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

[Ice_Weasel]

Been following this thread for a while - nothing seems to stir up emotional debate like perceived social injustice.

It is seemingly very relevant that the flames are “owned by billionaires” as this colorful, but largely irrelevant fact is always thrown in for effect. It would be equally as colorful (and irrelevant) to say that team is owned by a group of Calgarians that are amongst the most philanthropic contributors to our city. If there was any relevance to “who” the city would be subsidizing, I would pick our current slate of owners versus the alternative.

The other aspect of the argument that I can’t grasp is the completely binary point of view that assistance in any form is at the direct expense of social spending. There are many forms of mutually benefitial partnerships that would result in a net increase to City finances versus the do nothing alternative. The city owns land to the west of downtown. Guess what – this land is toxic and nobody wants it which is why it has been vacant since, well, forever. So the city can continue to own this land, make no revenue from it, and thus have no additional revenue for anything else. Or…it can structure a deal with the flames whereby this area is developed, increasing the tax base of the property and collect money that it would otherwise not have. Arguing the alternative is akin to arguing for higher taxes and not understanding that it is the tax base, and not rate, which is ultimately the most important.

[Table 5]

There are, and always will be, plenty of sports and cultural holes that need to be filled in this city before we should consider funding a private arena that can already be built with private funds.

• I always hear people who play hockey complain how the arenas are so full they can often only get games that start at like 10pm on a weekday. Sounds to me like getting a few new community rinks in the city would help ease the congestion.

• The proposed Field House would be something used by many Calgarians...just visit Lindsay Park one of these days to see how full it is.

• Calgary has a terribly tired Glenbow Museum, and no Contemporary Art gallery at all. Our kids need to exercise their brain too...and the museum institutions in this city are frankly, absolutely embarrassing for a city of this size and supposed wealth.

• More and better bike paths all around the city would not only help increase transportation options, but also encourage Calgarians to get out and live healthier lifestyles.

And on and on...

At the end of the day, I'm a Flames fan and would love to see a new stadium. But the practical, tax-paying, side of me knows there are much better ways of spending millions of dollars that are earmarked for sports/culture. I'm ok with paying for a new stadium through my tickets...I don't want to pay it through my taxes.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Markusoff had a great article in the Herald yesterday regarding this argument that we shouldn't be "subsidizing billionaires". The reality is the city should look at any potential deal with the Flames from a pure cost/benefit analysis to the city. The owners being billionaires is nothing more than inflammatory language. If it makes financial sense for the city to do a deal and help subsidize an arena, they should do it, regardless of the wealth of the potential owner.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ionaire-factor



Tinordi, your position is getting old. People, including myself have given a number of examples where the city "giving land" could potentially turn into a net benefit. You see things as simply black and white and it's just not that simple.

Okay, then let's see some studies showing how public funding for an arena in Calgary would be a net benefit to the city. It's not as though nobody has ever studied the issue before.

As for the 'billionaire' argument, it's relevant to the issue because, if they wanted, the Flames owners could buy the land and start the process for building an arena tomorrow. It's useful information to head off arguments that an arena can't be built unless the public help fund it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Table 5

There are, and always will be, plenty of sports and cultural holes that need to be filled in this city before we should consider funding a private arena that can already be built with private funds.

• I always hear people who play hockey complain how the arenas are so full they can often only get games that start at like 10pm on a weekday. Sounds to me like getting a few new community rinks in the city would help ease the congestion.

• The proposed Field House would be something used by many Calgarians...just visit Lindsay Park one of these days to see how full it is.

• Calgary has a terribly tired Glenbow Museum, and no Contemporary Art gallery at all. Our kids need to exercise their brain too...and the museum institutions in this city are frankly, absolutely embarrassing for a city of this size and supposed wealth.

• More and better bike paths all around the city would not only help increase transportation options, but also encourage Calgarians to get out and live healthier lifestyles.

And on and on...

At the end of the day, I'm a Flames fan and would love to see a new stadium. But the practical, tax-paying, side of me knows there are much better ways of spending millions of dollars that are earmarked for sports/culture. I'm ok with paying for a new stadium through my tickets...I don't want to pay it through my taxes.

So if in exchange for "free land" the flames built the field house and 4 community rinks would you be opposed to the "handout"?

[Tinordi]

Corporatejay if you would bother to read my history of posts in this thread you'd find that the substance of opposition is that the net benefits are negative to the city. There is a sizeable consensus of impartial peer reviewed research to support this.

You simply wave your hand and say that there are net benefits, run the numbers or look it up.

[Muta]

I personally think the City will eventually give the land. I don't think it's lost on them knowing that the increase in residential and commercial tax revenue, along with other various other sources of revenue, will serve the city very well for many years to come. It could be a boon for them, really.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Okay, then let's see some studies showing how public funding for an arena in Calgary would be a net benefit to the city. It's not as though nobody has ever studied the issue before.

As for the 'billionaire' argument, it's relevant to the issue because, if they wanted, the Flames owners could buy the land and start the process for building an arena tomorrow. It's useful information to head off arguments that an arena can't be built unless the public help fund it.

Somebody has studied this issue for the city of calgary specifically? Don't most of the studies refer to the fact that "entertainment dollars" are just pumped into other areas and doesn't really address other redevelopment type proposals. To be clear, I don't like the deal Edmonton gave Katz, but I also don't think we can just dismiss any proposal the flames have and say unequivocally, without seeing the proposal, "No".

[Tinordi]

And it's not only that the net benefits are negative they're worse than they would otherwise would have been had the money not been used for the stadium.

It's not enough to say that there are benefits, you need to show that there are benefits compared to an alternate scenario.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Corporatejay if you would bother to read my history of posts in this thread you'd find that the substance of opposition is that the net benefits are negative to the city. There is a sizeable consensus of impartial peer reviewed research to support this.

You simply wave your hand and say that there are net benefits, run the numbers or look it up.

A) I have.

B) I didn't wave my hand say there are net benefits. I was using that to diffuse the argument that whether the owners are billionaires or not is irrelevant.

C) Every city isn't the same. There is a difference between full and partial subsidy. I gave you an example earlier of a situation where the city could grant the Flames a 50 year lease on the west end at $1 in exchange for the remediation of the land, so that in 50 years, when the city goes to redevelop the west village, the city doesn't have to incur any environmental clean up cost and then gets both the revenue from the increased tax base in the 50 year intervening period and the time after. If the economics worked on this type of deal would you support it?

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Corporatejay if you would bother to read my history of posts in this thread you'd find that the substance of opposition is that the net benefits are negative to the city. There is a sizeable consensus of impartial peer reviewed research to support this.

You simply wave your hand and say that there are net benefits, run the numbers or look it up.

This is too simple of a statement. There is an entire spectrum of ways that the city and the flames can partner, and to suggest that every instance would be negative is false. If the city puts zero money upfront, and receives future revenue streams in the form of taxes on development that would otherwise not occur, show me mathematicaly how this can be a negative benefit to the city from a financial perspective.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

The other aspect of the argument that I can’t grasp is the completely binary point of view that assistance in any form is at the direct expense of social spending. There are many forms of mutually benefitial partnerships that would result in a net increase to City finances versus the do nothing alternative. The city owns land to the west of downtown. Guess what – this land is toxic and nobody wants it which is why it has been vacant since, well, forever. So the city can continue to own this land, make no revenue from it, and thus have no additional revenue for anything else. Or…it can structure a deal with the flames whereby this area is developed, increasing the tax base of the property and collect money that it would otherwise not have. Arguing the alternative is akin to arguing for higher taxes and not understanding that it is the tax base, and not rate, which is ultimately the most important.

Then you haven't been following the issue. The city has looked at remediation costs and development options for the land west of downtown and crunched the numbers. From an article in the Calgary Herald:

The city’s own 2010 West Village blueprint proposed office towers and housing for 12,000 people. Readying the area for development was initially estimated at $300 million to $400 million, mainly for rerouting roads and cleaning soil contaminated by a chemical plant.

Last year, council directed the East Village development agency to consider replicating that district’s financing scheme in West Village. The complex tool is a community revitalization levy, a loan from the province to spruce up blighted districts. The city repays the loan through property taxes gained from new developments in the revitalization zone.

Calgary Municipal Land Corp. is figuring out if the dollars add up, but council hasn’t asked to run the numbers with an arena, said Michael Brown, the agency’s chief executive.

Edmonton used a downtown revitalization levy to pump $120 million into the Oilers arena, donating city land and related amenities like an LRT connection and “winter garden.”

Nenshi’s office has warned against this kind of move.

“If they proposed West Village, they’d be nuts,” policy analyst Josh White wrote to his colleagues in January 2013. “We told them two years ago the challenge with this site … The business case only makes sense if you can fully build it out at very high density. An arena sucks up a huge (piece) of land, leaving a lot less to pay back a CRL (community revitalization levy).”

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

So if in exchange for "free land" the flames built the field house and 4 community rinks would you be opposed to the "handout"?

That's probably the kind of City support I can get behind (as long as the math makes sense, an those elements are city-owned and publicly accessible, not just more revenue-generators for the Flames). Btw, I believe there already were rumors of field-house being incorporated into the master proposal.

At the end of the day, I want to see the City help support the building of an arena, I just don't want it to be at the expense of other City projects or done with shady math.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Do you read the herald? I don't think Markusoff has been cheerleading for an arena at all.

I'm not talking about his stories, but about the editorial stance of the Herald. It's strongly pro-public-funding. I used to work in the media, so I'm well aware of the bias behind headlines and editorials.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I wonder if the recent economic woes and possible woes of the next little while will push the announcement back into the future. The absolute worst time to ask for any taxpayer money in any form is when things are not going well for the city/province. Makes a hard sell even more difficult.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then you haven't been following the issue. The city has looked at remediation costs and development options for the land west of downtown and crunched the numbers. From an article in the Calgary Herald:

So the city should spend $300-$400 million to develop the area to subsidize condo's for "millionares" and corporations? Sounds ok to me, but a little surprised that this makes sense to you.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Table 5

There are, and always will be, plenty of sports and cultural holes that need to be filled in this city before we should consider funding a private arena that can already be built with private funds.

• I always hear people who play hockey complain how the arenas are so full they can often only get games that start at like 10pm on a weekday. Sounds to me like getting a few new community rinks in the city would help ease the congestion.

• The proposed Field House would be something used by many Calgarians...just visit Lindsay Park one of these days to see how full it is.

• Calgary has a terribly tired Glenbow Museum, and no Contemporary Art gallery at all. Our kids need to exercise their brain too...and the museum institutions in this city are frankly, absolutely embarrassing for a city of this size and supposed wealth.

• More and better bike paths all around the city would not only help increase transportation options, but also encourage Calgarians to get out and live healthier lifestyles.

And on and on...

At the end of the day, I'm a Flames fan and would love to see a new stadium. But the practical, tax-paying, side of me knows there are much better ways of spending millions of dollars that are earmarked for sports/culture. I'm ok with paying for a new stadium through my tickets...I don't want to pay it through my taxes.

I agree with you but just wanted to mention that we are getting some sort of contemporary art facility in the immediate future. The city has given the old Science Centre to some arts group which is converting it to a gallery/art facility.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I wonder if the recent economic woes and possible woes of the next little while will push the announcement back into the future. The absolute worst time to ask for any taxpayer money in any form is when things are not going well for the city/province. Makes a hard sell even more difficult.

On the other hand, if they were to use their own funds, an economic downturn is also the best time to build something.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not talking about his stories, but about the editorial stance of the Herald. It's strongly pro-public-funding. I used to work in the media, so I'm well aware of the bias behind headlines and editorials.

And yet you did the same thing:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Keep in mind the Herald are huge cheerleaders for publicly funding a new arena. All of their editorials are highly partisan on the issue.

Here's a poll from the Sun

The wording from the Sun poll:

Should taxpayer dollars be used to help fund a new sports arena in Calgary?

No bias or slant in the wording that might affect how people reply there, amirite?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I agree with you but just wanted to mention that we are getting some sort of contemporary art facility in the immediate future. The city has given the old Science Centre to some arts group which is converting it to a gallery/art facility.

Yeah, I'm aware of that plan, but I think it's a pretty underwhelming idea that doesn't really get you what this city needs. Calgary needs a new purpose-built large-scale art space (like the NMC in East Village), not some mickey-mouse retrofit.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, I'm aware of that plan, but I think it's a pretty underwhelming idea that doesn't really get you what this city needs. Calgary needs a new purpose-built large-scale art space (like the NMC in East Village), not some mickey-mouse retrofit.

I agree with you here Table, we do need a brand new contemporary art gallery facility in the city (along with modernization of almost all of our outdated museum facilities save the Military Museums)... but the Science Centre is no slouch of a facility for art. I worked there part time for over eight years when I was younger, and with some interior modifications and renovations, I am dead sure it can have high quality gallery space and can be a social gathering hub. It's not ideal (compared to having a new facility), but having a historic, architectural-award-winning building is a pretty nice consolation prize (and at very little to no cost)!