CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[lazypucker]

I am going to post a couple of interesting questions here. State your opinion:

Will the Flames get a new arena first or win a cup first?
Will that happen in less than or more than 10 years from now (2026)?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Also, Montreal was private, but ended up being sold at a $170M loss. Ottawa was sold at $145 loss. Vancouver was sold for a $90M loss. Toronto is the only successful one.

I can't tell if you're arguing for or against public money.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I am going to post a couple of interesting questions here. State your opinion:

Will the Flames get a new arena first or win a cup first?
Will that happen in less than or more than 10 years from now (2026)?

1. I hate to go with "depends", but I have to. If the Flames are 100% committed and insistent on CalgaryNEXT, I would say Flames winning the cup, because I'm assuming CalgaryNEXT isn't done until 2022-2024. If they're willing to quickly fold and focus on the arena north of the Stampede gorunds, that could be done by 2020, and I'd take that happening over the Flames winning the Cup.

2. Almost certainly by 2026. This thing would have to get seriously stretched out to not be resolved by then. But I guess we'll see how set they are on CalgaryNEXT.

[Ozy_Flame]

Maybe build an Energy Research institute in the same facility, and all contributing O/G companies can pay monthly fees that get them gauranteed corporate seats, and such fees fill the monthly operational cost gaps from ticket sales plus contributions to the lease payback. Then you throw in all the supplementary services like drycleaning, grocery retail and daycare all paying rental monies, and you have a little ecosystem of Flames activity that caters to the Calgary crowd. Let's get creative, people

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

A couple of things:

Architectual cache - I find this kind of funny since the most iconic piece of architecture in this city is a pedestrian bridge that, to that point, had been the most controversial piece of government spending in the history of Calgary.

Rec Leagues - McMahon is fine for that, there is simply no need to upgrade to a new stadium so old men can play flag football.

Government Spending - Agreed, but I can assure you that the point of government spending isn't to make an already profitable private business MORE profitable at the expense of taxpayers.


My solution? Build the fieldhouse as planned.

Well it was touch football, most of the guys who play are like me in their mid-20s, so does that make it better? Not sure why you went with the old men comment, kinda weird. And of course McMahon is just fine for that league, we only need a field, I'm simply pointing out that a new field could be used for that as well. Same goes for soccer and other sports

Your "honest" question was what civic benefits could be gleaned from a new stadium, and I laid out some points as such that on their own are underwhelming but combined together I feel makes a pretty good case.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Well it was touch football, most of the guys who play are like me in their mid-20s, so does that make it better? Not sure why you went with the old men comment, kinda weird. And of course McMahon is just fine for that league, we only need a field, I'm simply pointing out that a new field could be used for that as well. Same goes for soccer and other sports

Your "honest" question was what civic benefits could be gleaned from a new stadium, and I laid out some points as such that on their own are underwhelming but combined together I feel makes a pretty good case.

That wasn't my question. My question is why this was an important civic asset. I'm fully aware of civic benefits. Why is important?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Also, Montreal was private, but ended up being sold at a $170M loss. Ottawa was sold at $145 loss. Vancouver was sold for a $90M loss. Toronto is the only successful one.

Which shows what a crappy investment it has the potential to be for Calgarians. Massive $100+ million dollar losses? Sign us up!

Maybe the NHL needs to work on reducing their other costs if they can't sustain operations without public funding. Perhaps that salary cap should really be $7.3M instead of $73M.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

A couple of things:

Architectual cache - I find this kind of funny since the most iconic piece of architecture in this city is a pedestrian bridge that, to that point, had been the most controversial piece of government spending in the history of Calgary.

Rec Leagues - McMahon is fine for that, there is simply no need to upgrade to a new stadium so old men can play flag football.

Government Spending - Agreed, but I can assure you that the point of government spending isn't to make an already profitable private business MORE profitable at the expense of taxpayers.


My solution? Build the fieldhouse as planned.

You're sure of this? I can give you at least 3 examples of government spending on profitable businesses off the top of my head - Bow Building in Calgary included in the East Village TIF Fund to make it viable to develop the other building, Shell CO2 capture at Fort Saskatchewan upgrader, and the whole Edmonton Ice district.

Maybe they shouldn't spend millions on bike lanes, art work on underpasses/train stations and libraries that most people don't use or want.

[lifetime_flamesfan]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You're sure of this? I can give you at least 3 examples of government spending on profitable businesses off the top of my head - Bow Building in Calgary included in the East Village TIF Fund to make it viable to develop the other building, Shell CO2 capture at Fort Saskatchewan upgrader, and the whole Edmonton Ice district.

Maybe they shouldn't spend millions on bike lanes, art work on underpasses/train stations and libraries that most people don't use or want.

How dare you speak against bike lanes. I sure Nenshi is looking for you as I type this.

Spoiler!

green text should be obvious (sarcasm)

[Ozy_Flame]

I didn't know Sean Chu was a CP'er interested in this thread!

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You're sure of this? I can give you at least 3 examples of government spending on profitable businesses off the top of my head - Bow Building in Calgary included in the East Village TIF Fund to make it viable to develop the other building, Shell CO2 capture at Fort Saskatchewan upgrader, and the whole Edmonton Ice district.

Maybe they shouldn't spend millions on bike lanes, art work on underpasses/train stations and libraries that most people don't use or want.

The first two projects have distinct motives apart from the investment (mainly gentrification and environment). The first one was quite controversial and still largely is.

The third is what the Flames want us to do here and is exactly the kind of thing people opposing CalgaryNEXT are against, so it's not a good example.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I am going to post a couple of interesting questions here. State your opinion:

Will the Flames get a new arena first or win a cup first?
Will that happen in less than or more than 10 years from now (2026)?

I would rather watch the flames win a cup in the Saddledome than in any new arena.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The first two projects have distinct motives apart from the investment (mainly gentrification and environment). The first one was quite controversial and still largely is.

The third is what the Flames want us to do here and is exactly the kind of thing people opposing CalgaryNEXT are against, so it's not a good example.

And by estimates in Edmonton the Ice District and additional development downtown will generate $1 Billion in taxes over the next 20 years. An original investment of $200M (can't remember the exact number) in Edmonton to return $1 B. So what is the problem with that?

Also the Bow Building wasn't in the original plan for TIF funding but because a PRIVATE entity decided to build anyway the City decided to add it to the project to qualify for the TIF plan. Without the Bow the East Village doesn't get built - period. I understand that no matter what a private business puts forward, certain people will be against it. If CalgaryNext spurs development in the West Village why wouldn't the City look at the TIF input whereby over 20 years the development will put additional tax money in the operating budget. NOTHING is getting developed in that are of town unless there is an anchor tenant (I have been driving by that area of town for over 40 years and guess what the big development has been in that time - the Bus Depot).

And Shell CO2 capture today passed the 1 million ton target, ahead of time and below budget. The government money helped drive this and now the provincial GREEN government will not invest in projects like this moving forward. Notice it took a PRIVATE firm to do the engineering and planning for this project, with the mandate to develop this to assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and now the government is running away, why would that be?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Bow Building in Calgary included in the East Village TIF Fund to make it viable to develop the other building

Where is that other building? How did the city's investment perform for them, considering the concession they gave?

Originally Posted by Beatle17

And by estimates in Edmonton the Ice District and additional development downtown will generate $1 Billion in taxes over the next 20 years. So what is the problem with that?

Of that $1BN in taxes - How are you certain some of those developments wouldn't have been built elsewhere in the city? Was this bringing in additional revenues from outside the city, or was this just dollars being diverted from one region of Edmonton to another?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Where is that other building? How did the cities investment perform for them, considering the concession they gave?
Rest of the buildingS in the development.



Of that $1BN in taxes - How are you certain some of those developments wouldn't have been built elsewhere in the city? Was this bringing in additional revenues from outside the city, or was this just dollars being diverted from one region of Edmonton to another?

Believe it or don't, it has been on the news in Edmonton numerous times. I will try to source the news story and post it when I can tomorrow. I will throw the question right back at you, would the office towers and hotels have been built elsewhere in the City?

here is one story from the Edmonton Journal:
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ate-and-dreams

Direct quote from the article:


"So far, the community revitalization levy (CRL), a property tax on the growth in downtown real estate values helping pay for the arena, has brought the city about $9 million, including $1.9 million from education taxes that normally go to the province.
The CRL is intended to cover $316 million worth of city-centre infrastructure, including Rogers Place, storm sewers and a park. The latest estimate, delivered in November 2015, was that it will collect a total of $984 million over 20 years."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Where is that other building? How did the city's investment perform for them, considering the concession they gave?




Of that $1BN in taxes - How are you certain some of those developments wouldn't have been built elsewhere in the city? Was this bringing in additional revenues from outside the city, or was this just dollars being diverted from one region of Edmonton to another?

The thing is: they were built downtown. If you want to claim that they would have been built elsewhere, the onus is on you to prove it.

It is easy to belittle investment by suggesting that the development would have happened elsewhere. But that is pure conjecture.

The fact is that there was little to no development in that area, prior to the arena. Now there is significant complementary development. And the tax revenue for the city is greater (due to the downtown location) than it would be elsewhere (if it in fact got built elsewhere).

[nik-]

Oh yay the "economic impact" canard that's never been proven by any reputable economic source is back.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

Oh yay the "economic impact" canard that's never been proven by any reputable economic source is back.

Right. All we really have is empirical evidence. You know, tax revenues and ####.

Admittedly, that doesn't hold a candle to a good economic report put together by a professor that has never ventured outside of his publicly-funded office.

But it's all we've got, so there it is.

[nik-]

I mean there tons of studies about this from multiple markets. There is zero empirical evidence. Money is moved to different areas, it's not created. But go with whatever makes you feel better about getting played I guess.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It's always sad to see how desperate people are for what amounts to corporate welfare. I wonder how the people who support public money would feel if we gave Brookfield $200 million to help build Brookfield Place. It provides jobs, it's an important company for the community. I betcha most of those people would lose their minds at that. But sports teams? Sign me up I guess. Weird.