Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Redlan

If the tone of this thread were the other way, yes I would then come across as pro Nenshi and anti CESC. It is just the way I am wired. I seek balance.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=156808

Willing to balance the tone of this thread?

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Redlan

If the tone of this thread were the other way, yes I would then come across as pro Nenshi and anti CESC. It is just the way I am wired. I seek balance.

So you accuse me of somehow being on Nenshi's payroll on no evidence beyond your own personal discomfort, don't even have enough of a backbone to call me out by name, and now are saying the only thing guiding your views in the first place is for the sake of being contrarian.

####, you caught me. I woulda gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you meddlin' kids.

[Backlunds_socks]

Originally Posted by Redlan

If the tone of this thread were the other way, yes I would then come across as pro Nenshi and anti CESC. It is just the way I am wired. I seek balance.

So u define balance as using half a billion public dollars for private for profit business?

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by Redlan

If the tone of this thread were the other way, yes I would then come across as pro Nenshi and anti CESC. It is just the way I am wired. I seek balance.

Shouldn't you be somewhere staring an "I Like Matt Bartkowski" thread then?

You know, for balance.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

I don't have the answers for how the funding should be split to get it done but on a 28 hour trip we spent the following:

Hotel $125
Food $107
Shopping $200
Rogers Place $100

The next day I was talking to someone who came in from Winnipeg to go to the show so think of what they spent on that trip.

The trickle down effect is huge. We gave money to both mom and pop stores as well as corporations but it is all money that went into "Edmontons economy":

This was one event on one night.

Multiple this by what ever numbers you want and its only a good thing. I hope the talking heads get together and sort this thing out sooner than later and break ground.

With the Flames proposal, you would need to make this trip over half a million more times just for the city to break even with economic activity, compared to just giving the $225M to Calgarians with the stipulation it had to be spend at stores, hotels, bars, and restaurants in the city limits. It wouldn't do anything to actually help the city pay back the debt of taking on the arena costs.

So using what I imagine would be a high guess of 10% of the crowd being out-of-town overnighters spending $220 each not at the arena, yo would need over 500 sold out events to simply break even with economic activity that wouldn't actually help out the budget situation for the city. That's not a great deal.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Redlan

If the tone of this thread were the other way, yes I would then come across as pro Nenshi and anti CESC. It is just the way I am wired. I seek balance.

Ah the golden mean phallacy. I think you would find most people in this thread would come to the mean had CSEC’s arguements been perceived to be valid. The things they have said and the methods in which they said them have given people concerns that accepting certain fallacious arguments result in false compromises as a basis of arriving at a logically sound agreement.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

You're welcome to provide actual evidence of that anytime. When have I ever mentioned anything one way or another about Nenshi, much less anything that sounds like a campaign ad?

You post history is entirely arena/facility related. So the list of items you discuss (your agenda, by definition) is that. No?

Why would you mention Nenshi?

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

So you accuse me of somehow being on Nenshi's payroll on no evidence beyond your own personal discomfort, don't even have enough of a backbone to call me out by name, and now are saying the only thing guiding your views in the first place is for the sake of being contrarian.



####, you caught me. I woulda gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you meddlin' kids.

I never accused you, I made an observation, you leaped to a conclusion, quite vehemently I may add. It is this passive aggressive response that keeps me in this thread...”don’t have enough of a backbone” drips of this aggression.

[nik-]

Deservedly.

[JerryUnderscore]

Oh FFS people. None of us can truly "know" anyone else's motivation for taking the side their have taken in this debate. And even if you could prove someone else is astroturfing, what then?

Maybe let's skip the accusation portion of this debate and get back to something more germane?

Now, BurningSteel's point... you spent $532 total in your time in Edmonton. Sales tax in Alberta is 5%, but obviously that doesn't go to the province or directly into Edmonton's coffers. Do you know if there is a specific tax on hotels in Edmonton?

Otherwise, I'm struggling to see how Edmonton itself made any money on your $532.

In either case, I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the local economy is not boosted from a hockey team. If anything, there is just revitalization in one area at the expense of another.

The exception to this is, of course, from tourism. Some people are willing to travel to Calgary to see their team play the Flames. No team, no tourists.

My question is, what is the overall economic impact of this kind of tourism? Do people who come to Calgary for a Flames game end up staying a few extra days and spend money in other areas of the city? How much do the Flames impact tourism levels in the city? In what specific ways does the city benefit from tourism? Is it simply from property taxes?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Our opinions on this topic are actually party of a meaningful public policy discussion. The impact of our opinions on hockey operations is zilch. So, it makes sense that some people might want to chime in more here. It doesn't necessarily mean they're not interested in the hockey talk...

I'm not saying you shouldn't post. All it shows is that there's an aspect of the Flames in which some people have an opinion strong enough that they want to post, but that they aren't interested enough in any other hockey talk to participate. I find that curious, in a Flames fan forum. Not offensive, just curious.

ETA: zilch would also describe the impact on all of the posts on any topic here.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Oh FFS people. None of us can truly "know" anyone else's motivation for taking the side their have taken in this debate. And even if you could prove someone else is astroturfing, what then?

Maybe let's skip the accusation portion of this debate and get back to something more germane?

Now, BurningSteel's point... you spent $532 total in your time in Edmonton. Sales tax in Alberta is 5%, but obviously that doesn't go to the province or directly into Edmonton's coffers. Do you know if there is a specific tax on hotels in Edmonton?

Otherwise, I'm struggling to see how Edmonton itself made any money on your $532.

In either case, I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the local economy is not boosted from a hockey team. If anything, there is just revitalization in one area at the expense of another.

The exception to this is, of course, from tourism. Some people are willing to travel to Calgary to see their team play the Flames. No team, no tourists.

My question is, what is the overall economic impact of this kind of tourism? Do people who come to Calgary for a Flames game end up staying a few extra days and spend money in other areas of the city? How much do the Flames impact tourism levels in the city? In what specific ways does the city benefit from tourism? Is it simply from property taxes?

Completely agree with the first part.

As for the economic benefit of events, to me one of the things that highlights is that a new facility is of benefit to the city, whether an NHL team exists or not. That a city of 1.2 million should have a modern facility to attract and host a number of different type of events. So if a facility has some benefit to the city, it is very easy to argue that the municipal government would be well served by contributing to its construction, or even constructing the whole thing if there was no profitable private enterprise as an anchor tenant.

So when viewed that there is an anchor tenant that wishes to also contribute, and that anchor tenant would also create some city wide business benefit through their enterprise, it sure seems like it makes sense for both city hall major private business that would utilize the facility to contribute towards its construction.

Money coming into the city, in any form, is a desirable outcome. And the City should do whatever it can to encourage that. That to me was the point.

But it still doesn't define how much is the right amount from each party.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

So you don't actually have an opinion, and certainly not an educated one



please go away, genuinely, sincerely, that's super annoying

I find the the dog piling, and cherry picking, going on in this thread annoying. Just because I am being transparent does not mean I am not educated on the topic, I have an opinion. I do not believe what anyone has brought to the table. If anyone is not pro nenshi, or anti flames, in this thread they are bullied, there is no discussion, educated or otherwise. Posts that are not are knit-picked and taken out of context. I do not blame some posters for not coming back, I have thick skin and I know that I am sometimes play devils advocate, but I am not going to lap up what either side is saying at this point, it is all part of the negotiation/discussion, whichever level the debate is on. Go away? Really?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Oh FFS people.

Now, BurningSteel's point... you spent $532 total in your time in Edmonton. Sales tax in Alberta is 5%, but obviously that doesn't go to the province or directly into Edmonton's coffers. Do you know if there is a specific tax on hotels in Edmonton?

Otherwise, I'm struggling to see how Edmonton itself made any money on your $532.

In either case, I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the local economy is not boosted from a hockey team. If anything, there is just revitalization in one area at the expense of another.

The exception to this is, of course, from tourism. Some people are willing to travel to Calgary to see their team play the Flames. No team, no tourists.

My question is, what is the overall economic impact of this kind of tourism? Do people who come to Calgary for a Flames game end up staying a few extra days and spend money in other areas of the city? How much do the Flames impact tourism levels in the city? In what specific ways does the city benefit from tourism? Is it simply from property taxes?

The City of Edmonton made money from the citizens being employed at the businesses that pay taxes to operate in the City. None of this money would have been spent locally without the attraction at the arena, specifically other people coming to town. I don't care if it is a large multinational hotel, chain restaurant or other international type business they all employ local people who are taxed and spend their money in the local community. Plus the property tax increase from businesses in the CRL, none of which would exist without the plan to use the arena as an anchor tenant.

If Calgary wants to build an "entertainment" district in the east village they better hope the businesses can survive on the 10 days of Stampede, because with no other events to attract people down to the area all of those businesses will fade away. Or the city can build the $500 Million dollar "entertainment center" on their own without an anchor tenant and hope to recoup their money eventually (like the National Music Center investment - never going to pay for itself),

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Redlan

I find the the dog piling, and cherry picking, going on in this thread annoying. Just because I am being transparent does not mean I am not educated on the topic, I have an opinion. I do not believe what anyone has brought to the table. If anyone is not pro nenshi, or anti flames, in this thread they are bullied, there is no discussion, educated or otherwise. Posts that are not are knit-picked and taken out of context. I do not blame some posters for not coming back, I have thick skin and I know that I am sometimes play devils advocate, but I am not going to lap up what either side is saying at this point, it is all part of the negotiation/discussion, whichever level the debate is on. Go away? Really?

You admitted you were just here to be contrarian and now you're crying about respect?

Your entire presence and MO is a disrespect to this thread, so yeah, go away.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

The City of Edmonton made money from the citizens being employed at the businesses that pay taxes to operate in the City. None of this money would have been spent locally without the attraction at the arena, specifically other people coming to town. I don't care if it is a large multinational hotel, chain restaurant or other international type business they all employ local people who are taxed and spend their money in the local community. Plus the property tax increase from businesses in the CRL, none of which would exist without the plan to use the arena as an anchor tenant.

If Calgary wants to build an "entertainment" district in the east village they better hope the businesses can survive on the 10 days of Stampede, because with no other events to attract people down to the area all of those businesses will fade away. Or the city can build the $500 Million dollar "entertainment center" on their own without an anchor tenant and hope to recoup their money eventually (like the National Music Center investment - never going to pay for itself),

The NMC has repaid 2/3rds of their construction loan in the first year through a combination of provincial/federal grants, cultural donations from philanthropists, and gate revenue. The NMC is well on its way to paying for itself.

I think the point is that you're saying you contributed $532 to Edmonton's economy. I don't even know what a proper number would be to say that actually goes directly to the City of Edmonton, but the idea is that you have to do your trip a million times for the City to even break even using your $532 estimate.

If the City of Edmonton literally just gave $500 million dollars to their citizens in the form of vouchers that could only be redeemed within the confines of the city, you would get an equal amount of economic stimulation as an arena.

The arena is not ZERO benefit. We also already have a functional one in the Saddledome. I think the argument is that the marginal benefit of a new arena (ie. the increase in benefit to the City in having a brand new arena vs. the current Saddledome) is not worth 500 million dollars. It's worth something, but not at the amount the Flames are wanting the City to pay.

[Moderator]

If people continue to tell people to go away for expressing a different view they will be the ones that go away. Let's start being more respectful in this thread. That goes for everyone

[Freeway]

The money I spent in Edmonton at the UFC show is likely part of the pot of money I would've spent at concerts or movies or a Stamps game. The existence of a new arena here won't create new economic activity, but it'll redistribute some jobs (from the Saddledome to the new building) and provide more leisure spending choices for Calgarians.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Moderator

If people continue to tell people to go away for expressing a different view they will be the ones that go away. Let's start being more respectful in this thread. That goes for everyone

It's not the different view that's the problem, and you guys can look at what he posted earlier to clearly see this.

Please stop.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

So when viewed that there is an anchor tenant that wishes to also contribute, and that anchor tenant would also create some city wide business benefit through their enterprise, it sure seems like it makes sense for both city hall major private business that would utilize the facility to contribute towards its construction.

Money coming into the city, in any form, is a desirable outcome. And the City should do whatever it can to encourage that. That to me was the point.

But it still doesn't define how much is the right amount from each party.

I think the muddied element here is that the Flames themselves don’t create enough city benefit, not that a functional stadium doesn’t. As far as the economic benefits go, people have a set amount of entertainment dollars that they will spend regardless of the main tenant of our stadium so the question needs to be asked: does the city need a new stadium to reap those benefits?

The answer, to me, is no. I don’t see a large increase occurring in the economic benefit of a new stadium vs the Saddledome. If the Flames leave, for instance, perhaps you see a drop in business of the surrounding area, but how much? For how long? Could a WHL team who ended up as the biggest draw for a large city of hockey loving people create the same benefit? Possibly, if not moreso thanks to it being a much more financially accessible level of hockey.

Will we need a new stadium eventually? Of course? But do we need it right now? And at what cost? My feelings fall in line with council: I want a new stadium, I want it in the right place to help the city’s development plan in rejuvenating certain areas, and I want a deal that works for us. 57 days max of NHL hockey isn’t a compelling enough reason to make a deal where we sacrifice that.

I agree with your view, but I want the city to work with an anchor tenant that wants to work with them. I need to see actual benefits and actual plans coming from CESC if they want a big contribution. Not because a new stadium isn’t beneficial, but because I need to see how beneficial 41-57 days of NHL hockey is, specifically, over every other possibility.

Show me. Shouldn’t that be simple for CESC?

Originally Posted by Redlan

Go away? Really?

Yes. Empty contrarianism isn’t beneficial to the thread anymore than whatever vitriol you’re nobly standing against. The cream rises to the top, so if you have intelligent, moderate opinions feel free to share them in place of the vapid agenda-driven stuff. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” might be a simple concept, but that doesn’t mean it’s not one worth following. If you can’t share genuine opinions instead of those designed just to disrupt the thread further, don’t share them. Dissenting opinions and passionate discussion make this board great, but it’s better when it’s backed by conviction instead of pot-stirring.