[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Simanium

No, it's money that would never have existed but for the development of the land and CalgaryNext is the catalyst for that development. Arena or not, just like East Village, there is no way it's getting developed without a CRL. It's a 20 year investment for a reduction in taxes thereafter for eternity.

For sake of argument...this is assuming it's not taking away market demand (at least in part) from neighbouring urban communities like Beltline, Downtown West where each project contributes to the general tax base now and into the future. Say there is demand for roughly 2000 residential units a year in the central part of the city. If 500 a year goes to West Village would it mean 500 more net residential units in the core for a total of 2500? Or would it mean 1500 would go in other areas and 500 would go in West Village? Would there be some that would live in WV but not in other downtown neighbourhoods? Maybe, but it might be closer to zero sum, meaning it's spreading market demand over a larger land base not necessary creating more tax (deferred) tax base.

The way to avoid this would be to bring on WV when other downtown neighbourhoods are close to built out, therefore creating more urban land supply when absolutely required and creating tax base that couldn't otherwise exist.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'll wait to see if the city says the project helps or hinders the CRL as a whole but that seems a double standard to me.

If I want to build a commercial or residential project, I'll get the land developed for me and a pretty sweet deal upon which I can build my project and make plenty of profits for a long, long time. And that's ok.

If I'm building a public project I'll get all the same plus a sweetheart deal on taxes thereafter, even if lots of private companies make money at the same time thanks to my tax free building. none of them have to put up a dime. And that's ok.

But if I own a hockey team, even if most of the CRL funds a stadium/ field house for public use that I'll never own or make a nickel off, well now it's not ok.

I dont think that's quite a fair assessment but I think it does start to frame the correct question

Does the city want to spend 450 million to build a fieldhouse / stadium that they will own.

The arena can be built on its own by the flames.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by GGG

I dont think that's quite a fair assessment but I think it does start to frame the correct question

Does the city want to spend 450 million to build a fieldhouse / stadium that they will own.

The arena can be built on its own by the flames.

By definition every single development in a CRL is subsidized.

It's weird that if it's a multimillion (or billion) developer that's cool, but not if its the flames.

But you're right. That's how I see it. The city is coughing up 200 + whatever the net difference is in the CRL because of the stadium, which if it was all cost no benefit would be the whole thing.

So between 200 and 450 for an arena stadium field house that they'll own outright.

[GGG]

Its not an outright subsidy if its used to improve the area to provide things that are typically provided by the city. Over/underpasses in the east village were out of the CRL so this is a city service rather than a subsidy.

Im not familiar enough with the east village crl to really comment on what is a subsidy and what is typical city infrastructure they would provide.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

So between 200 and 450 for an arena stadium field house that they'll own outright.

I say 200 to 450 for just a fieldhouse /stadium as the numbers basically show the flames can build an arena without subsidy.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Fair enough, though in that case those things wouldn't be subsidies for the flames either.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its not an outright subsidy if its used to improve the area to provide things that are typically provided by the city. Over/underpasses in the east village were out of the CRL so this is a city service rather than a subsidy.

Im not familiar enough with the east village crl to really comment on what is a subsidy and what is typical city infrastructure they would provide.

CRL may be a perfectly acceptable method to help finance this overall project, but it is important people understand exactly what it does entail and what it means. It's not as simple as saying "it gets revenue we wouldn't otherwise get" it's more nuanced than that. We just have to make that decision with eyes wide open.

I'm a big proponent of CRL for East Village because I think the investments made are largely a city-wide benefit (St Patrick's Island, Riverwalk, 4th St underpass, central library, flood mitigation, etc) while the internal infrastructure (streetscapes, plazas) also really helped make the area truly attractive to development. It also was a desperate situation with a lot of social despair and crime on the back door of City Hall and cultural institutions that needed to be addressed urgently.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

By definition every single development in a CRL is subsidized.

It's weird that if it's a multimillion (or billion) developer that's cool, but not if its the flames.

But you're right. That's how I see it. The city is coughing up 200 + whatever the net difference is in the CRL because of the stadium, which if it was all cost no benefit would be the whole thing.

So between 200 and 450 for an arena stadium field house that they'll own outright.

Owning the arena is a terrible deal because the city gets zero property tax on a big asset on prime land, and we will all be on the hook for any faults, repairs, problems with the arena, can we please all stop saying that the city owning the arena is a good thing, it is not.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

Owning the arena is a terrible deal because the city gets zero property tax on a big asset on prime land, and we will all be on the hook for any faults, repairs, problems with the arena, can we please all stop saying that the city owning the arena is a good thing, it is not.

While I agree owning the arena does have downfalls and isn't all rosy:

Owning the arena has the advantage of the City owning a prime piece of real estate when we decide that CalgaryNext is no longer good enough.... decades from now. Hopefully the real estate is worth more than in bulldozing costs if the stadium isn't reused (grasping at straws?)

Also from CalgaryNext FAQ - unclear if a major repair falls into this category:

Q: Who will be responsible for operations and maintenance?

A: The Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) would take on this responsibility.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Fair enough, though in that case those things wouldn't be subsidies for the flames either.

Except these things for the rest of the area needing to be developed appear to be outside of the CRL. So it appears to me the CRL is being used to fund the building and additional money is still required to get the other land up to a level where the commercial and residential investment will be attractive.

[GullFoss]

To be honest, the more I think about this project, the less I am against "some" public money going to an arena. Thats because, it does have some "public rationale" including (1) concerts (2) civic pride (3) special events.

That said, I don't like this project as currently envisioned. Its too much money. And, I dislike the location of the field house for amateur sports.

I think I'd like the project more as follows:
1) Province pays for clean up of creosole
2) City pays for transport infrastructure
3) Flames are given enough free land in the west village to build arena. They are also given an exclusive casino licence for the area, and given right of first refusal to develop the area (have to purchase land at "fair market value")
4) Flames put in $200m of their own money and $250m ticket tax to fund the Event Centre

[Weitz]

New Poll indicating 49% of Calgarians oppose public funds to the arena project:

Ward 4 Coun. Sean Chu said he agrees with the 49 per cent of poll respondents who oppose the proposal’s financing model.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ojects-funding

[bizaro86]

I was wondering what will happen to this place in 20-30 years, when the arena is no longer state of the art/economic, but the football field/fieldhouse are still being used? Realistically if the Stamps get a stadium here they won't get another one for 50+ years, or maybe ever. However, the Flames will probably need another new arena in ~30 years. If all of the systems are integrated, will that mean the "events centre" has to stick around after the Flames move to the "All Luxury Box Elevated Ice Palace in 2049?"

[PepsiFree]

The problem is the level of misinformation leading to knee jerk reaction around the project. As GGG said the only real way to have a proper conversation is to look at them as separate entities.

Flames arena - 450 million (paid by the Flames)
City Fieldhouse and event center - 440 million (paid by the city)

Extras:
Stamps get to use Fieldhouse
City gets to use arena

The new library is $250 million. So is a new Fieldhouse and event center worth a $190 million more than a Library? If people are concerned about public funds, that should be the convo. Not about some apparently greedy billionaires trying to screw us over by building our buildings.

[Torrie the Whaler]

There are some big red flags in this development for me, although Calgary can use this......
1) Why does the Flames want all the money for the building but still want the city to do all the maintenance and upkeep on the buildings?
2) They want these buildings but do not put in any money for the roads and access.
3) If the flames get this sweet deal, can I get the city to buy me a condo and then pay the condo fees for me. I promise to hold a few parties and invite my relatives from the old country just so we can attract tourist dollars. If they can pay all the taxes on it I would really be happy.

[VERVE]

Interesting article in Edm Journal regarding flooding in the proposed arena site. Could be expensive to build levees and dykes...

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...452/story.html

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by Torrie the Whaler

There are some big red flags in this development for me, although Calgary can use this......
1) Why does the Flames want all the money for the building but still want the city to do all the maintenance and upkeep on the buildings?

As was stated a couple posts above yours....

Straight from the next website.

Q: Who will be responsible for operations and maintenance?

A: The Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) would take on this responsibility.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by VERVE

Interesting article in Edm Journal regarding flooding in the proposed arena site. Could be expensive to build levees and dykes...

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...452/story.html

It's in the "flood plain" but it would take a biblical flood to affect this site. In the 1:100yr flood it stayed dry beyond some ground seepage.

[troutman]

Water expert astonished by proposed location of CalgaryNEXT along Bow River

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...long-bow-river

John Pomeroy, a hydrology professor at the University of Saskatchewan, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Water Resources and Climate Change, said he’s shocked by the proposed location.

“The only thing that should be happening in the floodplains in Calgary in terms of development is the development of green spaces,” he said in an interview. “It’s astonishing two years after the flood.”

Calgary Flames president Ken King dismissed the risk last week when he was asked about the new area being built in a floodplain, suggesting it’s out of the flood zone.

“The preliminary research on it would say it’s out of the floodplain,” he reiterated in an interview Friday. “In 2013, it flooded across the river.”

Still, a 2012 city study suggests the area could flood in an event larger than the one seen in 2013.

“The other thing is we’re building for the future now and we’re entering a period of climate extremes, including extreme flooding, so it’s not reasonable to assume that things will not be any worse than the past.” [Pomeroy]

“There will be an event. It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.” [Kim Sturgess, chief executive of Alberta WaterSmart]

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The problem is the level of misinformation leading to knee jerk reaction around the project. As GGG said the only real way to have a proper conversation is to look at them as separate entities.

Flames arena - 450 million (paid by the Flames)
City Fieldhouse and event center - 440 million (paid by the city)

Extras:
Stamps get to use Fieldhouse
City gets to use arena

The new library is $250 million. So is a new Fieldhouse and event center worth a $190 million more than a Library? If people are concerned about public funds, that should be the convo. Not about some apparently greedy billionaires trying to screw us over by building our buildings.

This is the correct way to view it in my opinion and the right stance from which to assess issue. Effectively, a $240M CRL is being used to fund the difference between a basic fieldhouse and one capable of hosting the Stamps. Whether that is a good use of taxpayer dollars or not is the true debate. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on that though...my gut is telling me I'm against it.

It just goes to show how badly King messed up the messaging.