[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[calgaryblood]

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.

Think about it, every year the players take home about $60-70 million and they usually aren't spending that money in the city. That salary is brought in by the fans. If those fans don't spend that money on the Flames it goes somewhere else in Calgary that likely stays in the city. The studies aren't "fancy studies", it's pretty common sense when you actually look and read the studies.

[stone hands]

I'm sure that when 18000 drunk people storm out of the dome after a game and fill their boots at any number of watering holes down 17th Ave, the bartenders and owners have a nice Tuesday night, but what does that economic benefit do for the rest of the million citizens of Calgary that don't work in that Industry

(No snark, geniunely curious how liquor sales post flames games affect my bottom line as an IT guy who works in the north east along with the million or so other citizens who have a similar story, outside of the bar owners and bar tenders being able to potentially spend more money at my business)

[jammies]

Listen up, ya maroons, the argument is the economic benefit is LESS THAN just giving the money away to random homeless people and visiting Edmontonians. It isn't a difficult concept, except for those of you hung up on "Well duh, you're telling me Jimmy and Martha from Lethbridge coming into town for a Flames game will spend zero money? Hurr hurr hurr!"

The billion dollars or whatever ludicrous subsidy would come out of City property taxes, so that's money that is already IN the city. It only becomes an economic benefit if you get OUT more than you put in. I don't need to rhetorically ask "Does it seem likely that the investment of a billion dollars can be made profitable by visitors eating more chicken wings and drinking more beer?" because the studies say it can't. Further, for those of you with the "facts have an agenda" mindset, if you think the proponents of such megaprojects haven't funded studies trying to prove there IS benefit - with no success - you are being selectively skeptical and mistaking that for clever.

[EldrickOnIce]

Ferrari's to deliver pizza and billion dollar subsidy talk. Is this what stands as clever instead? Or do I also need to CAPITALIZE?

[pepper24]

King instead of talking about moving should be seen going out for lunch with the mayors of Airdrie and Okotoks. Same empty threat but will scare the city more.

[DiracSpike]

Does the City spend money on anything that gets a good ROI? It's not really their mandate. If you were to do the same analysis on say, all the leisure centres the city owns, I doubt they would come out as a good "investment". I get they're not the same thing as arenas but this metric of whether the city gets all its money back doesn't seem to apply to anything else. And yeah, I get that it will cost a decent amount of money to go to the new arena but it's not like public ventures are free, most of them have some kind of user fee.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by pepper24

King instead of talking about moving should be seen going out for lunch with the mayors of Airdrie and Okotoks. Same empty threat but will scare the city more.

No it wouldn't.

All that would do is convince them they are either dealing with idiots or a terrible bluffer.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by pepper24

King instead of talking about moving should be seen going out for lunch with the mayors of Airdrie and Okotoks. Same empty threat but will scare the city more.

The Mayor should threaten to move the city.

[Senator Clay Davis]

AirdrieNEXT, BalzacNEXT, DeWintonNEXT, OkotoksNEXT, so many possibilities.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Does the City spend money on anything that gets a good ROI? It's not really their mandate. If you were to do the same analysis on say, all the leisure centres the city owns, I doubt they would come out as a good "investment".

Joe's Leisure Centres isn't asking the city to subsidize their chain of leisure centres so he can make bigger profits, so the analogy fails - you're not comparing like to like.

They could buy the Flames and build a new rink for about the same price as doing CalgaryNext. That should have been their counter-offer, they could spin it as saving the poor cash-strapped owners the heartache and hassle of only making a few tens of millions a year.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

It's more reliable than projected benefits.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by 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

This may be true. But all that happens is businesses near the new building thrive and the businesses near the old arena flounder.

You're just moving the money from one business to another, no new money is generated.

[Frequitude]

Let's set aside the argument of whether sports teams and arenas generate incremental economic activity.

It ignores one fundamental thing...none of the benefits of economic activity flow to the City. Liquor tax go to the province, sales tax goes to the province, corporate tax goes the feds/province, and personal income tax goes to the feds/province.

Yet it's the City that's being asked to front a billion dollars. That makes no sense.

That being said, I still support the City partially subsidizing new arenas and stadiums because I believe there is tangible value in the pride and entertainment of having professional sports teams in my city.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by jammies

Joe's Leisure Centres isn't asking the city to subsidize their chain of leisure centres so he can make bigger profits, so the analogy fails - you're not comparing like to like.

They could buy the Flames and build a new rink for about the same price as doing CalgaryNext. That should have been their counter-offer, they could spin it as saving the poor cash-strapped owners the heartache and hassle of only making a few tens of millions a year.

My only direct anology was scrutinizing City investments on a ROI basis. If the city made a ROI of 75% that would probably be in the top decile of their investments on a dollar basis.

I'm sure there's a deal to be cut where the City provides some assistance and ends up realizing some monetary value, it just depends on how they structure what is an incredibly complicated venture. That's why I'm surprised that nearly 40% of people are taking a hardline stance of no public money at all to keep the Flames here.

[nik-]

It's being scrutinized for it's ROI because it's a massive subsidy to a successful business. It's not an overpass or a transit garage.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

My only direct anology was scrutinizing City investments on a ROI basis. If the city made a ROI of 75% that would probably be in the top decile of their investments on a dollar basis.

I'm sure there's a deal to be cut where the City provides some assistance and ends up realizing some monetary value, it just depends on how they structure what is an incredibly complicated venture. That's why I'm surprised that nearly 40% of people are taking a hardline stance of no public money at all to keep the Flames here.

I think primarily because it's not accessible to all, so its value needs to be measured on a more economic basis (since the community benefit is considerably less).

For people who can't afford to go to Flames games, why would they want even a dime spent on a new arena?

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

This may be true. But all that happens is businesses near the new building thrive and the businesses near the old arena flounder.

You're just moving the money from one business to another, no new money is generated.

I understand that but my assumption is that if the two parties could ever make a decision, the new area would become an entertainment district and businesses would identify that as a destination to move to or expand to and reap the benefits of an area that they would determine a large portion of their target audience will frequent. Not just another location for an arena because it fits. The current location surrounded by the grounds will never have this potential. The location will be different no matter what and some businesses will see a decline but if it's developed properly more businesses will succeed than not and provide a positive influence on the economy. I find it hard to compare with other cities because each has their own unique circumstances that affect the cost, impact and potential success.

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

AirdrieNEXT, BalzacNEXT, DeWintonNEXT, OkotoksNEXT, so many possibilities.

What no ChestermereNEXT? Right on the lake with railroad already in place to move the masses. Calgary would likely run a c-train out there before Okotoks or Airdrie. Just a guess though.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think primarily because it's not accessible to all, so its value needs to be measured on a more economic basis (since the community benefit is considerably less).

For people who can't afford to go to Flames games, why would they want even a dime spent on a new arena?

For sure, there's probably a sizable amount of people in this city that would never use the new arena period and I can't blame them for not wanting tax dollars to flow there.

At the end of the day this project will have to stand mostly on the basis of ROI to the city, even though there is a community benefit that is more nebulous to define. We just don't know what that ROI will be barring details of the deal, and some studies in Baltimore or a John Oliver segment on Brazilian soccer stadiums isn't 100% applicable to our unique circumstances here.

The potential of this having a high ROI for a city project, plus the community benefit of the team, plus uncertainty of how any deal would be structured leaves me open to the idea of using public funds, it's surprising to me that 40% of people feel otherwise.

[stone hands]

When 40% of a fan site dedicated to the flames is saying they would rather have the team walk than pay for a private business building of operations, I think that speaks volumes