CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[ricosuave]

Maybe. But as everyone knows, a recession is a fine time for infrastructure upgrades and work...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

Maybe. But as everyone knows, a recession is a fine time for infrastructure upgrades and work...

It's also the single worst time for a for-profit business to ask for a taxpayer handout, especially with tax increasing governments in power. Hindsight is nice, and the Flames probably wished they proposed this in 2006 and not 2016.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's also the single worst time for a for-profit business to ask for a taxpayer handout, especially with tax increasing governments in power. Hindsight is nice, and the Flames probably wished they proposed this in 2006 and not 2016.

The question is: should decisions be made based on optics, or on economic fundamentals?

It's so easy to fall back on the optics arguments. But at the end of the day, I would hope our leaders have a little more foresight and focus than that.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The question is: should decisions be made based on optics, or on economic fundamentals?

It's so easy to fall back on the optics arguments. But at the end of the day, I would hope our leaders have a little more foresight and focus than that.

It's truly bewildering how you continue to resist all evidence that there is essentially zero economic benefit to spending taxpayer dollars on a sports stadium.

No matter how many mental triple sow cows you try to spin the city is on the losing end of this proposal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's truly bewildering how you continue to resist all evidence that there is essentially zero economic benefit to spending taxpayer dollars on a sports stadium.

No matter how many mental triple sow cows you try to spin the city is on the losing end of this proposal.

The only triple sow cows I see here are the ones where you are trying to spin a view on me.

I made a pretty straight-forward statement that plans are better-made based on economics than optics.

Your singular and inflexible view of the world, along with your drive-by troll posts, are all on you.

[Strange Brew]

The double reference to a triple sow cow...

Better than an Iron Lotus I guess.

Pretty sure it's a salchow.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The double reference to a triple sow cow...

Better than an Iron Lotus I guess.

Pretty sure it's a salchow.

I readily admit that I have no idea one way or the other, and I couldn't care less. Though I do like Tessa Virtue!

[Strange Brew]

I plan to use sow cows as part of my regular vocabulary going forward. The mental imagery is so much better than the real word.

You both have my thanks.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The only triple sow cows I see here are the ones where you are trying to spin a view on me.

I made a pretty straight-forward statement that plans are better-made based on economics than optics.

Your singular and inflexible view of the world, along with your drive-by troll posts, are all on you.

The point is that building a stadium is purely optics (city prestige, world class, etc.). If you want to base the decision on economics, then there is NEVER an argument for a taxpayer funded stadium.

[Mr.Coffee]

Poor economic decisions aside, what kind of society are we in when the absolute filthiest rich of the rich, people who can afford to pay hockey players millions of dollars a year as a fun hobby, are using appeals to the emotions of common people to massively profit from even more- whilst in the midst of one of the provinces most severe economic declines if not the most severe economic declines over the last 50 years?

I graduated business school and am a business person but just like everything else in life, balance needs to be struck here.

From a society perspective this is perverse to me. From a business perspective the current offer is not even worth reading or responding to. From a Flames fan perspective I still enjoy the Saddledome and don't really care if players have nicer showers. I'm comfortable with the concrete mezzanine and waiting a couple minutes to piss.

I dunno, there's just so, so, so much not to like about this at this stage of the game. I haven't even spent this post getting into my opinion on the literal clusterF that has been the Flames org handling of this entire process. I need a train wreck picture but I am too lazy. The fact that somebody hasn't been fired is amazing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The point is that building a stadium is purely optics (city prestige, world class, etc.). If you want to base the decision on economics, then there is NEVER an argument for a taxpayer funded stadium.

If you were following the conversation at all, it was in reference to the fact that building an arena makes more sense economically, during a recession or down period.

The cost of infrastructure work is significantly less, and the value of the jobs created is significantly greater, during a recession.

But just keep bleating away with your single-minded political opinion that is not even referencing the subject you quoted.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Poor economic decisions aside, what kind of society are we in when the absolute filthiest rich of the rich, people who can afford to pay hockey players millions of dollars a year as a fun hobby, are using appeals to the emotions of common people to massively profit from even more- whilst in the midst of one of the provinces most severe economic declines if not the most severe economic declines over the last 50 years?

I graduated business school and am a business person but just like everything else in life, balance needs to be struck here.

From a society perspective this is perverse to me. From a business perspective the current offer is not even worth reading or responding to. From a Flames fan perspective I still enjoy the Saddledome and don't really care if players have nicer showers. I'm comfortable with the concrete mezzanine and waiting a couple minutes to piss.

I dunno, there's just so, so, so much not to like about this at this stage of the game. I haven't even spent this post getting into my opinion on the literal clusterF that has been the Flames org handling of this entire process. I need a train wreck picture but I am too lazy. The fact that somebody hasn't been fired is amazing.

I'd say that's a fairly narrow scope view on things. The city, province, other levels of government subsides or fund in numerous different fashions (taxes incentives for example) many companies with multi million dollar employees, business owners or public investors. It's how they attract business and help drive and attempt to diversify economy.

The debate can rage on about public funding of a Flames arena and whether that money should go to a worthy cause, and I'm not going to bother to venture down that path, other than to say you could likely spring that argument on anything the government funds outside of essential services, or on any company they give a tax break too.

I'm also not going to bother to debate whether there is value to the city on this project. All I will say, is that I assure you the city wants and also feels they need a new arena, and likely has a very strong desire for that arena to have an NHL major tenant in it. They may not feel that they want or need a project of the scope of Calgary Next, but at the very least, the city is motivated to have a new NHL scale hockey rink. The reasons can be debated, whether it's because they actually feel there is economic benefit (either direct or indirect) or simply a quality of life play for its citizens.

But I assure you the city sees benefit in a new rink. Which is why when this is all said and done, SOME form of public funding will get allocated to a new arena for the Flames, which is probably the strongest argument for the fact that there is value for them in a project like this, or else why would it consistently happen?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you were following the conversation at all, it was in reference to the fact that building an arena makes more sense economically, during a recession or down period.

The cost of infrastructure work is significantly less, and the value of the jobs created is significantly greater, during a recession.

But just keep bleating away with your single-minded political opinion that is not even referencing the subject you quoted.

I've followed the conversation. The point is that it is ironic that you want to talk about the economics only when it is relevant to your point of view.

You've proven you don't want to talk about economic impact at all in the thousand pages of this thread. Why would economics be relevant now?

I've presented you with at least 5 peer reviewed papers and studies to back up my position. You've provided me with zero. Yet I'm the political one here? Maybe I should be asking which developer you work for.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I plan to use sow cows as part of my regular vocabulary going forward. The mental imagery is so much better than the real word.

You both have my thanks.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I've followed the conversation. The point is that it is ironic that you want to talk about the economics only when it is relevant to your point of view.

You've proven you don't want to talk about economic impact at all in the thousand pages of this thread. Why would economics be relevant now?

I've presented you with at least 5 peer reviewed papers and studies to back up my position. You've provided me with zero. Yet I'm the political one here? Maybe I should be asking which developer you work for.

So tiring.

It is highly likely that a new arena is going to happen. Whether it's CalgaryNEXT or a Plan B, something will get done.

And when it does, it will include involvement from the city (and possibly the province or federal gov't).

Some people will lose their minds over it, no matter what the details are, because of a singular and inflexible political stance. That's not my problem.

I am interested in productive discussions that focus on moving things forward, and finding solutions to the issues of a project this large.

You can keep harping on your view if that makes you happy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So tiring.

It is highly likely that a new arena is going to happen. Whether it's CalgaryNEXT or a Plan B, something will get done.

And when it does, it will include involvement from the city (and possibly the province or federal gov't).

Some people will lose their minds over it, no matter what the details are, because of a singular and inflexible political stance. That's not my problem.

I am interested in productive discussions that focus on moving things forward, and finding solutions to the issues of a project this large.

You can keep harping on your view if that makes you happy.

Yeah this is going to happen and it's just a matter of when and the ultimate scale of the project. Stomping your feet and continually telling us how you are against it, how it's a bad deal for taxpayers, and providing articles of how these projects never benefit the city is fine the first time but after that it get's pretty tiresome hearing the same argument over and over because CalgaryNEXT in some form is going to move forward regardless and it would be more productive if the arguments against it shifted to how much more the owners should provide (with some realism because they aren't going to pay 100%), location, the inclusion/exclusion of the fieldhouse, etc.

[Regorium]

I'm okay with that. As long as you agree that it's awful for taxpayers in the economic sense, I am willing to move the discussion forward. Willful ignorance that the arena somehow multiplies economic activity is just a non-starter for discussion.

Once we agree on that, then we can actually put a value on all the emotions and intangibles that the arena would bring. The world class facility and professional sports team and the joy of cheering for the Flames does have some dollar value. I'd like the city to clean up the area (at an accelerated pace if necessary) and collaborate with the Flames to go 50/50 on any infrastructure re-alignment. Ownership and operation of the facility should remain with the Flames.

The city should not front the loan for the ticket tax and pay the 80M cost of borrowing. The Flames should front the loan, and be the "bad guys" when people see the ticket tax on their tickets.

That would be a good starting point for negotiations between the two parties, and the # that goes into the fieldhouse or the facility itself is not really a huge deal as long as operation and ownership of the arena remains with the Flames.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The question is: should decisions be made based on optics, or on economic fundamentals?

It's so easy to fall back on the optics arguments. But at the end of the day, I would hope our leaders have a little more foresight and focus than that.

We're talking about politicians here. Suggesting anything other than optics is their concern is pretty funny. Politics is almost by default all about optics.

Ultimately this will be an arena only project, probably north of the Stampede site. And while the Flames ownership probably badly wants the CalgaryNEXT project as is for all the money they'll make from the real estate side of things, getting any significant taxpayer money is a non-starter. Lets theorize that they can actually get the votes in council to get the money. Well those councilors can go ahead and not waste the money on a re-election campaign because in an economy like this, willingly helping a private business with taxpayer money is a one-way ticket to being defeated in an election.

That's why I said 2006 was the window. Even 2011 would have been doable. But right now it's just not possible until there's any sort of economic recovery. With tax increases abound from the city and province, people are going to be pretty pissed at any politician who wants to give away taxpayer money to a wealthy organization, regardless of the economics of it (which have been proven to be middling at best).

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you were following the conversation at all, it was in reference to the fact that building an arena makes more sense economically, during a recession or down period.

The cost of infrastructure work is significantly less, and the value of the jobs created is significantly greater, during a recession.

But just keep bleating away with your single-minded political opinion that is not even referencing the subject you quoted.

Economists are divided on this conclusion. Many think that infrastructure spending during a commodities recession (as is happening in Calgary) does not produce the intended benefits.

Also, by the time construction is to begin, we could be looking at 5 years. No contractor will make an agreement at deflated prices for a project in 5 years.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Pretty sure it's a salchow.

You learned me today....