I had written a little longer and indepth piece but it didn't post for whatever reason so here is my take in a shorter format.
I myself am ok with a lot of what was proposed although I would have expected more considering we have been talking about this since 2007.
In any event I think we all need some caution with regards to all this "world class city" talk. This type of language is always thrown when it comes to special events like Olympics, World Cups, Pan Am games and new sporting facilities. Edmonton, Winnipeg and Regina were all told that their new facilities would turn them into "world class cities"
We as Flames/Stamps fans and Calgarians can't sit here and laugh when cities like Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg can't attract free agents in sports yet sit here and believe that this project will turn us into a global city. Cities like NY, LA, London, Paris, Prague, Moscow, Rome, Athens, Sydney etc are in different categories than us and our western Canadian cousins.
I am a proud born and raised Calgarian and Canadian. Love the city and the country but we have to be careful how we are sold the bull sh**
Some city councilors promised us massive increased tourism and world class awards for our "Peace Bridge" in order to justify us spending 10 times the cost. What we got instead was a good looking and unique bridge that runners, cyclists, walkers use. The odd wedding picture and graduation takes place as well. This isn't the Acropolis of Greece, the Eiffel Tower of Paris or the Pyramids of Egypt that some people believe.
I just want to caution before people get too excited here. Too many people I know in places like Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg got all worked up about being a world class city. New sports facilities for what are pretty much Canadian sports (hockey and CFL football) don't transform Flames, Oilers, Jets, Stamps and Rider fans into something of historical nature globally.
This gonna be a long and potentially politically charge process. We already had an unexpected change in provincial government, perhaps a federal one and plenty of business in YYC who are looking at chopping some expenses like client entertainment. Where we are in a years time can be totally different.
Just my $.02 Thanks!
Great post and echoes a lot of my feelings. I get really turned off by throwing around Paris, NY etc. Those cities aren't what they are because of sports stadiums or recent development projects.
Calgary is a great modern city in a beautiful setting. A cool development project along the river in the West Village would be a massive asset for the city. I am not convinced it needs to be centered around a hockey arena but maybe that makes sense. Denver is a great example of a city where the building of a downtown baseball park led to a ton more development and really changed the whole look of downtown. That would be a great model for Calgary.
I too had hoped for a little bit more considering how long this had been in the works. We are now at the start of the process.
I guess then the only people who should be opposed to this project are the ones who need to buy a chevy malibu on their way downtown.
Also the people who need to buy a Chevy Malibu on their way out of downtown. Don't forget those.
Me, I like to buy a Malibu every day after work, and then sell it back to the dealership on my way in the next day. I know I take a beating on the depreciation, but it actually comes out slightly cheaper than paying for downtown parking.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Your sarcasm is duly noted. Your lack of any substantive argument is also duly noted.
Funny, isn't it, how every new arena complex built in the last decade or so comes surrounded by new commercial development, and yet somehow there is no value in putting commercial development near an arena?
The commercial development was either there to begin with or developed using a massive investment in the development itself. Katz is spending 200 million for this alone in the ICE district. Studies, however, reveal that this is a myth, or at least woefully over-optimistic:
In our forthcoming Brookings book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, we and 15 collaborators examine the local economic development argument from all angles: case studies of the effect of specific facilities, as well as comparisons among cities and even neighborhoods that have and have not sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into sports development. In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.
As noted, a stadium can spur economic growth if sports is a significant export industry—that is, if it attracts outsiders to buy the local product and if it results in the sale of certain rights (broadcasting, product licensing) to national firms. But, in reality, sports has little effect on regional net exports.
I am at work and would rather not spend the rest of my day looking for published reports on the issue (suffice it to say both books mentioned above are very well researched and cited)
I don't want everyone to assume that my staunch opposition has anything to do with the benefits, presumed or perceived, that a new stadium will bring. I definitely want a new stadium with a "happening" area around it. However, I am not willing to sit here and be told that the city paying over 2/3 of the cost is reasonable. It simply isn't, now matter how hard you try to justify it.
The consequences of public funding of stadiums has been well publicized over the past decade and backed by intense research. The arguments KK brought today have pretty much been roundly debunked.
There are many ways to skin a cat, and there are better ways than KK offered today.
fortunately for you all, I will not be commenting on this matter anymore as it appears we are headed to yet another misguided and short-sighted stadium deal.
For those backers, please read Field of Schemes. Because all of your arguments today just reveal how much more information the public needs before making such a decision.
It's a grand idea, but there's no way the Flames get all of this. It's a bit of a pipe dream. New arena? Sure, make it happen. But the whole Shebang? Like others have said, if this was proposed 2 years ago with money flying all over the city maybe but in a down economy? Hmmm.
Regardless, the cost of the ticket levy will ultimately be borne by the Flames organization and the fans who purchase tickets.
You were more accurate in your earlier assessment. The payments on the ticket tax loan (say, $10 a ticket) are effectively born entirely by CS&E in the form of forgone future revenue in exchange for $250M up front to build the arena. Its not like the tickets would be $10 cheaper if it didn't exist.
Last edited by Frequitude; 08-18-2015 at 05:48 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
Is Calgary really in that much need of a "field house" at this point?
From what I can tell there's a constant shortage of ice times in this city for amature sports, but I don't recall hearing of that same crunch of soccer/football/track fields.
In a word - Yes.
Calgary has a severe lack of gym space and training facilities.
There are either no or very small dedicated facilities for badminton, volleyball, basketball, racquet sports etc. It is incredibly hard to get court time for all of these sports when one wants it.
There is only one professional style track in this city and it isn't covered.
I know several amateur athletes that have their training interrupted due to inclement weather in the summer time and they have to leave the city during the winter (at their own expense).
Calgary is the only city I know in Canada that doesn't have a facility like this.
I'm really excited about the Fieldhouse as well as the community atmosphere they are building. More greenspaces and pedestrian friendly areas are great in my books, along with a greater reliance on transit.
Last edited by craigwd; 08-18-2015 at 05:36 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to craigwd For This Useful Post:
If it isn't a Nenshi or City Council idea it will be a tough sell on them... They love their own pet projects even if it throws millions out the window on stupid ideas... Now if we can somehow turn this around so they think its their idea......
That the Flames had three city councilors on hand - two of them actively answering questions - is significant, imo.
Also the people who need to buy a Chevy Malibu on their way out of downtown. Don't forget those.
Me, I like to buy a Malibu every day after work, and then sell it back to the dealership on my way in the next day. I know I take a beating on the depreciation, but it actually comes out slightly cheaper than paying for downtown parking.
I take the service department approach. Each day, I book my chevy malibu in for an oil change. The service shuttle drops me off and then picks me up at the office. They say I have the cleanest oil they've ever seen and I'm damn proud of that fact.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to karl262 For This Useful Post:
If it isn't a Nenshi or City Council idea it will be a tough sell on them... They love their own pet projects even if it throws millions out the window on stupid ideas... Now if we can somehow turn this around so they think its their idea......
One of my takeaways from the presser was just how supportive Woolley and Urquhart were, after their previous negative comments. They seemed to be genuinely pleasantly surprised with the proposal. If Woolley is an active supporter of this project, that will go a long way on council. TBH I was surprised when King called them up and they were answering questions. It's a great sign.
Nenshi is just being stubborn and defending his position, no matter what was presented he had his comments drafted months ago.
I take the service department approach. Each day, I book my chevy malibu in for an oil change. The service shuttle drops me off and then picks me up at the office. They say I have the cleanest oil they've ever seen and I'm damn proud of that fact.
Scary thing is, an oil change really isn't much more expensive than day parking downtown.
Reminds me of the story about the millionaire who took out a tiny bank loan, leaving his Mercedes with the bank as collateral. He then went on vacation, and after his vacation he came back and repaid the loan. The interest was cheaper than paying to park his Mercedes while he was away.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The commercial development was either there to begin with or developed using a massive investment in the development itself. Katz is spending 200 million for this alone in the ICE district. Studies, however, reveal that this is a myth, or at least woefully over-optimistic:
I am at work and would rather not spend the rest of my day looking for published reports on the issue (suffice it to say both books mentioned above are very well researched and cited)
I don't want everyone to assume that my staunch opposition has anything to do with the benefits, presumed or perceived, that a new stadium will bring. I definitely want a new stadium with a "happening" area around it. However, I am not willing to sit here and be told that the city paying over 2/3 of the cost is reasonable. It simply isn't, now matter how hard you try to justify it.
The consequences of public funding of stadiums has been well publicized over the past decade and backed by intense research. The arguments KK brought today have pretty much been roundly debunked.
There are many ways to skin a cat, and there are better ways than KK offered today.
fortunately for you all, I will not be commenting on this matter anymore as it appears we are headed to yet another misguided and short-sighted stadium deal.
For those backers, please read Field of Schemes. Because all of your arguments today just reveal how much more information the public needs before making such a decision.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument but I believe that your entire premise is based on incorrect facts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The city is funding around 1/4 of the cost, which is the fieldhouse, which they've said is a huge priority already and have been trying to build one for 30 years. They're going to spend that money building it somewhere else anyways. They've been trying to find the money already.
The Flames are funding 1/4.
1/4 is coming from a "usage tax" ie. ticket tax. This can either be fronted by the city with interest or financed conventionally by the Flames.
1/4 is coming from a commercial tax from the west village development. These are tax dollars that won't exist if we simply let the site sit there, as it has been for the past number of decades. Financed same way as above - these are pretty common deals.
The city will continue to own the land and the building and will get a slice of the operating profits. West Village gets developed as a beautiful new area of the city. You heard them talking about how successful East Village has been right? They want to develop this area. They need a private partner and haven't been able to find one until now.
The one issue that really stands out is the creosote, which is currently a provincial issue. Need to figure that out.
You really seem to be advertising that you know your stuff, with your Field of Schemes and all, so I'm probably misinterpreting what in the hell you're talking about.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to heep223 For This Useful Post:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument but I believe that your entire premise is based on incorrect facts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The city is funding around 1/4 of the cost, which is the fieldhouse, which they've said is a huge priority already and have been trying to build one for 30 years. They're going to spend that money building it somewhere else anyways. They've been trying to find the money already.
The Flames are funding 1/4.
1/4 is coming from a "usage tax" ie. ticket tax. This can either be fronted by the city with interest or financed conventionally by the Flames.
1/4 is coming from a commercial tax from the west village development. These are tax dollars that won't exist if we simply let the site sit there, as it has been for the past number of decades. Financed same way as above - these are pretty common deals.
The city will continue to own the land and the building and will get a slice of the operating profits. West Village gets developed as a beautiful new area of the city. You heard them talking about how successful East Village has been right?
The one issue that really stands out is the creosote, which is currently a provincial issue. Need to figure that out.
You really seem to be advertising that you know your stuff, with your Field of Schemes and all, so I'm probably misinterpreting what in the hell you're talking about.
It has been established on here already that a CRL is still a public funding. so thats about 450 of 900... then add the lack of interest gained on the ticket tax loan. The remediation of land. the infrastructure changes. and any shortfalls. 2/3 is probably accurate.
It has been established on here already that a CRL is still a public funding. so thats about 450 of 900... then add the lack of interest gained on the ticket tax loan. The remediation of land. the infrastructure changes. and any shortfalls. 2/3 is probably accurate.
How do you know that the city is paying for the remediation? or the shortfalls? Or that the city is lending the ticket tax money? KK said that they'll look at commercial financing as well. And again, you're just completely ignoring any benefit the city gets from owning the land and the building and getting a slice of the operating income. That would be inconvenient to your argument.
The infrastructure would have to be upgraded to develop this land at all. Are you a proponent of letting this prime real estate sit there for another 3 decades?
You raise some good points but your reaction is pretty aggressive, given the amount of things that you don't know.
It has been established on here already that a CRL is still a public funding. so thats about 450 of 900... then add the lack of interest gained on the ticket tax loan. The remediation of land. the infrastructure changes. and any shortfalls. 2/3 is probably accurate.
I'd say it's more an investment of public funds than a straight handout of public funds. Would anyone say that is inaccurate?
From the CMLC website.
Quote:
Similar to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) used widely in the United States, the CRL provides a means to segregate property tax revenue increases that result from redevelopment in the Rivers District into a fund for infrastructure improvements. The City of Calgary levies and collects the CRL through the property tax system and then allocates the funds to CMLC to implement the Rivers District Community Revitalization Plan.
Since 2007, CMLC has committed approximately $357 million to East Village infrastructure and development programs. This in turn has attracted $2.4 billion of planned development (so far) that’s expected to deliver $725 million of CRL revenues.
How do you know that the city is paying for the remediation? or the shortfalls? Or that the city is lending the ticket tax money? KK said that they'll look at commercial financing as well. And again, you're just completely ignoring any benefit the city gets from owning the land and the building and getting a slice of the operating income. That would be inconvenient to your argument.
The infrastructure would have to be upgraded to develop this land at all. Are you a proponent of letting this prime real estate sit there for another 3 decades?
You raise some good points but your reaction is pretty aggressive, given the amount of things that you don't know.
Why is it a false dichotomy it isn't, either pay a bunch of money for the Flames or let the land sit for 30 years. There are probably many ideas that could be brought up on what to do with the land, stop making it a one or the other thing.
Why is it a false dichotomy it isn't, either pay a bunch of money for the Flames or let the land sit for 30 years. There are probably many ideas that could be brought up on what to do with the land, stop making it a one or the other thing.
There has been a plan in place since 2007 and they haven't been able to get anyone to bite. They need a private partner and they haven't found one for decades. What makes you think that would change.
The Following User Says Thank You to heep223 For This Useful Post:
I've listened to Ken's presentation and looked at the slides. Yes, very flashy and impressive. But I just can't stop thinking why go to all this trouble, when both Saddledome and McMahon can be remodeled and renovated/re-built for hundreds of millions less?
I mean, a fieldhouse could be an asset, but it is not a private venue by any means; it's a public venue, it's a very costly venue and it's not necessarily s justified public expense at present. In other words, it's something that we, as a good city, would like to have at some point; but at what cost? Calgary has just scored, again, 5th on the list of most liveable cities in the world. Without a fieldhouse. If a new fieldhouse could help make Calgary a better city, then it should be planned somewhere in the greenfield, where costs to the public would be a small fraction of what they could be in the West Village and the facility could be well planned ahead within a new community somewhere. Why downtown???
The Flames organization made a bet that a sexy giant public/private complex has a better chance of getting public financing as a whole than in parts. But it just doesn't add up at all.
The urgency and need of cleaning up the creosote contamination is a red herring. The City would be much better financially and logically to contain contamination seepage through efficient boundary protective measures and re-develop West Village as beautiful public park space. Heck, even a new public golf course would make a better sense than a sportscomplex at that location.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
