[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[underGRADFlame]

I have a question... if the new building, CalgaryNext or PlanB, was built away from the stampede grounds, how much revenue does the stampede board look to loose annually?

[Rollin22x]

I always question studies because most of the time the instigator has an agenda, for or against and results can always be skewed to suit. I feel they're like polls. 1000 people polled and somehow it represents all citizens, Canadians etc.
I would guess many businesses rely on Flames games to generate business. The new arena would be a catalyst for an under developed area. I would find it hard to believe that 18,000 people in one venue would drive major economic benefits as long as the surrounding development was planned for those crowds. The saddledome location doesn't encourage access to and from local venues. Get in and get out. CalgaryNext wasn't presented very well and the timing was pretty bad but I can see why it was their first choice.
I moved out of the city but I know what friends pay for taxes and I understand the frustration.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

You keep making strange comparisons. You can't compare yourself to an NHL franchise. It's not as strange but you Can't compare large oil companies very well either.

If Seattle or Houston offer an incentive to bring the flames down, then Calgary, Alberta and Canada lose the benefits I noted above. Period. I don't need to read silly studies that muddy waters. NHL in Calgary equals tax revenue and overall economic activity that it won't have when the Canucks have a new rivalry with Seattle if they build them a rink.

Silly studies indeed. Why let foolish "facts" and "figures" and "reality" get in the way of your opinion?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Silly studies indeed. Why let foolish "facts" and "figures" and "reality" get in the way of your opinion?

Because "facts and figures" can be skewed and placed in different context. It's a simple concept. Do the flames bring economic benefit to the city? Yes or no? If yes, and IF other cities start offering incentives, the common sense of entitlement is misplaced. Fancy studies or not.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

I have a question... if the new building, CalgaryNext or PlanB, was built away from the stampede grounds, how much revenue does the stampede board look to loose annually?

Don't know, but a safe assumption they'd have to tighten their budget.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GGG

How much should the city of Calgary pay to lure Head Offices to Calgary. Should the measure be if the employees pay enough income tax to offset the costs of the building?

Should the government subsidize my job to roughly what my taxes are to keep me employed?

Totally off topic but planet money just had a podcast on the subsidies for the entertainment jobs. Basically the government in BC etc. does just that. The amount of subsidies cover the salaries of the employees.

Crazy bad policy

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

You keep making strange comparisons. You can't compare yourself to an NHL franchise. It's not as strange but you Can't compare large oil companies very well either.

If Seattle or Houston offer an incentive to bring the flames down, then Calgary, Alberta and Canada lose the benefits I noted above. Period. I don't need to read silly studies that muddy waters. NHL in Calgary equals tax revenue and overall economic activity that it won't have when the Canucks have a new rivalry with Seattle if they build them a rink.

Your silly studies don't mean anything to my hastily made analysis and anecdotal evidence!!!

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Don't know, but a safe assumption they'd have to tighten their budget.

Or it would finally give them the kick in the ass they need to actually do something.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Because "facts and figures" can be skewed and placed in different context. It's a simple concept. Do the flames bring economic benefit to the city? Yes or no? If yes, and IF other cities start offering incentives, the common sense of entitlement is misplaced. Fancy studies or not.

Where is this entitlement you speak of? No one has said they oppose subsidies but the city is entitled to the flames. The majority has responded to the threat as "he's bluffing" or "don't let the door hit you on the way out"

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Because "facts and figures" can be skewed and placed in different context. It's a simple concept.

Yes, and your opinion can't be skewed at all. Who cares what people who know what they are talking about think, when you have it all figured out?

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Do the flames bring economic benefit to the city? Yes or no?

Yes. But it's not quite so black and white.

Say the city drops 400 million bucks on building a hockey rink, how long will it take to get 400 million bucks in economic benefit? Five years? 50? Never?

Is it economic benefit if you don't benefit economically?

Anyway, I'm trying to convince my wife to let me buy a Ferrari so I can deliver pizzas faster. That's an economic benefit she can't deny!

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Because "facts and figures" can be skewed and placed in different context. It's a simple concept. Do the flames bring economic benefit to the city? Yes or no? If yes, and IF other cities start offering incentives, the common sense of entitlement is misplaced. Fancy studies or not.

Sometimes there are bad economic publications that skew observable reality. But without knowing you at all, I can say YOU are not in a position to make that determination. I would hazard to guess you didn't even read any of the "fancy studies" you're denying.

If you did, you would see that there's nothing fancy about them. Lol

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Don't know, but a safe assumption they'd have to tighten their budget.

Has to be no effect, or maybe a benefit to them if Flames leave. I mean, the economic experts (whom we are fortunate to have grace this thread) insist there is absolutely 0 economic benefit created by the Flames and/or a new arena.
Zero benefit to Calgary. None.

[The Hendog]

Apparently we will know more about "Plan B" by the middle of May

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...an-b-1.4054189

[Eubee]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Sometimes there are bad economic publications that skew observable reality. But without knowing you at all, I can say YOU are not in a position to make that determination. I would hazard to guess you didn't even read any of the "fancy studies" you're denying.

If you did, you would see that there's nothing fancy about them. Lol

Did anyone actually look at this? Even just the Executive Summary? Again, not apples to apples because this is the US and Seattle and King County specifically but it appears (to me anyway) to address exactly what people have been arguing about. Net benefits derived locally from having a new stadium, predicated around having anchor tenant(s).

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/BuildingC...pendicesFG.pdf

I'm sure there will be pages upon condescending pages on why I'm wrong to have put this in this thread and that's ok too. I however, found it interesting and relevant.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by The Hendog

Apparently we will know more about "Plan B" by the middle of May

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...an-b-1.4054189

Here's hoping...
This was what the City originally advised it would have for October.
As "clumsy" (likely not strong enough wording) as this last week has been, it seems it finally got movement at least.

Also, I thought there was no economic benefit to the Flames? This article seems to suggest otherwise.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...f-the-red-mile

“These playoffs are really good for business,” said Evan Woolley, Ward 8 councillor. “It’s an opportunity for people to get together and celebrate this run, and to invest in local businesses as a part of that celebration.”

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Here's hoping...
This was what the City originally advised it would have for October.
As "clumsy" (likely not strong enough wording) as this last week has been, it seems it finally got movement at least.

Also, I thought there was no economic benefit to the Flames? This article seems to suggest otherwise.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...f-the-red-mile

“These playoffs are really good for business,” said Evan Woolley, Ward 8 councillor. “It’s an opportunity for people to get together and celebrate this run, and to invest in local businesses as a part of that celebration.”

Evan Woolley = LIAR!!!!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Or it would finally give them the kick in the ass they need to actually do something.

You guys missed the corny joke of the post I was responding to...

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Here's hoping...
This was what the City originally advised it would have for October.
As "clumsy" (likely not strong enough wording) as this last week has been, it seems it finally got movement at least.

Also, I thought there was no economic benefit to the Flames? This article seems to suggest otherwise.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...f-the-red-mile

“These playoffs are really good for business,” said Evan Woolley, Ward 8 councillor. “It’s an opportunity for people to get together and celebrate this run, and to invest in local businesses as a part of that celebration.”

HAHA a councillor who has promoted the arena in the past talks about it being good for business (which businesses you think?)

That makes up for all the academic papers. Good confirmation bias, bud.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Eubee

Did anyone actually look at this? Even just the Executive Summary? Again, not apples to apples because this is the US and Seattle and King County specifically but it appears (to me anyway) to address exactly what people have been arguing about. Net benefits derived locally from having a new stadium, predicated around having anchor tenant(s).

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/BuildingC...pendicesFG.pdf

I'm sure there will be pages upon condescending pages on why I'm wrong to have put this in this thread and that's ok too. I however, found it interesting and relevant.

This is a report on projected benefits. Most academic studies look at actual benefits.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cappy

This is a report on projected benefits. Most academic studies look at actual benefits.

How do you even measure "actual" benefits when you don't have control of enough variables?

To measure the economic benefit, the arena alone must be the only variable that changes, and that's just impossible. You can't compare it to the exact same city without an arena during the same time period, and you can't account for economic variables like boom/bust, other developments, etc.

"Academic" or not, anyone touting "actual" benefits isn't reliable and is likely basing their information on flawed studies that fill in the gaps to account for their inability to accurately follow basic scientific method. Not to say the projected benefits are better, but they're not worse.