Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Or the solution is to realize that's life and it's asinine to think we are talking about eliminating subsidies across society.

Not across society, and not even eliminating all forms of corporate welfare, just eliminating or changing subsidies that don't make sense. It's ok to say no to a bad deal and fight for a better one. That's life.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by GGG

There are studies showing the value of library spending. Spending on education is correlated with less crime, providing activity centres for kids again reduces societal costs in general though the link is much more tenuous here. But in general studies show spending money on the poor when they are kids pays for itself economically

There aren't any studies that exist that aren't written by a professional sports franchise showing the benefits. There isn't any studies showing that when a team leaves it hurts the economies of the cities they left.

If you actually are interested in having a debate on the value of various kinds of public spending I am open to it. I don't believe you are. However, if you are please provide the studies showing the harm of a team leaving the city based on an actual team leaving.

Quoted to bring to current page.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Parallex

For Real?

Seriously. I met him on the C-Train about the same time as you and missed the Banff Trail station on my way to a Stamps game. I had his photocopied proof for years but haven't seen it in a while.

I was reading an article on the weekend about the conspiracy theorists backtracking about Nibiru crashing into earth on the 23rd and my mind wandered to the guy I met on the train that one day.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Dude... For real??? You need to pay attention to this chart. For a modern functioning society to progress forward, you need libraries, transit, parks and swimming pools more than you want an arena.

All things people pay for that they may not use and still pay taxes for...I am not prioritizing, I am stating a fact. Why do people feel the need to force their priorities on everyone else? You can show me any chart you want, but make it relevant to the reason I am paying for services, infrastructure, programs, etc. that I may not or do not use or see value in?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Redlan

LOL, I provided the exact response all the Anti-CSEC have been providing, a fly by Big Mac statement and they get up in arms. That how frustrating it is. My point still stands, we all pay for services in our taxes WE DO NOT USE. A Library (luxury), Transit (luxury), Parks (luxury), Swimming Pools (luxury)...I can go on! but lets turn a blind eye to those cause they do not support your position.

Could you clarify something for me? When you label people as "anti-CSEC" simply because they don't support their tax dollars being used to pay for a new arena, do you also then by default label CSEC and people who support public funds going towards the arena as "anti taxpayer" or "anti-social services" just because they are on the opposite side of this debate?

Sorry this "anti-CSEC" labelling is a bit of a exaggeration that is getting tossed around a little bit too freely, most people like the organization and are open to discussing contributing to a new arena.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Seriously. I met him on the C-Train about the same time as you and missed the Banff Trail station on my way to a Stamps game. I had his photocopied proof for years but haven't seen it in a while.

LOL, So did I (have his proof for years)!

Multiple pages of typed rambling run-on sentences with circular handwritten portions on the margins... I kept it as a conversation piece for years (haven't seen it in a few moves so it's either lost or in the bottom of a box unseen in years).

Did he offer you a job too? He said he'd give me a 150K per year job once he reclaimed his rightful post as Prime Minister.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Could you clarify something for me? When you label people as "anti-CSEC" simply because they don't support their tax dollars being used to pay for a new arena, do you also then by default label CSEC and people who support public funds going towards the arena as "anti taxpayer" or "anti-social services" just because they are on the opposite side of this debate?

Sorry this "anti-CSEC" labelling is a bit of a exaggeration that is getting tossed around a little bit too freely, most people like the organization and are open to discussing contributing to a new arena.

Sorry for the label. All positions are doing it and it was reactionary. Just look at some of the labels thrown at me in the last dozen replies and you will see. I am just tired of seeing the dog piling that goes on on this topic.

[stone hands]

Well I mean you are advocating we spend $200+ million dollars so that those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to spend a few hundred dollars a year to watch young adults in their early 20s skate around on a sheet of artificial ice hitting a peice of rubber with a stick can spend more money for the same product over educating children and funding hospitals

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

At the end of the day we all know what the issue is. They want free money and the Mayor is reluctant to give it to them.

This.^^^^

Everyone can agree that there are at the very least some indirect benefits and incentives to the city and the flames to fund building a new arena. And it's hard to put a dollar value on some indirect benefits like having more quality of life

The part the flames keep pretending doesn't exist is that they will see a direct financial return on their investment, and it's easy to put a dollar value on that and it's not unreasonable for taxpayers to expect a similar return on their portion of the initial investment.

[Cappy]

I think we know which category Redlan falls into:

- The Selfish: They oppose anything the city/province/feds do that doesn't benefit themselves in some sort of way. They want low taxes, but want to subsidize an arena. When questioned, they say "well i didn't want a library/public art/bike lanes/homeless shelters/schools" etc. What benefits the person is the way the person feels about the project.

We all do this in some way or another, and so it's not necessarily out of the ordinary, but this is one of the main issues that many people have. The new arena benefits them in some way (concerts, hockey, pride, business development) and therefore they want it to happen. If the city spent a bunch of money on stuff they don't use, it's time to return the favour.

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Quoted to bring to current page.

Speaking of that giant 250 million dollar piece of ART! Looks impressive very impressive judging by the renditions I saw in the news today and it will make a great coffee shop ! The artsy fartsy people running city hall will glow every time they look at it. They will probably spend a few more million to furnish it judging by the comments in the news. (There goes the coming in under budget)

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Speaking of that giant 250 million dollar piece of ART! Looks impressive very impressive judging by the renditions I saw in the news today and it will make a great coffee shop ! The artsy fartsy people running sillyhall will glow every time they look at it. They will probably spend a few more million to furnish it judging by the comments in the news. (There goes the coming in under budget)

fixed

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Redlan

All things people pay for that they may not use and still pay taxes for...I am not prioritizing, I am stating a fact. Why do people feel the need to force their priorities on everyone else? You can show me any chart you want, but make it relevant to the reason I am paying for services, infrastructure, programs, etc. that I may not or do not use or see value in?

You seriously don't see how any of those things provide a general and - I can't emphasize enough - universally-accessible good? If for no other reason than having good roads, good schools, good public facilities produces better communities (and better property values) than having poor roads, no schools, no public facilities?

Choosing not to take advantage of a freely-available service out of cynical disinterest is not the same thing as being priced out of using a service that's been engineered to keep all but a particular class of people outside.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Speaking of that giant 250 million dollar piece of ART! Looks impressive very impressive judging by the renditions I saw in the news today and it will make a great coffee shop ! The artsy fartsy people running city hall will glow every time they look at it. They will probably spend a few more million to furnish it judging by the comments in the news. (There goes the coming in under budget)

Sorry to everyone I have to play the role of broken record with this since people constantly insist on putting the library up as some kind of equivalency argument, but:

The Calgary Public Library (CPL) is a distributed library system featuring 18 branch locations including the Central Library.[1] It is the second most used system in Canada (after the Toronto Public Library)[2] and the sixth most used library system in North America.[3] This is despite the fact that the Calgary Public Library has one of the lowest per capita funding in the country, receiving as little as half the money of other Canadian public libraries. [4] [5] [6]

Calgary quite possibly stands as a unique example not just in the country but on this continent as a city that, yes, sorely REQUIRES a massive upgrade to its library infrastructure. It's usage compared to it's funding is fundamentally out of alignment.

[The Voice of Reason]

The most disappointing part of all of this is seeing quotes from Bettman and King saying they are not trying to influence the civic election when it is clear that is exactly what they are trying to do.

Either don't lie or learn to be better liars.

[442scotty]

This thread is kind of entertaining in a twisted sort of way but such a waste of time.

I’m going to try and stay out of the argument (not easy lol) and hope that both sides get this arena deal done

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think we know which category Redlan falls into:

The Blindmen and the Elephant tired of the bully's.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Redlan

LOL, I provided the exact response all the Anti-CSEC have been providing, a fly by Big Mac statement and they get up in arms. That how frustrating it is. My point still stands, we all pay for services in our taxes WE DO NOT USE. A Library (luxury), Transit (luxury), Parks (luxury), Swimming Pools (luxury)...I can go on! but lets turn a blind eye to those cause they do not support your position.

Dude are you serious? You are calling libraries, public transit and parks a luxury? These products are needed for a functioning society: they provide vast amounts of tangible products that we all consume on a daily basis.

One cannot equate a library or a park to a ####ing Arena which you pay to enter.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Sorry to everyone I have to play the role of broken record with this since people constantly insist on putting the library up as some kind of equivalency argument, but:

It's going to get ignored again. The people who rail against the library tend not to put a high priority on reading.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but if a company isn't making a reasonable profit, they should look in the mirror and ask themselves what they could do better?

Perhaps if the NHL model is not conducive to making a reasonable profit while paying its own capital costs, certain changes should be made within the organization itself...

Maybe salaries should be lower; maybe ticket prices should be higher?

Or, perhaps the NHL has gotten away with public subsidies for far too long and have found an incredibly effective means of continuing to receive these subsidies from the public so as to continually maximize their profits without any need to build their own arenas.

In any event, neither situation entitles the NHL, or any organization to demand hundreds of millions of dollars from the public for capital costs.

The thing is, pro sports is hobby industry or a toy for competitive billionaires. When it comes to things municipal government subsidize (which they have done to pro-sports) is that "privilege breeds entitlement".

All teams and leagues look at each other and want what the other has. This is why in the 2012 Lockout Gary Bettman wanted to revenue split the NBA had. It wasn't that they weren't making money, just that they felt that they deserved MORE.

It's more than simple greed, its narcissistic egotistical greed.