is very little independent appetite to develop. Businesses are not going to invest in Detroit without being incentivized, and it's going to take more than it would in pretty much any other city. The only way Detroit gets that $400mil investment by Ilitch is by partnering and putting in $200mil of it's own.

It's a case of spending $200 to get $400. You could spend it on other resources (actually you can't, these funds are earmarked for development but let's assume you could), but in all likelihood that arena is being built out in Oakland County and that $400mil of development cash is gone forever. To me it's a matter of developing a base from which the city can survive going forward. In the short term an upgraded hospital would be great, but if you haven't developed an economic base for the city that upgraded hospital will be out of money in short order either way. Detroit needs to bring business back to the city, and this project does that through large scale office developments along with the arena, it gives the city more to build itself back up upon, and hopefully it creates an economic base that allows for a stable future where funds are being generated to pay for both essential and non-essential services.

100% wrong, get facts - stop spreading lies.

60% of structures in Detroit are vacant. It's not office space that's the problem I can tell you that. 60%!

Building companies free stuff doesn't bring them back - low regulations, cheap labour, cost advantages do bring them back. Free policy changes.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by korzym12

100% wrong, get facts - stop spreading lies.

60% of structures in Detroit are vacant. It's not office space that's the problem I can tell you that. 60%!

Building companies free stuff doesn't bring them back - low regulations, cheap labour, cost advantages do bring them back. Free policy changes.

You shoot down his well supported logical argument with a "NOPE!"? C'mon you've got to do better than that. Your posts are just cliche notions of how to fix problems with "popular" decisions. (ie don't spend public money). You could probably write for the Sun with your level of arguments.

Detroit has cheap labour and many advantages. Redevelopment is a great way to spur economic development (even if somewhat concentrated in one area). Think how many people are getting a share of that $500M+. It doesn't just go to the owners' pockets.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You shoot down his well supported logical argument with a "NOPE!"? C'mon you've got to do better than that. Your posts are just cliche notions of how to fix problems with "popular" decisions. (ie don't spend public money). You could probably write for the Sun with your level of arguments.

Detroit has cheap labour and many advantages. Redevelopment is a great way to spur economic development (even if somewhat concentrated in one area). Think how many people are getting a share of that $500M+. It doesn't just go to the owners' pockets.

Productivity and efficient capital allocation. Building a ditch/etc helps neither. This is why those jobs are being sent to mexico, china, etc. That's the problem, it's not a subjective "government has to build something and businesses will re-appear".

Explain to me how government going further into debt, providing corporate handouts - helps with Detroit's debt problems? How does that improve productivity? Good luck.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Productivity and efficient capital allocation. Building a ditch/etc helps neither. This is why those jobs are being sent to mexico, china, etc. That's the problem, it's not a subjective "government has to build something and businesses will re-appear".

Explain to me how government going further into debt, providing corporate handouts - helps with Detroit's debt problems? How does that improve productivity? Good luck.

I'm still waiting for proof of your "shown to be true time and time again" statement.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I'm still waiting for proof of your "shown to be true time and time again" statement.

It's hard to provide proof when all he's got is simplistic notions, economic buzzwords and straw man arguments.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

It's hard to provide proof when all he's got is simplistic notions, economic buzzwords and straw man arguments.

It's even harder to provide proof of an economic argument to someone who evidently doesn't know any economics. What he's saying is perfectly mainstream, Chicago School stuff, and abundantly justified by centuries of empirical data.

Some Keynesians, it's true, have this fanciful idea that if government spends money to dig holes and then fill them up again, wealth is somehow produced by the transaction. It tends to make the other Keynesians rather angry that they have to have those bozos on their side.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by korzym12

The best you can do is a credibility attack saying I don't have my facts together
-after providing a link to an article, and posting a quote from that article, which says the city is asking is debtors to restructure their debt.

Please valo - take a deep breath and stop taking things personally.

If you believe government should build communist blocks - just like Eastern Europe - I can tell YOU first hand central planning don't work.

Whoever said sell the land for $1 has the right idea. Detroit failed at spending $11 billion, so it's laughable to suggest they should be in charge of a "revitalization".

There's no revitalization to be had because there's no jobs! All the jobs are out of state in boring states that are benefiting from shale gas. If you want to attract businesses, lower taxes, regulations, instead of subsidizing a company with a free building.

I would say attacking your credibility when you've made a 100% false statement is a pretty obvious approach. If you want to be credible you should probably be factual.

We apparently have different views on what will revitalize Detroit, and likely completely different political philosophies, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with you on that (but bravo on equating this to communist office blocks, a very intelligent scope shift there which avoids you having to actually argue your point). I will say that having spent quite a bit of time in Detroit there have only been two types of development that have brought any life to the downtown area, casinos and stadiums, and I'd much rather see a stadium go up than another casino.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by korzym12

100% wrong, get facts - stop spreading lies.

60% of structures in Detroit are vacant. It's not office space that's the problem I can tell you that. 60%!

Building companies free stuff doesn't bring them back - low regulations, cheap labour, cost advantages do bring them back. Free policy changes.

You're cute

[Northendzone]

Persoanlly, I love how all these arena projects are wrapped up with redevelopment, it seems like a real sleight of hand. A rich NHL owner dreams of a new rink, and hey let's throw up some office towers/condos/restaurants and get some govt funding. Sort of like what has happened in edm.

I see in this case they say they are not using new funds, but rather redirecting funds - so theoretically there will be other projects that don't get done.

It will be interesting to hear what the people/taxpayers of Detroit think about this project.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Persoanlly, I love how all these arena projects are wrapped up with redevelopment, it seems like a real sleight of hand. A rich NHL owner dreams of a new rink, and hey let's throw up some office towers/condos/restaurants and get some govt funding. Sort of like what has happened in edm.

I see in this case they say they are not using new funds, but rather redirecting funds - so theoretically there will be other projects that don't get done.

It will be interesting to hear what the people/taxpayers of Detroit think about this project.

I don't disagree, but in this case you are looking at 2/3 of the funding being private, and I imagine that's probably fairly close to how much of the total cost will be attributable to the arena development versus the associated business and residential developments. If these were two separate projects across the street from one another nobody would say a word, partner them together and all of a sudden it's a travesty.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by valo403

I would say attacking your credibility when you've made a 100% false statement is a pretty obvious approach. If you want to be credible you should probably be factual.

We apparently have different views on what will revitalize Detroit, and likely completely different political philosophies, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with you on that (but bravo on equating this to communist office blocks, a very intelligent scope shift there which avoids you having to actually argue your point). I will say that having spent quite a bit of time in Detroit there have only been two types of development that have brought any life to the downtown area, casinos and stadiums, and I'd much rather see a stadium go up than another casino.

Again you're the one who's coming out and saying "duuuuh - you're wrong, your facts are wrong"

Go read my links from CNN and ZeroHedge.

You haven't provided any information, you're trolling this thread saying my facts are wrong, or that I haven't provided facts after providing links.

When the foundation of your argument is "government must redevelop for business to come back" - I'm sorry but this is a pure lack of understanding of economics. So don't make up for it by accusing me of not providing facts.

You've made a lot of accusations and stated your opinion without providing any facts. I'm not giving you anything, YOU do what I say and give me some facts. Give me backup for "government must redevelop and then business come back". And just as a final note, academic journals have never referenced 'knowing a friend who's going through something' as an information source - as you did.

[korzym12]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's even harder to provide proof of an economic argument to someone who evidently doesn't know any economics. What he's saying is perfectly mainstream, Chicago School stuff, and abundantly justified by centuries of empirical data.

Some Keynesians, it's true, have this fanciful idea that if government spends money to dig holes and then fill them up again, wealth is somehow produced by the transaction. It tends to make the other Keynesians rather angry that they have to have those bozos on their side.

Valo's argument is that:
-if government spends taxpayer dollars on new buildings, business will return.
-that because he has a friend who lives in Detroit, his opinion is correct

I've brought up:
-Allocating capital efficiently
-Improving productivity
-Eliminating regulations
-creating competitive advantages with respect to costs
-60% of buildings in Detroit are abandoned
-Emergency manager Orr providing unsecured creditors with an ultimatum to accept $2 billion of $11 billion in unsecured debt - or face bankruptcy, cnn link included

These are facts that move a thread forward. When someone keeps responding with "no your wrong, you haven't provided any facts" - this is what an internet troll does. At the end of the day this is Alberta and fortunately the vast majority of people understand the importance of low taxes and fiscally responsible government spending.

As for valo - he faces the disgrace of being ignored. I have bigger fish to fry than internet fights with socialists.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Again you're the one who's coming out and saying "duuuuh - you're wrong, your facts are wrong"

Go read my links from CNN and ZeroHedge.

You haven't provided any information, you're trolling this thread saying my facts are wrong, or that I haven't provided facts after providing links.

When the foundation of your argument is "government must redevelop for business to come back" - I'm sorry but this is a pure lack of understanding of economics. So don't make up for it by accusing me of not providing facts.

You've made a lot of accusations and stated your opinion without providing any facts. I'm not giving you anything, YOU do what I say and give me some facts. Give me backup for "government must redevelop and then business come back". And just as a final note, academic journals have never referenced 'knowing a friend who's going through something' as an information source - as you did.

Your claim that Detroit has declared bankruptcy is 100% factually incorrect. This is not debatable.

I have at no time claimed that anything I have presented is factual, it is quite clearly my opinion on how to best develop Detroit. Perhaps you need to brush up on the difference between fact and opinion.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by korzym12

Valo's argument is that:
-if government spends taxpayer dollars on new buildings, business will return.
-that because he has a friend who lives in Detroit, his opinion is correct

I've brought up:
-Allocating capital efficiently
-Improving productivity
-Eliminating regulations
-creating competitive advantages with respect to costs
-60% of buildings in Detroit are abandoned
-Emergency manager Orr providing unsecured creditors with an ultimatum to accept $2 billion of $11 billion in unsecured debt - or face bankruptcy, cnn link included

These are facts that move a thread forward. When someone keeps responding with "no your wrong, you haven't provided any facts" - this is what an internet troll does. At the end of the day this is Alberta and fortunately the vast majority of people understand the importance of low taxes and fiscally responsible government spending.

As for valo - he faces the disgrace of being ignored. I have bigger fish to fry than internet fights with socialists.

Hahahahahahahaha, oh man. That socialist line really got me. Love it.