CalgaryNEXT Discussion pt. 2

[Flamenspiel]

^^The thing is, this refers to about 316 million in public spending. Even if you agree with that, KK ask of the city is much higher then that.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

I understand what you are trying to say, but the article does not actually say that this tax revenue is "new"

The CRL drove in more tax revenue... into the area where the CRL is issued. I think this extends to Nik's point, that this is no evidence that it is new.

By all accounts Stantec and the developers in the area are paying taxes in this area (the 9 million cited), but that is not evidence that this tax is new to the city, or that this tax money hasnt been transferred from one area to another.

We can claim that East Village generated X million in taxes under the CRL, but that doesn't mean that those buildings wouldnt have resulted in tax revenue somewhere else in the city had they been built in the beltline or elsewhere.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I understand what you are trying to say, but the article does not actually say that this tax revenue is "new"

The CRL drove in more tax revenue... into the area where the CRL is issued. I think this extends to Nik's point, that this is no evidence that it is new.

By all accounts Stantec and the developers in the area are paying taxes in this area (the 9 million cited), but that is not evidence that this tax is new to the city, or that this tax money hasnt been transferred from one area to another.

We can claim that East Village generated X million in taxes under the CRL, but that doesn't mean that those buildings wouldnt have resulted in tax revenue somewhere else in the city had they been built in the beltline or elsewhere.

We can't know that it is new tax revenue and not just transferred, but there is zero actual evidence to suggest that was simply transferred.

Anyone claiming that the revenues are in fact simply transferring from elsewhere in the city would have the burden of proof on them. (that was my point to nik)

[nik-]

Do you not have a burden of proof for stating that this generated new tax revenues? Especially since you claimed there was empirical evidence?

Especially since this has never been proven anywhere where a municipality funded an arena/stadium. Your claim should be super easy to show the evidence for, yet you haven't presented it yet.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We can't know that it is new tax revenue and not just transferred,

This is actually a direct contradiction to what you claimed.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We can't know that it is new tax revenue and not just transferred, but there is zero actual evidence to suggest that was simply transferred.

Anyone claiming that the revenues are in fact simply transferring from elsewhere in the city would have the burden of proof on them. (that was my point to nik)

So you are just passing the burden of proof to Nik? He now has to prove a negative.

also, i know you don't like to rely on studies (i.e. evidence), but many studies have shown this to be the most likely cause to increased taxes in and around a stadium.

I do agree with you that this issue has been debated to death in this thread.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nik-

Do you not have a burden of proof for stating that this generated new tax revenues? Especially since you claimed there was empirical evidence? Especially since this has never been proven anywhere where a municipality funded an arena/stadium. Your claim should be super easy to show the evidence for, yet you haven't presented it yet.

they actually talked about tax revenues - there are tax revenues.

This is actually a direct contradiction to what you claimed.

No it's not, you misunderstood my post.

What I said was: there are tax revenues (we know this). What we can't know is whether or not they are new. However, unless someone can actually demonstrate that they have transferred from somewhere else, the simple, and reasonable assumption is that they are new.

This isn't that hard.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

So you are just passing the burden of proof to Nik? He now has to prove a negative.

also, i know you don't like to rely on studies (i.e. evidence), but many studies have shown this to be the most likely cause to increased taxes in and around a stadium.

I do agree with you that this issue has been debated to death in this thread.

See my prior post.

There is tax revenue.

Is it new? Impossible to say, but there is zero reason to think it isn't new, unless there is evidence to do so.

So yes, the burden of proof is on the claim that it is simply transferred.

I am done with this lunacy.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Would vacancy rates before and after give an indication of whether tax revenue is new or 'cannibalized'?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

they actually talked about tax revenues - there are tax revenues.

No it's not, you misunderstood my post.

What I said was: there are tax revenues (we know this). What we can't know is whether or not they are new. However, unless someone can actually demonstrate that they have transferred from somewhere else, the simple, and reasonable assumption is that they are new.

This isn't that hard.

Why is it a reasonable assumption that it's new? If someone (like Stantec) moves their office to this new area, it's not new revenue, it's transferred revenue.

The reasonable assumption is actually that it's just relocation since there's nothing about a new arena that creates net new lease requirements, business startup or disposable income.

I don't have more money to spend because there's a new arena. If I spend it in the arena district, all it means is that I just didn't spend it at some place else where I would have gone. I don't start taking out loans to spend more because there's a new place to go now.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

See my prior post.

There is tax revenue.

Is it new? Impossible to say, but there is zero reason to think it isn't new, unless there is evidence to do so.

So yes, the burden of proof is on the claim that it is simply transferred.

I am done with this lunacy.

Well of course there would be tax revenue in the area. There was tax revenue in the area before the ICE district was built.

If that was your point, then yes i agree there is tax revenue.

[Vulcan]

I don't think you can ever make a good case for building sports complexes as a financial win for the city but I look at as a cultural plus for the city to have these sports teams. The new buildings financing is a bone of contention but I think it requires some compromises on both parts.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think you can ever make a good case for building sports complexes as a financial win for the city but I look at as a cultural plus for the city to have these sports teams. The new buildings financing is a bone of contention but I think it requires some compromises on both parts.

Totally agree and I think this is an honest opinion to take. Sometimes people like nice things, and that's okay, otherwise we'd all own Toyota Corollas.

[Mr.Coffee]

I think vague arm-wavy notions about culture are fine too, because absolutely that's true. So what's the value of that culture? Is the cost of culture this enormously lopsided deal?

No.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The issue is the fieldhouse. The Flames have the money for a good arena off their money plus the ticket tax. Ultimately that's what will probably happen, and the city will contribute the support infrastructure for it. It's just a matter of how long it will take to get to that point.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The issue is the fieldhouse. The Flames have the money for a good arena off their money plus the ticket tax. Ultimately that's what will probably happen, and the city will contribute the support infrastructure for it. It's just a matter of how long it will take to get to that point.

What's the deal with this ticket tax. Anybody know what that is all about?
Is what Global reported this week correct that the Flames ownership is ONLY going to pony up 200m towards the actual arena/stadium construction. Seems extremely thin.
I agree the city will contribute to the support infrastructure changes beyond the Flames property.
But 200m on 1billion plus project that is pretty insulting.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

What's the deal with this ticket tax. Anybody know what that is all about?
Is what Global reported this week correct that the Flames ownership is ONLY going to pony up 200m towards the actual arena/stadium construction. Seems extremely thin.
I agree the city will contribute to the support infrastructure changes beyond the Flames property.
But 200m on 1billion plus project that is pretty insulting.

I think:

The ticket tax should definitely be considered an owner contribution, however, the financing/interest charges which apply with the ticket tax is currently being proposed as a City contribution.

[Weitz]

In other news, it appears the Ivan Hlinka will be hosted in Edmonton at the new rink every other year starting soon.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

I think:

The ticket tax should definitely be considered an owner contribution

That's a pretty loose definition of "contribution". Which actually isn't odd since they (CS&E) seem to have a loose definition of contributed. They also consider the rent they'll pay as part of their "contribution" (as part of that 200M)... I'm fairly certain that if I walked into any of the property management companies that administered the buildings I rented prior to buying my home and asked them how much I contributed to the construction of the apartment buildings they'd look at me like I had a turnip for a head.

The amount the owners seem willing to actually front seems remarkably tiny compared to the total cost of the project..

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's a pretty loose definition of "contribution". Which actually isn't odd since they (CS&E) seem to have a loose definition of contributed. They also consider the rent they'll pay as part of their "contribution" (as part of that 200M)... I'm fairly certain that if I walked into any of the property management companies that administered the buildings I rented prior to buying my home and asked them how much I contributed to the construction of the apartment buildings they'd look at me like I had a turnip for a head.

The amount the owners seem willing to actually front seems remarkably tiny compared to the total cost of the project..

Isn't the ticket tax another 200mill contribution? How is the ticket tax minus interest charges paid for by the City not an exact definition of a contribution from the owners?

Why bring up rent in response to my point?

Look through my post history, I am very anti-CalgaryNEXT, but a ticket tax is owner money, period.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Look through my post history, I am very anti-CalgaryNEXT, but a ticket tax is owner money, period.

I didn't say that you weren't.

RE: ticket tax. In the sense that it'll (eventually) come out of the demand derived ticket price revenue sure. But it won't contribute one dime to the actual construction of the project. Hence why I said the amount they're willing to front is remarkably tiny. Heck, when you get right down to it the it's not like the owners are really foregoing that exact amount of money on the ticket tax considering that a significant portion of it would go to the players as part of HRR and another couple of chunks would go to provincial and federal tax coffers. It's not exactly a big give when you get right down to it.

It's the language they use that I dispute not the ultimate downstream source of the funds. They could have just as easily said "The City will contribute X, CS&E will provide Y, and the City will receive revenue streams with an anticipated value of Z over the life of the facility".