Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

Doesn't give you the right to tell people to go away. If you have a problem with a poster put them on ignore or report them.

[nik-]

I've reported people for straight race baiting in the past, and admitting it, and nothing has happened. Why would I ever use the report function again?

You guys need to add more people, and more active people to your team.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

At this point I am most interested to see how the CSEG will respond after Nenshi wins the municipal election in a landslide. When their biggest, boldest play in this negotiation utterly fails and they do return to the table, under what pretence?

That's when the trips to Seattle by King and Edwards begin.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by nik-

I've reported people for straight race baiting in the past, and admitting it, and nothing has happened. Why would I ever use the report function again?

You guys need to add more people, and more active people to your team.

How do you know nothing's happened? If you have issues with how we moderate this site take it up via pm with us. But you may not agree how we choose to handle things. We have enough mods.

[TheScorpion]

[PepsiFree]

All this disagreement is scaring our little Scorp!

[TheScorpion]

Nah I just figured that a popcorn gif would be too on-the-nose.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

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.

It seems that you're suggesting a new arena will somehow increase business overall in the city, and specifically around the arena. This actually isn't true.

To demonstrate this, I'll give an example using the hypothetical CalgaryNext project.

Let's say that I own a pub downtown. Underscore's Pub. It's great and everyone loves it. It's near the Saddledome and on game days I have a ton of people who come in before and after the game for drinks. When the Flames play out of town, people come in to watch the game and buy lots of drinks. Business is doing great.

Now, if the Flames were to build the CalgaryNext arena in the West Village, what do you suppose would happen to my business? Do you think people are going to come to Underscore's before the game over by the Stampede Grounds? Will they come back after the game for more drinks? Probably not. They're probably just find a pub near the West Village.

In fact, moving the arena from near the Stampede Grounds to the West Village is basically killing my business. Which means if I want to survive I would need to move Underscore's over to the new arena.

So if we're looking at a very limited area of the city, we could say that the CalgaryNext arena has done a great job revitalizing an area of town. However, that revitalization isn't coming from nowhere. It's coming at the expense of another area. If I move Underscore's to the West Village, the Stampede Grounds area loses out on business.

In this sense, there is no net economic impact to the city of Calgary. I've simply moved my business from one area to another. But I still give the city the same amount of property tax and make roughly the same amount in sales as I did before.

This is actually what all the research over the last 20-30 years has shown. Since cities are by-and-large closed economic systems, economic revitalization in one area has to come at the expense of another area.

This is why it's disingenuous of the Flames to claim the city should give them money for the arena and allow them to pay no property tax. The claim is that the city will make a lot of money from the other businesses in the area. But these businesses aren't new businesses coming from Winnipeg or Edmonton, they're just businesses that already existed in another area of the city.


That being said, an arena can provide a real economic benefit to the city through tourism. If the new arena gives people outside the city incentive to come and spend their money in Calgary rather than in Edmonton, Vancouver or Winnipeg (or the local town they're from), then you have a real, tangible economic benefit. However, we would need to calculate how much of a benefit that is.

Then there is the cultural benefit the Flames bring to the city. This is an important factor, but much more difficult to calculate.

All of this put together is why the city is willing to put some money towards an arena but they want to know how it will economically impact the average tax payer.

Meanwhile, the Flames seem to be claiming that anything that would cut into their profits essentially becomes a Flames contribution. So a ticket tax is their contribution since without they could charge more. Paying property tax back to the city is a Flames contribution because they have to pay that out of their revenue.

The new arena will not be an economic boon for the city. Even still they're willing to put some money into it because it will still culturally impact the city in a big way. Nenshi has also continued to say he's willing to negotiate and their latest offer wasn't their final offer.

A deal will get done, but it's not going to look anything like what the Flames have proposed so far.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GGG

A few other interesting things.

The city paid 1/4 of the cost of Cowboy stadium.
The tax generates around 25 million per year
The city 23 years go when this tax was implemented payed 135 million for Arlington stadium for the rangers.

The ticket tax that the cowboys had on their Stadium was borrowed by the city but guarenteed by the cowboys.

Essentially the city of Arlington gives 25 million per year to professional sports teams and collects no direct revenue from them. Compare to Calgary at 6 million CAD.

That seems like a crazy amount to pay for the privilege of paying to watch sports. If one assumes that the Cowboys is half of the tax they pay 1.5 million per game hosted each year.

One of the huge differences between most Canadian and American cities is the way their metropolitan areas are divided.

There is a reason the SF 49ers play in Santa Clara and not SF; the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers play in Arlington; and the Atlanta Braves play in Cobb county. Because SF, Dallas, and Atlanta balked at the price and smaller cities came in to take the team.

Arlington was worried about losing their teams to Dallas, so they caved. Most canadian cities don't have the same amount of large suburban cities around them to compete for the dollars.

This is one of many reasons you shouldn't look at what other cities paid for stadiums - each place is entirely different.

[Cappy]

-

Originally Posted by Redlan

I find it interesting, and quite frankly ridiculous, that there are some posters that repeat ad nauseum that they are incredulous of the Flames information yet lap up a politician's word as the gospel. It is also very interesting that there is at least one poster that has yet to actually post in a hockey related thread yet is only active in political discussion - Nenshi and his henchmen make social media their bitch. The mayor can be trusted no more and no less than the Flames, the difference being, he is a lot better at this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by New Era

Completely agree. The astroturfing On this subject is admirable. There are several posters who have non-existent posting histories in threads un-related to the business of the arena. They post nowhere else, or very just token contributions, yet they lead the charge here. They are very clear in their intent and they maintain extreme message discipline, never giving an inch or acknowldgement of anything positive on the other side of the argument. The issue has been distilled to a black and white argument where there are good guys and bad guys. This is some Tea Party level astroturfing. Have to give them credit, they have been extremely effective in the execution of their duties and have built a firewall of posters who will die on the hills they have manufactured.

I assume you are talking about me to some respect, which is fair. New Era has made similar accusations before (and in PM i told him who i was). I comment mostly on this thread, along with politics, and off-topic threads. Also active on the Jays thread.

Frankly, I watch hockey and follow the flames threads and other discussions, but those threads move relatively fast for how often i come on here; also, for the most part, the flames threads can be pretty boring - like thousands of posts on Mark Jankowski before he played a single game? not going to waste my time on that.

But i do thank quite a few posts in those threads so that should atleast be proof that i'm there.

I think this issue is important and there are a lot of disinformation that you and others like you throw out there to advance your own goals. Hence, i spend alot of time on it. It's also one of the more interesting things happening in Calgary. I think the accusation that people are astroturfing is wrong. They aren't coming in here making false economic claims, and are, for the most part adding additional information into the topic - this isn't "I hate Spendshi" type level of trolling that is ever present on twitter. Personal attacks are present but i haven't seen a decisive thread that hasn't had that. Also, I wouldn't say people are bullying pro-CSEC posters. There is some piling on but its mostly because the majority of the people in this thread are on the other side and have some sort of rebuttal to what was stated.

You need to remember that most of the "anti-CSEC" posters on here have admitted that they are ok with SOME money going towards the arena.

If you think I'm a nenshi henchman you can certainly come to my office and meet me. Message me and ill give you my address. I'm here every week and most weekends. Will gladly talk Flames with you.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by Cappy

-

I assume you are talking about me to some respect, which is fair. New Era has made similar accusations before (and in PM i told him who i was). I comment mostly on this thread, along with politics, and off-topic threads. Also active on the Jays thread.

Frankly, I watch hockey and follow the flames threads and other discussions, but those threads move relatively fast for how often i come on here; also, for the most part, the flames threads can be pretty boring - like thousands of posts on Mark Jankowski before he played a single game? not going to waste my time on that.

But i do thank quite a few posts in those threads so that should atleast be proof that i'm there.

I think this issue is important and there are a lot of disinformation that you and others like you throw out there to advance your own goals. Hence, i spend alot of time on it. It's also one of the more interesting things happening in Calgary. I think the accusation that people are astroturfing is wrong. They aren't coming in here making false economic claims, and are, for the most part adding additional information into the topic - this isn't "I hate Spendshi" type level of trolling that is ever present on twitter. Personal attacks are present but i haven't seen a decisive thread that hasn't had that. Also, I wouldn't say people are bullying pro-CSEC posters. There is some piling on but its mostly because the majority of the people in this thread are on the other side and have some sort of rebuttal to what was stated.

You need to remember that most of the "anti-CSEC" posters on here have admitted that they are ok with SOME money going towards the arena.

If you think I'm a nenshi henchman you can certainly come to my office and meet me. Message me and ill give you my address. I'm here every week and most weekends. Will gladly talk Flames with you.

I have provided no misinformation, fundamentally there has been 2 things that I have stated. One; that neither side is entirely truthful, and 2; that we all pay taxes for services and infrastructure that we all do no use. Those are both facts. On each instance, there were immediate backlash because I did not share their view. Regardless the posts were knit-picked apart to try and invalidate, not in a respectful manner to solicit more dialogue. And it was done to other posters as well. Yes I did get frustrated and insinuated that there are some mis-ingenious posters in this thread, but that is the way I interpreted the tactics.

Other than that, thanks for the genuine response, although I thought it was better before your edits. I may just message you...my office is not that far away , a break from work would be great.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I guess I'll be the voice of dissent again.
Making wisecracks about edmonton and their crappy hockey team on a Flames forum is fair game IMO, hell it's fun. Going on the CBC in front of a national audience and trashing the city and it's residents goes too far, makes us look petty and rude. I'd bet money that if you polled people across the country they'd say this sort of thing reflects badly on Calgary's image.

Be quiet, I can speak for myself.

[Wormius]

If the city were to just build and operate an arena/venue itself wouldn't that bea better overall deal for everybody - if the Flames / Hitmen / etc were simply renting the venue like a concert act, what would be wrong with that? It seems like tax payers would get more return for their investment. How do the ticket sales for these things typically go, I mean, for Garth Brooks for example, how much of ticket sales go to the venue and how much to Garth Brooks and his people?

I just don't like the idea of the CSEC getting this whole thing for free and what does the city get out of it? It's mainly minimum wage local jobs that they're really creating out of this.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Wormius

If the city were to just build and operate an arena/venue itself wouldn't that bea better overall deal for everybody - if the Flames / Hitmen / etc were simply renting the venue like a concert act, what would be wrong with that? It seems like tax payers would get more return for their investment. How do the ticket sales for these things typically go, I mean, for Garth Brooks for example, how much of ticket sales go to the venue and how much to Garth Brooks and his people?

Then the Flames don't get food service revenue. The Flames don't get parking revenue. The Flames don't get luxury box revenue. The Flames don't get entertainment act revenue. The Flames don't get XYZ revenue from some untapped thing we don't even know they want to build into this building.

If it's not clear by now, the Flames want more revenue.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Moderator

How do you know nothing's happened? If you have issues with how we moderate this site take it up via pm with us. But you may not agree how we choose to handle things. We have enough mods.

Why would he pm a mod about it if there won't be a response?You are right, you have enough mods but Nik is also right, reporting bait posts do nothing. How do I know nothing happened? Hmm, maybe because said post is left up instead of modified or deleted? There certainly seems to be a difference with the way rules are enforced for some posters compared to some others who have been around forever or have custom titles and obviously have a ridiculous amount of leeway. It is a major problem with this site and has been for years, certain posters bait and bait someone and others pile on, the poster finally snaps and reacts (probably after reporting and nothing being done) and receives the sin bin or a lifetime suspension and the baiter walks scott free. I am not saying the mods are a problem, I am not putting them down in any way, I am simply saying that I have been here since 2005 and this was not an issue back then so what changed that certain posters can bait unconditionally with zero repercussions while the victims almost always get an infraction when that is clearly against the rules? Anyhow it is off topic and should be in the help forum but it is a major issue with this forum and the reason for many suspensions or CPers just out right quitting the site. Cannot understand why the rules are not evenly and properly enforced but it is not my forum.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Redlan

The Spin Doctors that all the Anti-CSEC group are...you fail to see that people without children are still paying for schools on their taxes (even at provincial levels) and roads even if they live downtown and commute by foot/bike. The list goes on; I never go to the emergency room/hospital but yet I pay for habitual users of the system, or ones that choose vises that stain the system but refuse to adjust their lifestyle...the same people that claim it is free! It is so easy to put up your road block claims and never analyze what it actually means, I am going to refer to it as the Big Mac argument, yes it is a burger but it is any good... any real sustenance?

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.

So since you are trying to play martyr now we should go back to the ridiculous troll post that you came in with and the thoughtful response that I made.

So if you wish to engage in rational discussion of your position let's do it. Instead you straw man the whole thing by responding to only the most extreme posts and then cry persecution. You aren't interested in having a debate.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Redlan

I have provided no misinformation, fundamentally there has been 2 things that I have stated. One; that neither side is entirely truthful, and 2; that we all pay taxes for services and infrastructure that we all do no use. Those are both facts. On each instance, there were immediate backlash because I did not share their view. Regardless the posts were knit-picked apart to try and invalidate, not in a respectful manner to solicit more dialogue. And it was done to other posters as well. Yes I did get frustrated and insinuated that there are some mis-ingenious posters in this thread, but that is the way I interpreted the tactics.

Other than that, thanks for the genuine response, although I thought it was better before your edits. I may just message you...my office is not that far away , a break from work would be great.

Before the edits, it wouldnt be hard for someone to connect the dots and find out who i was, so i thought i would make that quick change.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Why would he pm a mod about it if there won't be a response?You are right, you have enough mods but Nik is also right, reporting bait posts do nothing. How do I know nothing happened? Hmm, maybe because said post is left up instead of modified or deleted? There certainly seems to be a difference with the way rules are enforced for some posters compared to some others who have been around forever or have custom titles and obviously have a ridiculous amount of leeway. It is a major problem with this site and has been for years, certain posters bait and bait someone and others pile on, the poster finally snaps and reacts (probably after reporting and nothing being done) and receives the sin bin or a lifetime suspension and the baiter walks scott free. I am not saying the mods are a problem, I am not putting them down in any way, I am simply saying that I have been here since 2005 and this was not an issue back then so what changed that certain posters can bait unconditionally with zero repercussions while the victims almost always get an infraction when that is clearly against the rules? Anyhow it is off topic and should be in the help forum but it is a major issue with this forum and the reason for many suspensions or CPers just out right quitting the site. Cannot understand why the rules are not evenly and properly enforced but it is not my forum.

If you would like us to respond pm us and we will. We generally respond to every pm we get.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by GGG

So since you are trying to play martyr now we should go back to the ridiculous troll post that you came in with and the thoughtful response that I made.



So if you wish to engage in rational discussion of your position let's do it. Instead you straw man the whole thing by responding to only the most extreme posts and then cry persecution. You aren't interested in having a debate.

I never claimed that there was not any value in the services or infrastructures. That is not what I was discussing. YOU tried to troll bait me with YOUR view, and it is a very different discussion. Yes we could banter about reports and I could cherry pick and you could cherry pick. But I never once discussed the value, it is pretty subjective.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Redlan

I never claimed that there was not any value in the services or infrastructures. That is not what I was discussing. YOU tried to troll bait me with YOUR view, and it is a very different discussion. Yes we could banter about reports and I could cherry pick and you could cherry pick. But I never once discussed the value, it is pretty subjective.

Then please for record state your position on the Arena?