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

[getbak]

At the Fan Forum on Monday, King didn't say much about the arena project, and nothing new about it. He did repeat what he has said before that there won't be big arguments over public money.

It's always a carefully worded statement where he doesn't say, "we won't be asking for public money", just that there won't be big debates over public money.

I've always interpreted this as meaning that any proposed public money for the project will be packaged with the caveat that the money will need to be spent no matter what is built on the land. Things like the environmental remediation; re-routing westbound Bow Trail; and re-working the Bow-14th Street interchange are all big-money projects that will need to be completed before anything can be done with the land.

Then, there's also the cost of the fieldhouse, which is budgeted at $200 million (for the proposed one at the Foothills Athletic Park). Including that in the project creates some justification for public money without it being specifically earmarked to a new NHL arena.

[shutout]

Most likely scenario is that the Flames are going to foot the whole bill for all of the buildings, but that they are going to wait until after the provincial election because the proposal is going to need some provincial infrastructure funding for roadways and because the project and the city are going to need some help with the environmental clean up. The city is going to either give the land for free and not put money into environmental cleanup, or is going to sell the land but is going to have to work with the province and pay for the environmental clean up. Project is not going to be asking for public money, but public money is going to need to be spent in order to get the project location and infrastructure in place for the project to go ahead and be successful.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by macrov

For nhl teams...

Boston Garden 1928-1995
Buffalo: 1940-1996
Detroit 1927-1979
Montreal forum: 1926-1996
Maple leaf gardens: 1931-1999
MSG: 1925-1968
Chicago: 1929-1994
St Louis: 1929-1994
Jets: 1999-2011

Devils: 1982-2007
Flyers: 1967-1996
Penguins: 1961-2010
Capitals: 1973-1997
Dallas: 1980-2001
LA: 1967-1999
Vancouver: 1967-1995

That's an average of 44 years. For the flames that would give us another 13 years.

I split your lists in 2, I don't think you can compare the situations on the top list to the Flames. The bottoms its are arena build at a similar time for a similar use, replaced for a similar reason.

their average was just under 30 years.

Right or wrong, for buildings built at the same time as the Dome, it has hit its life expectancy

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by #-3

I split your lists in 2, I don't think you can compare the situations on the top list to the Flames. The bottoms its are arena build at a similar time for a similar use, replaced for a similar reason.

Hey I took your data set and took out all the ones that didn't support my conclusion and it now supports my conclusion!

[Frequitude]

I have no problem with public money going towards the arena so long as the public maintains a proporionate share of the ownership of that facility (and any revenue/costs associated with it).

The Flames can buy out the city's share down the road if they want.

[Tyler]

Dream on

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Hey I took your data set and took out all the ones that didn't support my conclusion and it now supports my conclusion!

Not really I made the assertion that buildings from the 20's, 30's 40's & 90's (from a defunct team) were not as relevant to the utility and life cycle of the Saddledome as buildings from the 60's, 70's & 80's.

It you look at the opening dates for the buildings I said were more relevant I was vary consistent.

The way entertainment facilities are utilized has undergone a complete paradigm shift in the past 20 years. So there is are reason all of those building from the 20's and all of those building from the 70's expired at roughly the same time.

(if I was cherry picking data I would have kept Winnipeg & MSG)

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, this is going to get ugly.

For Nenshi, yes.

[Tinordi]

Why do people think that transferring land worth millions of dollars is no big deal? That would be one of the largest single contributions of public funds to this project.

[Kavvy]

My ideal situation would be as listed below. Anything free on top of this deal would be leaning in the wrong direction for myself.

If the City reserved land for a future stadium complex for the flames: ok by me

If the City gave the flames a dime which wasn't from infrastructure upgrades (i.e. roads and paths): shoot it down,

Unless:

We then as Calgarians realize that the stadium is a core part of their business, and if we want them to stay, we need to help out. However, in order for this to happen:

-They need to truly open their books for any business they expect to profit from by building a new stadium

-Based on their profit each year, they can't reasonably expect to support a new stadium with a payback of x years (i.e. 30-50, find someone smarter then me to define x)

-Every dollar given, is tied to an equation with a shifting scale. If the Flames make over x dollars profit in one year (i.e. the payback equation for an arena they could of paid for with their profits is shorter then expected when the money was given), then the flames pay back x dollars with prime rate interest. This would include any tax incentives including property tax.

-The stadium doesn't get built for another x years. You don't get free public money because you can't afford the largest capital asset key to your business unless your current building is truly overdue.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

For Nenshi, yes.

Oh, I'm pretty sure Nenshi is confident in the popularity of his stance. He's seen the opinion polls.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why do people think that transferring land worth millions of dollars is no big deal? That would be one of the largest single contributions of public funds to this project.

Yeah, it is pretty weird. It's like telling your wife "I didn't give my brother any cash - I just let him sell our car and keep the money from it."

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Oh, I'm pretty sure Nenshi is confident in the popularity of his stance. He's seen the opinion polls.

He keeps referring to this, but I haven't seen them and I don't really want to sift through this entire thread for them. Does anyone have a link to the opinion polls?

I have seen the city council views, something like 70% oppose giving any dollars to the Flames. But no actual public polls.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by heep223

He keeps referring to this, but I haven't seen them and I don't really want to sift through this entire thread for them. Does anyone have a link to the opinion polls?

I have seen the city council views, something like 70% oppose giving any dollars to the Flames. But no actual public polls.

I expect it's higher than 70%.
But like has been said numerous other times, including just above, what about 'giving' land? What about tax breaks? This would likely be more palatable to a lot of people than actual dollars diverted to the project. Probably? Or just spin to make it sound better?

[Tinordi]

Giving land is giving money. The people of Calgary own that land, why would they give it away when they could sell it?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Giving land is giving money. The people of Calgary own that land, why would they give it away when they could sell it?

The people of Calgary own all the crappy art we have purchased for construction projects also, which nobody asked for our opinion on that. I say sell the art, including the great blue hoop, and use that money to support a business that actually represents the City throughout North America.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Giving land is giving money. The people of Calgary own that land, why would they give it away when they could sell it?

It would actually be nice to have a public space instead of another mutli million dollar condo village which I will never benefit from.

And I'm pretty sure the city wouldn't "give" the land, but lease it for the life of the arena. Would still be a city asset in 50+ years when it is worth much much more.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

The people of Calgary own all the crappy art we have purchased for construction projects also, which nobody asked for our opinion on that. I say sell the art, including the great blue hoop, and use that money to support a business that actually represents the City throughout North America.

In a Canadian city, you are generally "asked your opinion" on topics by whom you vote for, and how often you contact your alderman. As citizen of Calgary, it is your right to vote for a candidate who would support this motion.


The only problem is, a good portion of your fellow Calgarians would hate to live in a city with no public art and aggressively fight you on this. IMO this is one great step to ruining our wonderful city.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Giving land is giving money. The people of Calgary own that land, why would they give it away when they could sell it?

So you lease it to the Flames.

AT&T Park in San Francisco is the model held high in MLB, as the only Park in 50+ years built with zero public funding.
This is what the city did though, from Wikipedia
The land is prime as well.

When it opened on March 31, 2000, the ballpark was the first Major League ballpark built without public funds since the completion of Dodger Stadium in 1962. However, the Giants did receive a $10 million tax abatement from the city and $80 million for upgrades to the local infrastructure (including a connection to the Muni Metro). The Giants have a 66-year lease on the 12.5-acre (51,000 m2) ballpark site, paying $1.2 million in rent annually to the San Francisco Port Commission.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

In a Canadian city, you are generally "asked your opinion" on topics by whom you vote for, and how often you contact your alderman. As citizen of Calgary, it is your right to vote for a candidate who would support this motion.


The only problem is, a good portion of your fellow Calgarians would hate to live in a city with no public art and aggressively fight you on this. IMO this is one great step to ruining our wonderful city.

I have voted in this City for over 30 years and not once has the discussion about expenditure on Public Art been brought up by a candidate. Even when I asked specifically about this project, all of the candidates have brushed it off as not an election issue, which they then vote on in closed door sessions. I have no faith that the political "leaders" of this City will make an informed decision. As to the bolded not 1 of my neighbours agrees with spending millions of dollars on art work (and a $25M bridge plus bike lanes).

If you believe that our political leaders can make an informed decision when it comes to business in this city you haven't been paying attention. Our city taxes have increased by 60% overall in the last 10 years with absolutely no increase or improvement in services. Maybe take some of that money and use it for investing in business for the city.