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

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Weitz

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.

Yep. A lot of North American cities that build arenas are in economic decline, or have blighted neighbourhoods they're desperate to develop. That's not the case in Calgary. This is a booming city. Private development is going to happen without huge incentives from the municipality. So a major tactic of sports franchises looking for funding simply won't work in Calgary.

Originally Posted by heep223

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.

City council is unanimous in not wanting to spend public dollars on a hockey arena. Given how hard it is to get even two-thirds of councilors to agree on anything, that should tell us all we need to know about public opinion.

There are a couple councilors who might be willing to trade public land (Colley-Urquhart principally). But I don't see them as being willing to go to war for the Flames. There just aren't any votes in it. Apparently the councilors all got an earful from constituents after Burke made his comments to the chamber of commerce.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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.

Peace Bridge 2!

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

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.

Yeah I have no idea what that land would be worth but I'm sure someone on here would. Not sure if it's material or not, you would assume it would be.

Not a single person on council is in favour of using actual tax dollars for the project. I think the only way that would happen is if the development included a significant amount of low-income housing/mixed use development. If the Flames were smart they'd include a material component of the development concept as having a direct benefit to the city such as low income / subsidized housing which we badly need.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by heep223

Yeah I have no idea what that land would be worth but I'm sure someone on here would. Not sure if it's material or not, you would assume it would be.

Not a single person on council is in favour of using actual tax dollars for the project. I think the only way that would happen is if the development included a significant amount of low-income housing/mixed use development. If the Flames were smart they'd include a material component of the development concept as having a direct benefit to the city such as low income / subsidized housing which we badly need.

Giving land away that you could otherwise sell is using tax dollars.

Otherwise, I like the idea of having some affordable housing commitments, etc.

Except that the location is so good, would you really want to waste that on social housing? Why not sell it all at market rates, maximize the benefit to the city and then use the funds on social housing where land prices are alot lower?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Giving land away that you could otherwise sell is using tax dollars.

I know what you mean but some of city council thinks differently, they would consider it using "indirect" dollars and an easier pill to swallow.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Otherwise, I like the idea of having some affordable housing commitments, etc.

Except that the location is so good, would you really want to waste that on social housing? Why not sell it all at market rates, maximize the benefit to the city and then use the funds on social housing where land prices are alot lower?

Yeah, that's a good point. However, planners love the concept of mixing in low income housing with both market housing and commercial/retail to create mixed use developments and communities. This avoids the creation of "slums" (sorry I don't really have a better word) that are far from central transit and isolated. A good example of mixed-use is the Woodwards "W" development in Gas town in Vancouver and I'm sure there are others. There are perceived benefits in this concept that offset the lost dollars due to foregoing some development at market rates.

If a portion of the project had obvious social benefits like that it'd make much more sense for them to get support for it. We need low-income housing really badly in this city.

[united]

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.

Plus the other four:
Clay Riddell, $3.41 billion
Allan Markin, ~$0.5 billion
Alvin Libin, unknown
Jeff McCaig, unknown
Byron Seaman, unknown

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by troutman

Will Sun readers announce they were wrong about Spendshi?

Sun readers are never wrong. The Sun is never wrong. Rick Bell is a god. Spendshi and the fat cats at Silly Hall and managing their tax dollars is what's wrong with this city. Less Ottawa, more Calgary. Wildrose and/or Libertarian forever!

[getbak]

The problem with the land there is that it's so badly contaminated, that it will cost hundreds of millions to clean it up to the point that anything can be built upon it.

When council approved the current long-term plan for the West Village in 2010, some people suggested that the land is so contaminated that it can never be cleaned up enough to be approved for residential development.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by getbak

The problem with the land there is that it's so badly contaminated, that it will cost hundreds of millions to clean it up to the point that anything can be built upon it.

When council approved the current long-term plan for the West Village in 2010, some people suggested that the land is so contaminated that it can never be cleaned up enough to be approved for residential development.

I don't believe the level of remediation is as high if you're putting a non-residential facility on the land

[Tinordi]

I know what you mean but some of city council thinks differently, they would consider it using "indirect" dollars and an easier pill to swallow.

I would contend that very few people think this way and I certainly hope that our elected representatives recognize that cash, land, pogs, or a sock full of quarters are all fungible assets with value.

[Ryan Coke]

Seems like a number of leaks from the mayors office went into that article.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

I completely understand that as well. But this isn't entirely private benefit? I think its hard to argue that there aren't other benefits to the new arena/field/restaurant/entertainment district that has been thrown around. Obviously the Flames are going to benefit, but there are a number of other benefits to these projects.

I don't think that it all comes down to use either, and I'm avoiding that conversation purposefully. Thats the argument people use against things like bike paths, parks, and notable projects like the Peace Bridge. "I don't use it, so I don't want to pay for it". I hate that line of reasoning because its purely selfish and in our society we all pay for all kinds of things that we don't use. Get over it.

[Jimmy Stang]

About the contamination, who normally pays (or is responsible) for remediation? The city, province, the former company that used the land, etc.? Or is it more complicated than that?

Also, what exactly was there before and when was it in operation? I can only ever remember the car dealerships, so it must have been quite some time ago.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I completely understand that as well. But this isn't entirely private benefit? I think its hard to argue that there aren't other benefits to the new arena/field/restaurant/entertainment district that has been thrown around. Obviously the Flames are going to benefit, but there are a number of other benefits to these projects.

I don't think that it all comes down to use either, and I'm avoiding that conversation purposefully. Thats the argument people use against things like bike paths, parks, and notable projects like the Peace Bridge. "I don't use it, so I don't want to pay for it". I hate that line of reasoning because its purely selfish and in our society we all pay for all kinds of things that we don't use. Get over it.

But lets get our head out of the clouds while we talk about this stuff.

First, what is the counter-factual? If the city doesn't give away the land or spend money to "revitalize" the area what would otherwise happen? Would the area be redeveloped anyway at a substantially better cost-benefit ratio to the city? Maybe...

Second, what are the benefits of a new stadium and how much is that worth? How much would the average Calgarian be willing to pay for a new arena? Add all that up and then compare it to the foregone revenues to the city and the various costs.

Finally, what benefits would we accrue from the counter-factual? We'd seemingly have more money to spend on other items. Those have benefits too, what are they?

We talk in such platitudes about this type of redevelopment as though there's no alternative scenario and as though there aren't benefits to that too.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Slava

I completely understand that as well. But this isn't entirely private benefit? I think its hard to argue that there aren't other benefits to the new arena/field/restaurant/entertainment district that has been thrown around. Obviously the Flames are going to benefit, but there are a number of other benefits to these projects.

I don't think that it all comes down to use either, and I'm avoiding that conversation purposefully. Thats the argument people use against things like bike paths, parks, and notable projects like the Peace Bridge. "I don't use it, so I don't want to pay for it". I hate that line of reasoning because its purely selfish and in our society we all pay for all kinds of things that we don't use. Get over it.

Major difference being none of the infrastructure thing are for profit businesses, which of course the Flames clearly are. This is subsidizing an already profitable company in an effort for them to make even more money. Forgive me but that's ridiculous and not something taxpayers should be doing. It's essentially corporate welfare, of course I don't blame them for wanting the money, I just hope they realize it's a massive uphill climb for them to convince people they should get it.

If the Flames were shedding money and needed a new arena to survive, so be it. But this is about, and Burke says it, "NHL economics" which is about more luxury suites and more lower bowl seats (which they can charge more for). Support infrastructure is fine (and if the West Village location is the choice, it's essential), but paying for the arena will never fly.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think that it all comes down to use either, and I'm avoiding that conversation purposefully. Thats the argument people use against things like bike paths, parks, and notable projects like the Peace Bridge. "I don't use it, so I don't want to pay for it". I hate that line of reasoning because its purely selfish and in our society we all pay for all kinds of things that we don't use. Get over it.

I don't disagree, and I encourage the City to be more flexible with projects that elevate Calgary to the next level, but usage has to come into play at some point when evaluating your spending options. If one type of sports facility has potential to be used by 25% of the population, and another 5%, well then at some level the City needs to consider the value. Would it make more sense for the City to fund the construction of more community hockey rinks instead of this arena, so more people can play hockey instead of just watch hockey? Or build out a more integrated cycle-track, so more people are encouraged to live a healthier lifestyle? Are there any benefits outside of the stadium for the many Calgarians who can't afford to go to an NHL game? I think these are fair questions to ask when looking to fund sporting facilities.

These types of things things (parks, bike paths, community rinks) don't get built without public funds. The Flames don't need our money to do this, they just would like it.

[Fire]

This isn't a McDonald's franchise asking for free land. This land is being used for a new arena/stadium/fieldhouse/etc that will bring a ton of people and events to this city. This should be something the mayor and council should be encouraging. They obviously shouldn't fund the majority of the project but I don't think giving the Flames the land for free is outrageous.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Fire

This isn't a McDonald's franchise asking for free land. This land is being used for a new arena/stadium/fieldhouse/etc that will bring a ton of people and events to this city. This should be something the mayor and council should be encouraging. They obviously shouldn't fund the majority of the project but I don't think giving the Flames the land for free is outrageous.

And I think this discussion lies somewhere in the middle. It's not a McDonald's franchise asking for free land, and it's not a public library, it's a unique situation and I'm somewhat surprised at how definitive some people are about the use or non-use of public funds/land/incentives etc... when they have no idea what the project is.

[1stLand]

Design the new arena complex with Bike Lanes and the city will definitely give up the west village lands for free.

Eventually, I would like to see the Flames Management and Players ride their bikes to the Arena. This is more sustainable then them driving their big fancy SUV's to the game.

[nik-]

That article doesn't sound good.

If they even start hinting at the relocation threat, they're going to make my fan status waiver. Just don't do it Flames ... do not play that bull#### card.