CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[nik-]

Better idea imo. I don't really think an amateur sports facility should have a baked in parking problem.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by polak

If you're watching Degrassi from 2002 you deserve to have it spoiled for you.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Par

Whay? I thought everyone liked the Drake.

Drake says the n-word a lot.

He's not a wholesome character.

[corporatejay]

World Class city.

Cobb County spent all its money on Braves stadium, doesn’t have enough left for public parks

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/0...-public-parks/

[CroFlames]

Atlanta is a pretty big deal, yes.

That publication seems pretty impartial too.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

World Class city.




http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/0...-public-parks/

World class fallacy?

The issue really has nothing to do with the Braves stadium, although that is such a salacious soundbyte it is hard to pass up. The real issue here is the county officials saying there is only $20M available of the original $40M bond to purchase the 8,000 acres of land. The issue appears to be more related to not spending the bond money in a timely manner than it does anything else. The bond was approved in 2008 but the purchase decision was pushed back because of economic climate issues at the time. This would dramatically impact the ability to generate the revenues required to repay the bond. There are not enough details to understand where the shortfall is coming from, but it could be something as simple as market adjustment and the property becoming more expensive, not purchasing, and then not being able to recoup the funds.

It should be noted that this money is from a bond. Municipal bonds are used to raise money for very specific purposes and must be spent in a specific timeframe, as they must be repaid at the end of that timeframe. If the money is not spent it is returned back to public (the investors who bought the bonds). In this instance the money was approved for purchase of greenspaces and parks. This is what this bond money must be used for. I suspect the government is recognizing that they are not going to be able to generate the revenues to cover the bond and are electing to not spend the money and turn that cash back toward the repayment of the bond itself. So I don't see where the stadium comes into play here as the funding for it was separate from this bond.

Funding for the Braves park is explained here. Http://deadspin.com/here's-how-Cobb-...par-1464404976

More information on Cobb County budgets can be found here. https://cobbcounty.org/index.php?opt...045&Itemid=507

[Senator Clay Davis]

I like how you posted that Deadspin article New Era, because it it shows what a terrible deal for Cobb County it was. They have to pay nearly $9 million to the Braves a year for 30 years basically for the right to have them play in Cobb County. There's also a link in the same article showing Cobb County has to lay off or furlough teachers because of revenue shortages. So yeah, thanks for proving these deals are generally atrocious for the moronic counties that do them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I like how you posted that Deadspin article New Era, because it it shows what a terrible deal for Cobb County it was. They have to pay nearly $9 million to the Braves a year for 30 years basically for the right to have them play in Cobb County. There's also a link in the same article showing Cobb County has to lay off or furlough teachers because of revenue shortages. So yeah, thanks for proving these deals are generally atrocious for the moronic counties that do them.

Just to highlight how terrible this financial situation is, I believe Cobb County receives the most federal dollars of any county in the US.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Props to the owners of the ATL sports teams though. The Georgia Dome and Turner Field are a combined 44 years old and they conned the counties into brand new stadiums for what will probably be over $2 billion. That is pretty impressive.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I like how you posted that Deadspin article New Era, because it it shows what a terrible deal for Cobb County it was. They have to pay nearly $9 million to the Braves a year for 30 years basically for the right to have them play in Cobb County. There's also a link in the same article showing Cobb County has to lay off or furlough teachers because of revenue shortages. So yeah, thanks for proving these deals are generally atrocious for the moronic counties that do them.

Why call it paying the Braves - that added dramatization is not required. The deal is terrible for taxpayers as it actually is:
A reallocation of more than 8.5M per year (for 30 years) from Cobb County general revenue (from regular property taxes) to fund stadium bond/debt financing.
The key being that 'reallocation' (instead of new taxation) allowed the deal to pass without what would have otherwise required a referendum. It drains over 250M from the county over the term, and is only possible because no new taxes were levied on residents. The binding referendum was put in place to protect citizens against exactly what their elected officials ultimately did, using that loophole.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I like how you posted that Deadspin article New Era, because it it shows what a terrible deal for Cobb County it was. They have to pay nearly $9 million to the Braves a year for 30 years basically for the right to have them play in Cobb County. There's also a link in the same article showing Cobb County has to lay off or furlough teachers because of revenue shortages. So yeah, thanks for proving these deals are generally atrocious for the moronic counties that do them.

That's what you got out of that article? I can see it if the only thing you read is the deadspin article, but did you follow it up by looking at the Cobb County budget report? The county is spending money in hopes of raising more revenues through taxes and levies. They spend $9M and get 6% of the Braves revenues ($266M last year), which is shared with state as well. That does not include the spinoff revenues from local businesses. So the idea of making money off this deal for the county was not far off. The problem being is there are going to be feast and famine years when the Braves are good and bad.

BTW, the county doesn't oversee education spending, so teachers being furloughed is a red herring and mostly bull####. People need to understand the complexities of these deals and how the money is raised. Sadly the media doesn't do a very good job at explaining how they work and regularly report wrong information, like teachers being furloughed as a result of this deal.

[Senator Clay Davis]

New_Era I have to say this, but you are by far the staunchest defender of public money in stadiums I have ever seen, to the point I honestly believe you think every single city that has major sports should feel grateful for the chance to give sports teams money, as if its almost their obligation to do so. You hold this position even with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I suppose the obvious question here: Why? Is it just this new arena you want? Or do you think every new arena should be obligated to be built with public money? Are you going to defend every single project that gets public money?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

New_Era I have to say this, but you are by far the staunchest defender of public money in stadiums I have ever seen, to the point I honestly believe you think every single city that has major sports should feel grateful for the chance to give sports teams money, as if its almost their obligation to do so. You hold this position even with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I suppose the obvious question here: Why? Is it just this new arena you want? Or do you think every new arena should be obligated to be built with public money? Are you going to defend every single project that gets public money?

That's where you're wrong. I am not a supporter of public money for free enterprise; kind of the opposite truth be told. What I can do is approach these projects as complex and try to understand them on all levels. I really don't give a wet fart about what some uninformed journalist or some site with a very obvious bias and axe to grind has to say, because they don't tell the whole story. I need to know the full story to make a call and I will make the effort to collect the appropriate amount of data to make the right call.

On the Braves stadium, I wouldn't have supported it. I think the value to the public is poor. If the Braves had done more to make this a public facility, or there had been a better payoff for the public, I would be much more open to the project. Maybe you mistook my post as supporting the Braves stadium, but that wasn't the case. I was pointing out that there was more reading required and understanding that there was some BS being forwarded that you should understand and consider the reality of what was being said. I don't like it when the media lies and I wanted that exposed as well.

Now, having said that I do understand the County's position and why they still I tired the deal the way they did. I can understand their investment in the project, because I've seen first hand how passing on a small investment like this can hurt the bigger picture. There are lots of factors that go into making a stadium project work and you have to approach them appreciating the nuance. I don't see the public benefit from the Braves concept and think it wasn't a good investment.

On to CalgaryNext, I am in support of this project for some public funding. The extent of that public funding is what needs to be addressed. Why do I like CalgaryNext over the Braves stadium? Meeting needs, Public access and space. The city needs to do something with the west villiage. That has been an ongoing problem for 50 years. This is an opportunity to fix it and provide an anchor to that area. I also love the concept of the field house. This is a long time coming to Calgary and greatly needed. The central location is key as is the access to mass transit. This is a space for all Calgarians. The new arena is also a must. The reasons for the arena have been discussed at length, but the bottom line is it allows access to events that would bypass Calgary otherwise. There is a big benefit to the city and general public here. The sports teams get their needed facilities, which we all agree is due. Everyone gets what they need here.

Is it perfect? No, but the details are far from fleshed out. The most important thing is the public gets a great new space to meet, play, and be entertained for decades to come. That is worth a lot to a city. The public access is why the City should be all over this and working to find a way to make this a success. Without that public access component I would be against the project all together. If you started talking about a new arena on Stampede land I would be dead set against it, as I don't think it addresses the overall needs of the city. Meeting the needs of the public is what drives my desire to spend tax dollars. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's where you're wrong. I am not a supporter of public money for free enterprise; kind of the opposite truth be told. What I can do is approach these projects as complex and try to understand them on all levels. I really don't give a wet fart about what some uninformed journalist or some site with a very obvious bias and axe to grind has to say, because they don't tell the whole story. I need to know the full story to make a call and I will make the effort to collect the appropriate amount of data to make the right call.

Ok, but you do know there have been repeated studies of these projects and they consistently show little to no value to the public long term right? So it's just as disingenuous when the sports team makes some of the claims it does about what stadiums do. Being dishonest, misleading, or straight up lying is simply part of the process and both sides do it. These projects often claim to be waaaaay more beneficial than they end up being. Everyone is selling in this process of course.

On the Braves stadium, I wouldn't have supported it. I think the value to the public is poor. If the Braves had done more to make this a public facility, or there had been a better payoff for the public, I would be much more open to the project. Maybe you mistook my post as supporting the Braves stadium, but that wasn't the case. I was pointing out that there was more reading required and understanding that there was some BS being forwarded that you should understand and consider the reality of what was being said. I don't like it when the media lies and I wanted that exposed as well.

Yeah I got that. As mentioned already though, the teams often lie as well. It's a competitive sales pitch between two sides with strong belief that they are right. But if sports stadiums had any sort of value generation to them, you would expect the sports teams to willingly fund them. I understand the risk, but of course that cuts both ways. Public money is finite though, so the diligence should be much higher on the public side.

Now, having said that I do understand the County's position and why they still I tired the deal the way they did. I can understand their investment in the project, because I've seen first hand how passing on a small investment like this can hurt the bigger picture. There are lots of factors that go into making a stadium project work and you have to approach them appreciating the nuance. I don't see the public benefit from the Braves concept and think it wasn't a good investment.

Which is why they of course went the route of circumventing public input. I think we should always have a say in something like this, but as we've seen with Olympic bids recently being soundly rejected when they become something the public votes, letting the public decide usually results in strong rejection. I definitely think CalgaryNEXT would be dead if there were any vote on any public money. Of course this could become an election issue in 2017...

On to CalgaryNext, I am in support of this project for some public funding. The extent of that public funding is what needs to be addressed. Why do I like CalgaryNext over the Braves stadium? Meeting needs, Public access and space. The city needs to do something with the west villiage. That has been an ongoing problem for 50 years. This is an opportunity to fix it and provide an anchor to that area. I also love the concept of the field house. This is a long time coming to Calgary and greatly needed. The central location is key as is the access to mass transit. This is a space for all Calgarians. The new arena is also a must. The reasons for the arena have been discussed at length, but the bottom line is it allows access to events that would bypass Calgary otherwise. There is a big benefit to the city and general public here. The sports teams get their needed facilities, which we all agree is due. Everyone gets what they need here.

To the bolded, well, no lol. If that were the case this project would be a slam dunk. Instead the majority of people on a Flames forum don't want it. Imagine the NDP not being able to rely on environmental hippies to vote for them. They would cease to exist as a political party. The Flames can't get their core fanbase on board with this. As far as major red flags go....

To the rest, only the arena is what is needed. They can easily go finance that themselves with the ticket tax and their own money. The fieldhouse idea is just an attempt to get a new stadium for the Stamps, a stadium that is unjustifiable financially on its own. But the fieldhouse becomes a $200 million facility, fully publicly financed, that will have significant restrictions in access during the busiest time of year for public facility usage. Not a great deal for the city here, and the location is problematic as an access point, which should never be the case for a public facility. This is still a significant driver city, this isn't Montreal. Downtown is not the ideal spot for the fieldhouse.

Is it perfect? No, but the details are far from fleshed out. The most important thing is the public gets a great new space to meet, play, and be entertained for decades to come. That is worth a lot to a city. The public access is why the City should be all over this and working to find a way to make this a success. Without that public access component I would be against the project all together. If you started talking about a new arena on Stampede land I would be dead set against it, as I don't think it addresses the overall needs of the city. Meeting the needs of the public is what drives my desire to spend tax dollars. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unfortunately for the Flames ownership group you only get one chance at a first impression. Obviously no one could claim this first impression was anything but disastrous. They made a very tough sell an even tougher sell with their poor first presentation. Ultimately I feel pretty confident no public money will go to this and it will be the arena only, but realistically that is what the vast, vast majority of people really want.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ok, but you do know there have been repeated studies of these projects and they consistently show little to no value to the public long term right? So it's just as disingenuous when the sports team makes some of the claims it does about what stadiums do. Being dishonest, misleading, or straight up lying is simply part of the process and both sides do it. These projects often claim to be waaaaay more beneficial than they end up being. Everyone is selling in this process of course.

There have also been studies that have shown they have a positive affect on cities too. I guess it all depends on what study you wish to believe. We agree there is a lot of dishonesty on both parts, which is why I tend to trust independent audits that are co-sponsored by both parties. A little bit of transparency on both parts helps these things go much smoother.

Yeah I got that. As mentioned already though, the teams often lie as well. It's a competitive sales pitch between two sides with strong belief that they are right. But if sports stadiums had any sort of value generation to them, you would expect the sports teams to willingly fund them. I understand the risk, but of course that cuts both ways. Public money is finite though, so the diligence should be much higher on the public side.

Don't disagree with what you are saying here. That is why I think there needs to be a big public access component to these projects to make them viable. The "entertainment" district concept that comes with these projects is very important. The public access to facilities is also crucial. You get that into the mix and the project is much more likely to be successful.

Which is why they of course went the route of circumventing public input. I think we should always have a say in something like this, but as we've seen with Olympic bids recently being soundly rejected when they become something the public votes, letting the public decide usually results in strong rejection. I definitely think CalgaryNEXT would be dead if there were any vote on any public money. Of course this could become an election issue in 2017...

The reason the whole CalgaryNext concept was so poorly received was because there was no disco ball. Had the presentation been made with much better renderings it would have been better received. If the presentation had 3D holograms and sharks with "lasers" this would have been a slam dunk and it would have been a rush to get shovels into the ground. It is amazing how little imagination people have and how they can't visualize what the bigger concepts look like. I think the Flames over-estimated the sophistication of their audience and that put them behind the eight ball.

To the bolded, well, no lol. If that were the case this project would be a slam dunk. Instead the majority of people on a Flames forum don't want it. Imagine the NDP not being able to rely on environmental hippies to vote for them. They would cease to exist as a political party. The Flames can't get their core fanbase on board with this. As far as major red flags go....

Not enough sharks with lasers. We saw how the needle moved when the latest renderings came out. The support would be there with a better presentation.

To the rest, only the arena is what is needed. They can easily go finance that themselves with the ticket tax and their own money. The fieldhouse idea is just an attempt to get a new stadium for the Stamps, a stadium that is unjustifiable financially on its own. But the fieldhouse becomes a $200 million facility, fully publicly financed, that will have significant restrictions in access during the busiest time of year for public facility usage. Not a great deal for the city here, and the location is problematic as an access point, which should never be the case for a public facility. This is still a significant driver city, this isn't Montreal. Downtown is not the ideal spot for the fieldhouse.

Downtown is the ideal place for the fieldhouse. You need this facility centralized and accessible by mass transit. Putting a facility half an hour away from everywhere is acceptable. Putting a facility where people in one end of the city have to drive an hour or more is not acceptable. That is what has killed, and I mean absolutely killed the Coyotes and the Glendale facilities.

Unfortunately for the Flames ownership group you only get one chance at a first impression. Obviously no one could claim this first impression was anything but disastrous. They made a very tough sell an even tougher sell with their poor first presentation. Ultimately I feel pretty confident no public money will go to this and it will be the arena only, but realistically that is what the vast, vast majority of people really want.

I disagree. I think of the Flames roll out the disco ball and wow people with a new presentation they will get the support they need. The Flames have a lot of good will with the majority of Calgarians and I think they would be given a second chance to flesh out more details. If the Flames are forced to go this alone I think Calgarians are going to be shocked and disappointed by the result. They definitely won't like the prices they are going to experience. Careful what you wish for.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by New Era

There have also been studies that have shown they have a positive affect on cities too. I guess it all depends on what study you wish to believe. We agree there is a lot of dishonesty on both parts, which is why I tend to trust independent audits that are co-sponsored by both parties. A little bit of transparency on both parts helps these things go much smoother.



Don't disagree with what you are saying here. That is why I think there needs to be a big public access component to these projects to make them viable. The "entertainment" district concept that comes with these projects is very important. The public access to facilities is also crucial. You get that into the mix and the project is much more likely to be successful.



The reason the whole CalgaryNext concept was so poorly received was because there was no disco ball. Had the presentation been made with much better renderings it would have been better received. If the presentation had 3D holograms and sharks with "lasers" this would have been a slam dunk and it would have been a rush to get shovels into the ground. It is amazing how little imagination people have and how they can't visualize what the bigger concepts look like. I think the Flames over-estimated the sophistication of their audience and that put them behind the eight ball.



Not enough sharks with lasers. We saw how the needle moved when the latest renderings came out. The support would be there with a better presentation.



Downtown is the ideal place for the fieldhouse. You need this facility centralized and accessible by mass transit. Putting a facility half an hour away from everywhere is acceptable. Putting a facility where people in one end of the city have to drive an hour or more is not acceptable. That is what has killed, and I mean absolutely killed the Coyotes and the Glendale facilities.



I disagree. I think of the Flames roll out the disco ball and wow people with a new presentation they will get the support they need. The Flames have a lot of good will with the majority of Calgarians and I think they would be given a second chance to flesh out more details. If the Flames are forced to go this alone I think Calgarians are going to be shocked and disappointed by the result. They definitely won't like the prices they are going to experience. Careful what you wish for.

I think this is a pretty good post overall but I just disagree with you on what you mentioned today. You indicate that the most important thing is a good public sports / rec area or facility.

I disagree, I think the most important thing in this is getting a good deal for the city. I don't think it needs to be fully funded by private interests necessarily, but the starting point in this negotiation was an anchor point way too low. This isn't Edwards' first rodeo at negotiating so he's setting his initial offer so low knowing that movement to the middle will yield a very acceptable outcome. But this is where I'm not sure the acceptable middle ground between what I would envision as a decent deal for the city and what the Flames ownership group has in mind.

Simply put they proposed a terrible offer, it isn't even close.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by New Era

The reason the whole CalgaryNext concept was so poorly received was because there was no disco ball. Had the presentation been made with much better renderings it would have been better received. If the presentation had 3D holograms and sharks with "lasers" this would have been a slam dunk and it would have been a rush to get shovels into the ground. It is amazing how little imagination people have and how they can't visualize what the bigger concepts look like. I think the Flames over-estimated the sophistication of their audience and that put them behind the eight ball.

Not enough sharks with lasers. We saw how the needle moved when the latest renderings came out. The support would be there with a better presentation.



I disagree. I think of the Flames roll out the disco ball and wow people with a new presentation they will get the support they need. The Flames have a lot of good will with the majority of Calgarians and I think they would be given a second chance to flesh out more details. If the Flames are forced to go this alone I think Calgarians are going to be shocked and disappointed by the result. They definitely won't like the prices they are going to experience. Careful what you wish for.

Not everyone is swayed by flashy pictures.

Are you suggesting that the Flames will charge more if they have to pay more? Suggesting that they would otherwise 'discount' out of their own good will and not charging what the market will bear?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by New Era

The reason the whole CalgaryNext concept was so poorly received was because there was no disco ball. Had the presentation been made with much better renderings it would have been better received. If the presentation had 3D holograms and sharks with "lasers" this would have been a slam dunk and it would have been a rush to get shovels into the ground. It is amazing how little imagination people have and how they can't visualize what the bigger concepts look like. I think the Flames over-estimated the sophistication of their audience and that put them behind the eight ball.

I disagree. The poor renderings were merely a focus of ridicule, not at all the reason the concept was poorly received.

The concept was purely received because it:
a) Asked for too much public money for the inside-battery-limits facility itself
b) Ignored the outside-battery-limits infrastructure and tie-in costs which the city (i.e. the citizens) would have to bear.
c) Turned a dedicated fieldhouse with ample parking into a fieldhouse with poor parking and massive scheduling conflicts, all for the same amount of money.
d) Accelerated the development of the west village ahead of the east village filling out.
e) Took up a massive chunk of the prime riverfront land in the west village.
f) In doing the above, implying that they think we're all idiots.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I disagree. The poor renderings were merely a focus of ridicule, not at all the reason the concept was poorly received.

The concept was purely received because it:
a) Asked for too much public money for the inside-battery-limits facility itself
b) Ignored the outside-battery-limits infrastructure and tie-in costs which the city (i.e. the citizens) would have to bear.
c) Turned a dedicated fieldhouse with ample parking into a fieldhouse with poor parking and massive scheduling conflicts, all for the same amount of money.
d) Accelerated the development of the west village ahead of the east village filling out.
e) Took up a massive chunk of the prime riverfront land in the west village.
f) In doing the above, implying that they think we're all idiots.

Nailed it.

[Coach]

Whew. Thank god the Flames didn't brainwash me with a disco ball. I might have thought this proposal was anything more than half-assed.