CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

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."

So what you are saying is that a 316 million dollar investment will recoup a billion dollars over 20 years. Now how much of a loan and at what interest rate did they take to do it. As at a 6% rate the investment breaks even. At that assumes the city would have gotten 0 dollars in revenue from the existing lands had they done nothing and assumes there was no cannibalization.

And yes office and residential space as required for the employee base of the city would be built somewhere in the city. So yes the tower space would have been built unless somehow the arena brings in new businesses to the city.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's the thing: businesses do create wealth. By definition. It is the only reason to create a business.

That is why governments support business development - it creates jobs and wealth. It's how standards of living actually rise.

The idea that sports, as a business, somehow is exempt from that - that the business development that surrounds arenas and stadiums - is somehow different, and only exists as a transfer from elsewhere, is a concept that only a bunch of never-experienced-business-or-the-real-world university professors could ever believe.

But let's take your side for a moment. Let's assume that no new wealth or business is created. That it is only transferred from other potential locations.

So what are we left with then?:

1) higher tax revenue, due to the downtown location
2) increased urbanization, which is a major goal of all NA cities, and is beneficial for all kinds of reasons, including being environmentally sound encouraging public transit, etc.

But hey... studies! No proof!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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.

The government does support businesses. All the time.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what you are saying is that a 316 million dollar investment will recoup a billion dollars over 20 years. Now how much of a loan and at what interest rate did they take to do it. As at a 6% rate the investment breaks even. At that assumes the city would have gotten 0 dollars in revenue from the existing lands had they done nothing and assumes there was no cannibalization.

And yes office and residential space as required for the employee base of the city would be built somewhere in the city. So yes the tower space would have been built unless somehow the arena brings in new businesses to the city.

Were they being built? No. That's a bit of an elephant in the room, here.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's the thing: businesses do create wealth. By definition. It is the only reason to create a business.

That is why governments support business development - it creates jobs and wealth. It's how standards of living actually rise.

The idea that sports, as a business, somehow is exempt from that - that the business development that surrounds arenas and stadiums - is somehow different, and only exists as a transfer from elsewhere, is a concept that only a bunch of never-experienced-business-or-the-real-world university professors could ever believe.

But let's take your side for a moment. Let's assume that no new wealth or business is created. That it is only transferred from other potential locations.

So what are we left with then?:

1) higher tax revenue, due to the downtown location
2) increased urbanization, which is a major goal of all NA cities, and is beneficial for all kinds of reasons, including being environmentally sound encouraging public transit, etc.

But hey... studies! No proof!

Show me the empirical evidence that building a new stadium or arena creates a net economic positive for a city, factoring in the costs of the construction.

Show me your proof. Since you're so eager to bring it up.

I bet you can't. Because if you can, you're lined up for an incredibly high six figure income consulting to team owners because you're sitting on the silver bullet they've been looking for for 25 years.

You bought the hype. It's ok, you were fooled, many many cities have been fooled to this point. None of them have come out winners. Hopefully Calgary doesn't get fooled too.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

IVORY TOWERS!

IVORY TOWERS!

Look at the shinny new building guys!!!!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

Show me the empirical evidence that building a new stadium or arena creates a net economic positive for a city, factoring in the costs of the construction.

Show me your proof. Since you're so eager to bring it up.

I bet you can't. Because if you can, you're lined up for an incredibly high six figure income consulting to team owners because you're sitting on the silver bullet they've been looking for for 25 years.

You bought the hype. It's ok, you were fooled, many many cities have been fooled to this point. None of them have come out winners. Hopefully Calgary doesn't get fooled too.

You mean the tax revenues being discussed in the article?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You mean the tax revenues being discussed in the article?

Where was that money created? New people just spring up in a city because there's an arena district now?

No. It's tax revenue cannibalised from another part of the city because a new arena doesn't create more wealth for the citizens, thus no extra money, thus no actual new tax revenue. Just revenue in a different place.

Arenas make money for one group, the owners. Not the people in the city spending.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

Where was that money created? New people just spring up in a city because there's an arena district now?

No. It's tax revenue cannibalised from another part of the city because a new arena doesn't create more wealth for the citizens, thus no extra money, thus no actual new tax revenue. Just revenue in a different place.

Explain how standards of living rise.

Businesses create wealth.

By your argument, all businesses are just businesses that would have existed elsewhere. There is no new money, only money that would have been spent at some new suburban mall (that you would totally be against)

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The government does support businesses. All the time.

I agree with you here. Governments have two interests at large. The promotion of public goods for citizens, and private interests which, largely feed into the public good (jobs etc.)

Most infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) serve the public and private in several ways.

But most infrastructure provides either basic needs or multiplier effects. CalgaryNEXT, and most stadium development provide neither.

A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. 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.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Explain how standards of living rise.

Businesses create wealth.

By your argument, all businesses are just businesses that would have existed elsewhere. There is no new money, only money that would have been spent at some new suburban mall (that you would totally be against)

This business creates wealth for the owners.

Just like a new arena will create more wealth for the owners of the Flames, funded by our taxes. If you honestly believe that the average citizen will be better off, or that business will move to Calgary to have an office in the arena district, then I don't know what to say to you.

This isn't a new business springing up and creating new jobs, it's a very profitable business getting a massive handout to get a new office.

Please. Show me your empirical evidence. Not a statement saying "tax revenues", that's not empirical evidence. That's an assumption.

[DiracSpike]

"Construction of the Saddledome was financed as part of the funding for the 1988 Winter Olympics. The City of Calgary funded $31.5 million, the Government of Alberta funded $31.5 million, the Government of Canada funded $29.7 million and the Olympic organizing committee—OCO '88—funded $5 million for a total initial cost of $97.7 million in 1983. Original estimates in 1980 were about $60 million; the 1981 budget for the project was about $83.5 million. It was the most over-budget facility built for the '88 Olympics."

Does anyone today care about that 30 million? How much would the city have lost out on by not having the Olympics and the Flames for the past 30+ years?

[Enoch Root]

Let's just keep moving the goalposts.

Or, we can address the issues currently being discussed, which are:

1) either the development in downtown Edmonton would have happened anyway, or it wouldn't have (note: up to this point it wasn't), and

2) either that development has generated tax revenue or it hasn't.

[nik-]

There are no goalposts to move. The jury is really out on this. Funding an arena is a losing proposition for a municipality.

You're a true believer, and that's cool, but it doesn't mean you're right.

Where did those tax dollars come from? Which companies specifically moved to Edmonton to locate their offices in the arena district?

What new lease space requirements were created by having a new arena?

Answer any of those.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

There are no goalposts to move. The jury is really out on this. Funding an arena is a losing proposition for a municipality.

You're a true believer, and that's cool, but it doesn't mean you're right.

Trying to categorize or label me does not help your argument.

Evidence has been presented and you are arguing that the evidence is an illusion. I am saying that it is real.

Why try to make it personal?

[nik-]

No, evidence HAS NOT been presented.

It's a vague statement in an article and a bunch of assumptions. Sorry, that is not "evidence" and certainly not the empirical evidence you seem to think it is.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

There are no goalposts to move. The jury is really out on this. Funding an arena is a losing proposition for a municipality.

You're a true believer, and that's cool, but it doesn't mean you're right.

Where did those tax dollars come from? Which companies specifically moved to Edmonton to locate their offices in the arena district?

What new lease space requirements were created by having a new arena?

Answer any of those.

Are you suggesting that tax revenue hasn't increased, that it merely transferred from elsewhere? You are going to have to demonstrate some evidence for that claim.

[nik-]

Who moved from another municipality to have their office in the arena district? ...

Who moved from another part of Edmonton to have their office in the arena district? Stantec

What new leasing requirements were actually created by this district?

And btw, you're the one that stated you had empirical evidence, so ... you first? Anyone who writes a study on the economic impacts is apparently just a classroom dwelling waste of space, so I'll be gracious and save your time with those.

[Flash Walken]

Enoch, it's painfully obvious you don't have the evidence you purport, otherwise you'd show it to us.

nik has patiently asked you several times for this empirical evidence you keep talking about and your failure to provide it at this point illustrates that your argument is empty.

Show your evidence or back away from your claims. If not, you're treading into gaudreauvertime territory.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Enoch, it's painfully obvious you don't have the evidence you purport, otherwise you'd show it to us.

nik has patiently asked you several times for this empirical evidence you keep talking about and your failure to provide it at this point illustrates that your argument is empty.

Show your evidence or back away from your claims. If not, you're treading into gaudreauvertime territory.

This (below) is what is being discussed...

You can refute the claims if you like. You can ignore them entirely, if you like.

But that is what I have been addressing.

Anyway, the same people are going to rehash the same things that have been said a hundred times in this thread already, so I see little point in discussing this any further.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

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."