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

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From what I've read in Forbes the Flames haven't been making much of a profit if any in the first ten years of this century. Last year was profitable because we didn't spend to the cap but overall this hasn't been a money making business.

Interesting tid-bit. Those dastardly billionaire owners who people are vilifying for spending our tax dollars (without any proof that that will actually happen) have never withdrawn a dollar from the Flames. Everything goes back into the team.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From what I've read in Forbes the Flames haven't been making much of a profit if any in the first ten years of this century. Last year was profitable because we didn't spend to the cap but overall this hasn't been a money making business.

I agree, from a strictly investment standpoint, but franchise valuation has risen significantly over that time.

They made real good money in the early days though... at least once them moved to the dome.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by username

The best way to pay for a new area is to increase ticket prices to cover the costs. That "taxes" the people who are going to benefit from the new building.

IMO, people who have no interest in hockey shouldn't have their tax dollars funding a new building.

That's not really how taxes in general work though. You pay for stuff you may not use, but other people end up paying for stuff only you use. A new arena (and area) would be utilised by any fan of sports and entertainment. It's not just for hockey fans.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Oh I did love the city in 1980. There is lots of culture and soul throughout the city, but big blue circles and overpriced bridges don't add to either.

You kind of just sound like regurgitated Sun comment sections, really cliché. The bridge was Bronco's last hurrah, and the blue ring lead to a review of how the art projects are chosen (since Nenshi himself didn't like the thing). What are you still complaining about?

Art improves lives.
It inspires those who are open to inspiration.

Our city is better for having it. Your opinion is not a popular one, it's just the one many people feel the need to be belligerently loud over. We get it. Blue rings. Purple power. Point noted.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I agree, from a strictly investment standpoint, but franchise valuation has risen significantly over that time.

They made real good money in the early days though... at least once them moved to the dome.

Even in your example though based on valuation alone it's an annualized return of 10% which is ok but not great.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by heep223

All I'm saying is that this is far from a lucrative business for them.

And I don't think anyone has suggested it's a lucrative business venture.

I'm all for it - a new arena can and should have public funding. Absolutely.
How and how much is the only question.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Lots of people don't have interests in museums, or pedestrians bridges, or overpasses built for a certain portion of the population. Lots of tax money is given to things people don't care about. I don't think a venue that will host many nights of entertainment for the community is much different then those.

Publicly-funded museums, pedestrian bridges, and overpasses are not typically operated by for-profit private businesses. Subsidizing a new arena for the Flames is nothing short of corporate welfare.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Publicly-funded museums, pedestrian bridges, and overpasses are not typically operated by for-profit private businesses. Subsidizing a new arena for the Flames is nothing short of corporate welfare.

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.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Oilers got a ton of money from the city but you think it's impossible for the Flames to get money from the city for the new arena?

Their city council was moronic to give them that money. Katz threatened to move the team and it somehow worked. I can't actually believe it worked because Seattle or Kansas City are not more viable than Edmonton (in particular I think Seattle is not as good as people think).

Ultimately taxpayer funded arenas or stadiums are some of the absolute worst wastes of money. For instance the average taxpayer now will have to pay more for tickets, of which there will be fewer available, because fewer seats means more room for luxury boxes, something the average taxpayer will never utilize. It's one of the most textbook examples of corporate welfare. Taxpayers subsidize the owners making more money while the taxpayers themselves have to pay more for the product. It's pretty amazing they've been able to do it as often as they do.

[EldrickOnIce]

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.

^ This
(I would bold the key part(s), but that would be all of it).

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

What art was in Calgary in 1980 that you enjoyed?

Glenbow Museum showings, CPO, Heritage Park etc. What art is there to enjoy now? Here is a small list of the money the city spent on Art work which adds no value/culture etc., to the City of Calgary experience:
1) Tracking the Trail $195K (underneath an overpass)
2) Strung II $80K - bridge railing on a freeway
3) Skywalk $70K - overpass on Macleod Trail to Canyon Meadows LRT
4) Bearing $221K - 17th Street and 18th Ave NE
5) Luminous Crossing $1.8M City Hall LRT

I have no problem with art in general, I do have a problem with frivolous spending on pet projects. The items I mentioned above are a very small example of what the city has spent recently. If the Flames are expecting to build an arena then they should carry the majority of the cost themselves, but the city is also going to benefit from taxes from the venue and employee's of the team. The city should be willing to work with the ownership group on a escalating property tax over the lifetime of the venue. People utilizing the rink should also pay a ticket tax on all events to help cover the cost but that really has nothing to do with the city input into the costs.

As a season ticket holder I have no issue paying my share of the new facility, just like I have no issue paying my city property taxes, where I have an issue is politicians stating flat out that citizens don't have an appetite to pay for a facility for millionaires and billionaires, but they assume I have an appetite to pay for public artwork. They never asked for my input on the either project. That is my issue.

[nfotiu]

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.

Tax breaks are one thing, but are there good examples of government directly subsidizing buildings to be used by private companies? Worth mentioning too is that public money spent on sports franchises has been demonstrated to provide about the worst economic value of all public spending. That money doesn't typically get paid back in things like increased tax revenue, job creation, and a good chunk of it leaves the community. The only real value is the mostly intangible value a sports franchise brings to the community.

The whole economics of sports is so distasteful. The most simplistic way to look at it is why should tax payers have to pay higher taxes so that 20 hockey players can make 70 million per year instead of having the team pay for their own building and paying the players 50 million a year. I have no issue with a hockey player making 10 million a year if that's what the public is willingly paying towards that entertainment. I do have a problem when 2-3 million of that comes from taxes that we are forced to pay (not to mention the $60 a year every cable subscriber pays for the RSN that 80-90% of them don't even watch).

But each city is not a vacuum and they have to compete against the other cities who are willing to subsidize their buildings. I just wish all the levels of government would get together and agree to stop this madness.

[Bill Bumface]

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.

[EldrickOnIce]

Corporate welfare is corporate welfare, regardless how it is doled out.
I would argue there is more value in a subsidized public building than in handing out tax breaks that simply improve a corporate bottom line.

[iggyformayor]

Doesn't tie into the debate of where the funds will come from, but for what it's worth my father in law does business with and golfs with the new owners of the Coyotes, and while golfing the other day they were talking about how they had heard from contacts within the Flames organization that the new arena will be built in the west village along with a new football stadium, restaurants, hotels, etc.

[FlamesAddiction]

Are there non-financial reasons that a new modern arena would be beneficial for the city, or do these things always have to measured by their monetary return?

I personally think there are. Having a good arena draws in better events and "puts cities on the map", both on the continent and globally. People like to live in cities where there is more fun stuff to do, and businesses like to locate in cities where people want to live.

From a hockey perspective, there is an intrinsic cultural value to having a team. Whether or not a new arena affects having a team, I don't know. It probably affect having a winning team in some ways though.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by iggyformayor

they had heard from contacts within the Flames organization that the new arena will be built in the west village along with a new football stadium, restaurants, hotels, etc.

That would be fantastic. And makes a lot of sense.

[Erick Estrada]

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.

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? Because a big building is good for Calgary? Were the other tall skyscrapers getting lonely? EnCana was already here so what exactly is the economic impact of the Bow? Is EnCana not economically self sufficient?

Is a world class sports facility even better for Calgary than a skyscraper seeing people won't have to work for the Flames to actually get to use the facility whereas I get nothing out of the Bow? Honestly your post is hypocritical and I'm not saying that the government shouldn't have chipped in for the Bow because I'm for the government chipping in for an arena and if I was pro-Flames and anti-EnCana I would be a hypocrite as at the end of the day it's still taxpayer money going to corporation. You will always have a loud group that opposes taxpayer money going into anything but that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day the city benefits. The Saddledome in it's day was a Calgary landmark that the Corral never was. The new facility will be an even bigger/better landmark and the venue possibilities of the stadium/arena project are endless.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Are there non-financial reasons that a new modern arena would be beneficial for the city, or do these things always have to measured by their monetary return?

I personally think there are. Having a good arena draws in better events and "puts cities on the map", both on the continent and globally. People like to live in cities where there is more fun stuff to do, and businesses like to locate in cities where people want to live.

From a hockey perspective, there is an intrinsic cultural value to having a team. Whether or not a new arena affects having a team, I don't know. It probably affect having a winning team in some ways though.

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?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Glenbow Museum showings, CPO, Heritage Park etc. What art is there to enjoy now? Here is a small list of the money the city spent on Art work which adds no value/culture etc., to the City of Calgary experience:
1) Tracking the Trail $195K (underneath an overpass)
2) Strung II $80K - bridge railing on a freeway
3) Skywalk $70K - overpass on Macleod Trail to Canyon Meadows LRT
4) Bearing $221K - 17th Street and 18th Ave NE
5) Luminous Crossing $1.8M City Hall LRT

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.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The government should chip in for the Bow.

should this be in green text or something?

perhaps you would like a world, where your employer just sent all of your earnings directly to the government, and the the government would return the usused portion of your earnings to you along with a brochure of the various corporate offices they have funded whihc you are not allowed to access because you don't have a security card.

maybe the government should fund all buldings, hey you want to put up a new warehouse in Westwinds - Steve Harper will write a cheque......