[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

That Ken King interview is amazing. The amount of arrogance. Some highlights.

-We are falling behind Edmonton
-Citizens need to 'activate' and speak up for CalgaryNext.
-What's best for all of us is best for the city (not city hall, but the citizens of course)
-These people against CalgaryNext defy gravity, but are not 'bad people.' I guess they just don't want things in their city. They probably like smaller and simpler cities. These people are smaller in number but louder.
-(The Filipino hospice lady. WTF man, seriously?????? What a dirtbag, sleazy salesman thing to bring up.)
-Those against are vocal minority and carry the day and consequence will be tragic.
-If the world doesn't want us around then say so.....

Stopped listening after that. Sounded a lot like Trump.
One other thing that stuck out was how sad and limp Kerr comes across. And I get why, but to not asking King to clarify any of his statements or not asking him any tough questions comes across as biased.

If you aren't filtering out your own bias, how can you expect anything different from someone else?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If you aren't filtering out your own bias, how can you expect anything different from someone else?

Um, because they're supposed to be professional journalists?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Just a little light reading about the revenue generated for the CRL in Edmonton because of the new Arena and ICE District.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3348821/ga...ntons-economy/

Unfortunately, the actual report link is already broken so we can't break down the details. It's great that those concerts brought in $42M to the area businesses, but how much did the City take in from that?

Consider that Edmonton is already giving up any money from the following to pay for the arena:
- Any property tax for new developments downtown
- Parking revenue
- The arena lease itself
- "Other sources" (who knows what this entails, unfortunately)

So yes, some businesses around the arena did well during those concerts. Unfortunately, taxpayers are still on the hook for the majority of the business that actually happened there, and the net benefit to the taxpayers isn't clear (maybe the report says what the net benefit is?).

Basically - $42M might not work out to much in the way of benefit to the City's taxpayers.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by jayswin

For those of us who have no idea what this means, could you explain?

I think it's around the 13:40 mark. I suggest listening to the whole interview (or as much as you can take lol)



http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-big-...ot-dead-limbo/

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Torture

Just finished listening to the Ken King interview. Man is he ever condescending. The first time he said "I want to be careful how I say this" and that they felt "baited into saying it" and then he proceeded to mention the Flames leaving at least 4 times in the interview. And Rob Kerr definitely wasn't baiting him into those ones.

The first comment where he said he wanted to be careful he said the easiest way to measure public benefit is to see what happens when it's not there but "we'll make our decision it's not more complicated than that". Said it's not a threat but sounds an awful lot like a threat.

Then he compared Edmonton having a new arena and Calgary not having an arena and said it would be like it to when the Flames were in dire straits with a $.60 dollar and were close to relocation. "you better keep pace, you remember what happened the last time we didn't keep pace when we had a 60 cent dollar"

Then when talking about a Filipino lady in a hospice that he took a signed Gio thing to () he said that "in order to have that thing to look forward to you have to actually have a team"

"We've always said if the world doesn't want us around, or doesn't care where we play or anything else just say so, we're over 21, we can take it"

every time I read stuff like this it reminds me when King said the flames we not going to do what the oilers did, and there wouldn't be negotiation in the media. they'd speak about it when there was a finished agreement to announce.
same as it ever was.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If you aren't filtering out your own bias, how can you expect anything different from someone else?

What exactly am I being biased about. That whole interview seemed like an ad campaign. Not to mention the standards for Rob Kerr being un-biased is probably a bit different than for a bum on a internet forum.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Um, because they're supposed to be professional journalists?

How does someone else's ability/inability to control their bias excuse anyone else from doing so?

If people want to actually debate issues effectively, bias' need to be checked at the door, otherwise it's just people yelling over each other and getting nowhere - and that's all I've seen on this issue so far. You've got one side refusing to see the pros, and one side refusing to see the cons, and it's just constant noise.

[Snuffleupagus]

I'm not going to read this whole thread but shouldn't any arena be on an LRT line? People with physical constraints don't like the 2-3 block walk in the winter.

What ever happened to the idea of the Big Four location?

[fuffalo]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Unfortunately, the actual report link is already broken so we can't break down the details. It's great that those concerts brought in $42M to the area businesses, but how much did the City take in from that?

Consider that Edmonton is already giving up any money from the following to pay for the arena:
- Any property tax for new developments downtown
- Parking revenue
- The arena lease itself
- "Other sources" (who knows what this entails, unfortunately)

So yes, some businesses around the arena did well during those concerts. Unfortunately, taxpayers are still on the hook for the majority of the business that actually happened there, and the net benefit to the taxpayers isn't clear (maybe the report says what the net benefit is?).

Basically - $42M might not work out to much in the way of benefit to the City's taxpayers.

It's an interesting discussion. I get your point about the city not "getting" much out of the 42M. However a huge part of what cities do is pay for things to enrich the lives of their population. To me spending money to generate revenue for local businesses and having a building the population can be proud of is worth something.

It's kind of similar to the city spending money on tourism (or a museum or art gallery). They're spending money just to get people to come spend money/time in Calgary. That doesn't bug me at all, and it directly equates to more money in the Calgary economy.

When one of those businesses happens to be a massive billion dollar corporation, which maybe makes it a bit of a bitter pill, but personally I'm still fine with it. I have confidence that there's a lot of smart people that work for the city and they'll come to an agreement that they think is fair. If that's 0 dollars or 500M I'll be happy either way.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

How does someone else's ability/inability to control their bias excuse anyone else from doing so?

If people want to actually debate issues effectively, bias' need to be checked at the door, otherwise it's just people yelling over each other and getting nowhere - and that's all I've seen on this issue so far. You've got one side refusing to see the pros, and one side refusing to see the cons, and it's just constant noise.

Did you listen to the Ken King interview?

I can definitely speak about the issue and it's pros and cons, but my comment was about a specific interview, and my opinion on it.

But you are right, to debate the actual issue it's best to approach is with an open mind.

[Bill Bumface]

Everyone is worried about concerts skipping Calgary.

Isn't a concert just a way of exporting Calgary money out of the city?

I assume most concerts make far more than they cost to put on, and are a net outflow of money from the city.

Attracting concerts is good from a quality of life standpoint, but I would be shocked if they are economically beneficial for the city.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by jayswin

For those of us who have no idea what this means, could you explain?

He was telling a story about some Filipino lady in a hospice that was at death's door and loved the Flames. HE visited her and gave her a signed Gio jersey or picture or something because she loved the Flames. Said you don't get that if you don't have a team in the city (another relocation threat by my books)

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Torture

He was telling a story about some Filipino lady in a hospice that was at death's door and loved the Flames. HE visited her and gave her a signed Gio jersey or picture or something because she loved the Flames. Said you don't get that if you don't have a team in the city (another relocation threat by my books)

Ya.. Not a good look at all. Doing charity, then exploiting those peoples stories as a negotiation tactic.

KK needs to stop asap.

[Benched]

that interview....

KK keeps saying it's a 'public building'.....but it's not. Maybe that's the disconnect. It's a place of business. It's private. We pay for the privilege to walk through the doors.


His statements urging the public to 'agitate' for the project, to your counselors, the city, mayor etc. was cringe-worthy.

Clear this guy is disconnected from reality. Still thinks CalgaryNext is a great project and can't figure out why people don't want it.

[shermanator]

Here's an article on stadiums that have been, or will be abandoned, by NFL teams. Even though the teams have left, or will leave, the cities still owe money on stadium construction or renovations that they funded over 20 years ago.

Oakland still owes $90 mil of the $200 mil in renovations done to the Coliseum in the 1990's. St. Louis still owes $85 mil of the $300 mil for building the Edward Jones dome. San Diego still owes $47 of $68 mil in renovations done in the 1990's.

St. Louis claims they are actually making more money with the Rams no longer in town. I think that's a different situation than in Calgary given the size of the stadiums are vastly different, and the concerts that "wouldn't be possible" are the ones that are skipping town in the first place.

In the NFL’s absence, the dome has done better financially, said Kitty Ratcliffe, the president of the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, which operates the dome. She said the dome lost around $400,000 in a year of Rams games but generally can gain about that much with a single big concert.

Last September, for example, the dome hosted a Beyonce concert that would not have been possible if the Rams were still there. The dome is part of a convention center complex that can host a wide array of events year-round. She said there are no plans to tear it down.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...rams/99848210/

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Everyone is worried about concerts skipping Calgary.

Isn't a concert just a way of exporting Calgary money out of the city?

I assume most concerts make far more than they cost to put on, and are a net outflow of money from the city.

Attracting concerts is good from a quality of life standpoint, but I would be shocked if they are economically beneficial for the city.

This is the thing that blows my mind about these debates. There have been numerous studies that show that cities generally don't recoup the costs associated with new arenas by the time the next arena is built, yet people still trot out the economic benefits argument. Yeah it's great if the local businesses see a boost but unless the city raises taxes on said businesses, you're going to see a reduction in the services the city provides.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Benched

that interview....

KK keeps saying it's a 'public building'.....but it's not. Maybe that's the disconnect. It's a place of business. It's private. We pay for the privilege to walk through the doors.

Yeah, that's one of their "go to" misrepresentations. I mean he's "right" in that what they're proposing is a publicly owned building... he tends to delightfully neglects to mention that it being publicly owned means the city won't get any property tax from it, will be stuck with "end of life" costs in 30ish years, it won't be for public use, and by their own plan the city won't see a dime of profit (or even come close to breaking even). Public ownership is in the best interests of CS&E not the City of Calgary.

I don't object to PPP's, but King (and by extension CS&E) aren't looking for a partner... they're looking for a handout.

[saillias]

The Filipino lady anecdote was weird. Basically King explained that there is a lady who is Filipino who lives in a hospice and is a lifetime Flames fan and will never get to go to a game.

Why even mention she was Filipino? Who cares? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If it isn't already I believe long term the entire ICE District thing will be very positive for that city. You can argue that Calgary's downtown isn't nearly in need of an ICE District type of revitalization but it is concerning just how many large entertainment acts are bypassing Calgary as stuff like that does benefit the local economy whether some people will like to admit it or not. Also the city can't go on forever ignoring the contamination west of downtown.

I think its people like you who don't like to admit that the benefit isn't nearly as much as the numbers suggest. How many of these people will take the $150.00 on a concert ticket, $100.00 on dinner and drinks and spend it on something else entirely (i.e. the substitution effect)

The benefit to restaurants and the local economy during game day isn't found money.

[spetch]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think its people like you who don't like to admit that the benefit isn't nearly as much as the numbers suggest. How many of these people will take the $150.00 on a concert ticket, $100.00 on dinner and drinks and spend it on something else entirely (i.e. the substitution effect)



The benefit to restaurants and the local economy during game day isn't found money.

What about the out of town people who are dropping $150 on a room and another $150 on dinner/drinks? That's the found money.