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

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Did you read the article? The city would get much more tax revenues if the West Village is developed as a residential and commercial zone with 12,000 residents, than they would from a hockey arena.

I was just responding to Tinordi's simplistic example. The city might get more tax dollars by doing a sale to other interests, but what potential spin off revenues are being missed from not having those facilities downtown. The opportunity to have those facilities in the downtown core are massive for potential convention and other event traffic. Facilities like those discussed are much more important to rejuvenating the downtown area than more high priced condos. I think long term growth and tax revenues is greater when you consider the spin off opportunities and impact on he surrounding businesses.

[Rhettzky]

I think Markusoff is just trying to generate some controversy here (as usual). The article states that the Flames have met with the mayors office numerous times and sounds like their discussions have been lengthy and productive. It probably just got to a point where the Flames realize that they aren't going to get the level of public funds they are looking for and that would be why the city is no longer closely involved in the details.

Don't get me wrong I think there will be future discussions around how the City could be involved, just not at the level of controversy that the cherry picked quotes from this article suggest.

[Bigtime]

Of course the argument can be made that the downtown core of Calgary and immediate areas are not in need of rejuvenation like the area the Oilers are putting their arena in.

East Village is underway, West Village would be next, Beltline is booming, Sunalta has stuff in motion due to the LRT. Inglewood and Ramsay are evolving nicely.

So the "arena to revitalize" a downtrodden area of downtown is a harder sell here too.

[Weitz]

To me it seems, reading the herald article, the CFLP approached the City and had this idea where the city was going to bend to their requests. The city held firm and asked for studies showing the need for a new arena and KK sounds like he took his ball and went home.

I don't think the city is being unreasonable in asking for more studies and what not before allocating resources.

The big difference here is "revitalization" is a much tougher sell here in Calgary as we already have a great downtown. It was much easier to sell it in Edmonton where their downtown couldn't hold our jockstrap.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It is not reasonable to transfer significant value in "free" land without getting serious equity in the project.

Would you give me your house if I promised to really fix it up, subdivide it and then run a successful business out of it and sell the new lots?

Well that's just a silly analogy. There are other benefits to the city, including tax benefits (even if it's not the most optimized use of the land), general benefit of the public having a new venue for sports and entertainment, the profile it will give the city on the world stage.

Not saying it's the best use or even that they should get public money but a) your comparison is apples and oranges and b) I believe the city actually has come out and said they may be willing to look at vending land and/or building infrastructure, just no direct public money.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by heep223

Well that's just a silly analogy. There are other benefits to the city, including tax benefits (even if it's not the most optimized use of the land), general benefit of the public having a new venue for sports and entertainment, the profile it will give the city on the world stage.

Not saying it's the best use or even that they should get public money but a) your comparison is apples and oranges and b) I believe the city actually has come out and said they may be willing to look at vending land and/or building infrastructure, just no direct public money.

Quoted from todays article:

Nenshi has suggested he’s not keen to hand over land for an arena.

“I’ve said many, many times that I don’t believe in public funds going after private money,” he said in June, after Burke’s comments. “As soon as they buy the land I would be happy to expedite the development process.”

[Muta]

I'm okay with my tax dollars going to a new arena. Better that than a bunch of interchanges in the new suburbs. I'll actually USE the arena.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm okay with my tax dollars going to a new arena. Better that than a bunch of interchanges in the new suburbs. I'll actually USE the arena.

Better than an interchange in the middle of nowhere...agreed. Better than money going into new LRT lines, more trains/buses, better education and health care, new parks and riverside pathways, libraries and art museums, public sporting facilities? I'm not convinced.

The Flames have the money to build a stadium regardless of public funding. Those other things on the list don't exist without it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Better than an interchange in the middle of nowhere...agreed. Better than money going into new LRT lines, more trains/buses, better education and health care, new parks and riverside pathways, libraries and art museums, public sporting facilities? I'm not convinced.

The Flames have the money to build a stadium regardless of public funding. Those other things on the list don't exist without it.

What was that figure, the one year growth in Murray Edwards' net worth would be enough to build a stadium outright?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Better than an interchange in the middle of nowhere...agreed. Better than money going into new LRT lines, more trains/buses, better education and health care, new parks and riverside pathways, libraries and art museums, public sporting facilities? I'm not convinced.

The Flames have the money to build a stadium regardless of public funding. Those other things on the list don't exist without it.

I agree with your list, I just mentioned interchanges because they should be the first thing to have their funding reduced, IMO.

I'm okay with my tax dollars going to an arena as I will be using the arena more than many other types of publically funded infrastructure, but I can understand if I'm in the minority on that one, and that's okay with me.

Melbourne is a good example of a publically funded sports infrastructure. They have many arenas and stadiums that are funded by public money; but then again, they are a sports city, and that type of pastime is highly valued amongst their population. I highly encourage everyone to see the arena and stadia district in that city one day... just amazing.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Quoted from todays article:

Ok but Nenshi is 1 member of council. Also quoted from other council members as follows. Though clearly the majority opinion on the 15 person council is that in general, tax dollars should not be used to fund private enterprise.

I think we can contribute land. I don’t want them moving outside the city. (Colley)

If a new rink was built, should it be more multi-use than just hockey? That matters in the decision of whether we use public funds to support something like that. I think there’s all sorts of creative ways that cities can support and invest in sporting facilities that doesn’t include using property tax dollars. (Wooley)

I think we have to recognize there’s some benefit to it. And I’m prepared to look at perhaps not cash, but maybe land or some other thing that would help facilitate the transaction. (Pootmans)

Obviously, it brings in a lot of money, and economically there’s value in it. So I would say the most we should ever do is land, if we have available land. (Sutherland)

The best I could see City of Calgary doing is donating land. (Jones)

[Senator Clay Davis]

They just had the 100 richest Canadians list, Murray Edwards worth a cool $2.83 billion (no good Daryl Katz somehow worth $3.24 billion). He can of course afford the arena on his own, but rich people didn't get rich by throwing their money away. The problem for the Flames is they aren't in the NFL, who consistently uses it's huge leverage (Los Angeles and now London) to get taxpayer funded arenas and stadiums. The NHL has no such leverage, threatening to move the Flames to Seattle is as empty as it gets.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by heep223

Well that's just a silly analogy. There are other benefits to the city, including tax benefits (even if it's not the most optimized use of the land), general benefit of the public having a new venue for sports and entertainment, the profile it will give the city on the world stage.

Not saying it's the best use or even that they should get public money but a) your comparison is apples and oranges and b) I believe the city actually has come out and said they may be willing to look at vending land and/or building infrastructure, just no direct public money.

I guess the key question to ask is assuming there are actual incremental tax benefits (which is highly debatable) are they going to even approach the value of the land given?

Remember what the alternatives are for the city: they can give the land away and get new development and taxes or they can sell the land AND get all those development fees and new taxes (and the taxes would likely be higher).

Finally, remember that property taxes are net neutral to city budgets. First new taxes go to new services that that those new developments will use, second new taxes do not mean a new boon to the city budget. They might shave off some percentage of the mill rate for your own property tax but property taxes are set to equalize to the city's spending needs.

[troutman]

Will Sun readers announce they were wrong about Spendshi?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm okay with my tax dollars going to a new arena. Better that than a bunch of interchanges in the new suburbs. I'll actually USE the arena.

I'd rather the dollars be used to build or upgrade facilities that more of the general population can use. We need a field house, pools, rec centres, etc that regular folks have access to instead of investing in a pro football and hockey stadium that about 2% of the population use on a regular basis.

[Tyler]

Guys, you're missing the most exciting part of the article...

WE ARE WEEKS AWAY FROM AN ANNOUNCEMENT

There ain't no way KK is gonna let us down this time!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

They just had the 100 richest Canadians list, Murray Edwards worth a cool $2.83 billion (no good Daryl Katz somehow worth $3.24 billion). He can of course afford the arena on his own, but rich people didn't get rich by throwing their money away. The problem for the Flames is they aren't in the NFL, who consistently uses it's huge leverage (Los Angeles and now London) to get taxpayer funded arenas and stadiums. The NHL has no such leverage, threatening to move the Flames to Seattle is as empty as it gets.

I always wonder about comments like this. So because the guy has made a lot of money he should just build an arena and entertainment complex for the city? That doesn't seem quite right.

That said I'm not sure about giving public money either. I don't like pubic money going to private business, so I'm not sure what the answer is really.

[You Need a Thneed]

If the arena end up happening in the rumoured West Village, I think I could live with the city giving some land there. The land has value, but it also has attached liability (environmental cleanup).

Any development there is going to require that environmental cleanup, plus a redesign/rebuild of some infrastructure - Bow Trail, etc. This will cost a bunch of money, and still leave an area that is somewhat isolated on all sides without some creative solutions. The river is on the North side. 14th Ave and Shaw Millenium Park on the East side. The CP tracks and the LRT line on the south side, Crowchild and the escarpment to the west.

With those factors, I'm not sure West Village ever gets off the ground, even setup like East Village was.

If the Flames want to build there, I think I'd be ok with the city giving the land (setting up a community revitalization levy), and chipping in to recreate 14th St, Bow Trail and the Bow/Crow interchange. The Flames can certainly afford to build their own stadium after that. Perhaps the feds want to help out with the environmental cleanup costs or something.

[1stLand]

The Arena should be built in Balzac as an Arena District with a new stadium, casino, hotels, Condos and a Formula 1 Raceway. We can change Balzac's name to "Arena Towne"

The Flames can change their name to the "Alberta Flames" and the team can make money to pay for the Arena with all the new merchandise sales that stem from the "Atlanta Flames, Flaming A".

The City will extend an LRT Line to the Arena eventually.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Slava

I always wonder about comments like this. So because the guy has made a lot of money he should just build an arena and entertainment complex for the city? That doesn't seem quite right.

That said I'm not sure about giving public money either. I don't like pubic money going to private business, so I'm not sure what the answer is really.

See if a new arena were a true "public benefit" it might have some play. But this new arena, like almost all of them before it, will come with fewer seats (not good for the public), more luxury boxes to make those fewer seats happen (not good for the public), more expensive seats (not good for the public), and more expensive amenities (hello $10 beer). The owner benefits the most from this by a fairly substantial margin.

That's why PSLs, even if fans hate them, are the happy medium. The heaviest users (and beneficiaries) of the facility (season ticket holders) will pay the most for a new building. Seems fair to me.