Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thank you for telling me how to spend my money.

Holy ####, some people.

You’re using your money, and the “value” you get from it, as a reason why everyone else should pitch a little bit in to ensure you feel the value is worth it.

You don’t care if anyone else is spending money, you just want more to be spent so you feel better about yours.

It’s a simple solution: if you don’t feel like you’re getting value right now, bail. If you’re not going to bail now after admitting the value isn’t there, why pretend you’re going to bail on a new arena if you don’t think the value of all that new money spent isn’t enough?

Plus, if anything, that’s not a good reason to build the thing. “I’ll hang on despite everything now, but if the new thing we spend hundreds of millions on isn’t great, I’m bailing!” so... better to not build it and avoid the risk then.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thank you for telling me how to spend my money.

Holy ####, some people.

At least you are a season ticket holder and can experience potential benefit of a new arena.

Imagine how Calgarian who don’t go to hockey games feel about paying for a new arena for the Flames owners? I don’t think they care for being told how to spend their money.

So the point isn’t so much about anyone’s STH experience but about what is in this for all Calgarians who will be forced to “spend their money”.

[MacDaddy77]

I'm so sick of hearing this argument. going to the arena or not is really irrelevant, the construction of a new arena will inject private business to grow in the area around thus injecting real $ and taxable future $ into the local economy.

It's an example people also throw out alot so I'll use it again. I likely will never step foot in the new library or use the new parkade or attend a conference at the BMO center but I can recognize that Calgary as a city needs these venues for the betterment of all the people.

I get that the Flames will likely get a preferential deal but who cares! If contributing 200 million of taxpayers dollars results in 1-2 Billion of private investment in the area.

[Strange Brew]

You must be able to see the difference between a library and a privately owned for profit business.

[Robbob]

I see we have made it full circle and are starting at the beginning again. I can't wait for this to be announced so we can set up the webcam to watch the progress.

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I'm so sick of hearing this argument. going to the arena or not is really irrelevant, the construction of a new arena will inject private business to grow in the area around thus injecting real $ and taxable future $ into the local economy.

It's an example people also throw out alot so I'll use it again. I likely will never step foot in the new library or use the new parkade or attend a conference at the BMO center but I can recognize that Calgary as a city needs these venues for the betterment of all the people.

I get that the Flames will likely get a preferential deal but who cares! If contributing 200 million of taxpayers dollars results in 1-2 Billion of private investment in the area.

So a public venue is the same as a private business which is gonna turn around and just increase prices on everyone? And its been well documented that the economic returns of an arena do not make up for what a city spends on it. This practice of corporate welfare needs to end. Its the reason our economy is declining.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I'm so sick of hearing this argument. going to the arena or not is really irrelevant, the construction of a new arena will inject private business to grow in the area around thus injecting real $ and taxable future $ into the local economy.

It's an example people also throw out alot so I'll use it again. I likely will never step foot in the new library or use the new parkade or attend a conference at the BMO center but I can recognize that Calgary as a city needs these venues for the betterment of all the people.

I get that the Flames will likely get a preferential deal but who cares! If contributing 200 million of taxpayers dollars results in 1-2 Billion of private investment in the area.

I know.

If only city building was a neat and tidy as it is in the minds of some people.

The larger idea here is to create a self-sustaining district that creates a neighbourhood that will not have the carnival atmosphere of a year-round Stampede but to create a place that at the bare minimum is distinctly different from the underutilized space that currently exists.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re using your money, and the “value” you get from it, as a reason why everyone else should pitch a little bit in to ensure you feel the value is worth it.

You don’t care if anyone else is spending money, you just want more to be spent so you feel better about yours.

It’s a simple solution: if you don’t feel like you’re getting value right now, bail. If you’re not going to bail now after admitting the value isn’t there, why pretend you’re going to bail on a new arena if you don’t think the value of all that new money spent isn’t enough?

Plus, if anything, that’s not a good reason to build the thing. “I’ll hang on despite everything now, but if the new thing we spend hundreds of millions on isn’t great, I’m bailing!” so... better to not build it and avoid the risk then.

Now you're doubling down and putting words in my mouth so you can draw more conclusions from me? And you're making assumptions about what I care about?

I sincerely hope someone has hacked your account.

Not that you deserve an answer, but it is a little more nuanced than you are pretending here.

First, with respect to current value, yes, it is already at the point where I question it each year - as do a lot of STHers. And each year, that value gets worse, as the Dome gets older. The point being that, without a new arena, more and more people will come to that conclusion, and it is a dead end for the team. Many have already posted similar sentiments here, and I have had this conversation with many, many STHers.

However - and having said all that - the challenge for STHers who are frustrated with the Dome, is that, if you cancel now, you are out of the queue with respect to getting good seats in the new building. It is a bit of a 'hold on and hope' situation.

Is a new building a cure-all? No. Will it provide more value? Definitely not a certainty. But for me, like many STHers (and as we see with patrons in other cities), it's worth waiting to see. If it turns out to be crap, and more expensive crap, I will cancel. If it turns out to be worth continuing to subscribe, I will. Based on most other rinks I have been to, I expect the latter.

Happy?

Judging how other people spend their money, based on little to no information, and making blind assumptions about what matters to them, with no clue as to what actually does, is as low brow as it gets. Based on your past posting record though, I will simply move on.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

At least you are a season ticket holder and can experience potential benefit of a new arena.

Imagine how Calgarian who don’t go to hockey games feel about paying for a new arena for the Flames owners? I don’t think they care for being told how to spend their money.

So the point isn’t so much about anyone’s STH experience but about what is in this for all Calgarians who will be forced to “spend their money”.

A fair viewpoint. However, my comments were directed to a specific conversation about the state of the Dome. They were never meant, nor presented as, an argument to spend tax dollars on a new building.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Is this on top of the improvements already slated with the original CRL timeframe or a potential further $150M for improvements?

The only “existing” project would be the $150m for the various Victoria Park upgrades, but that debt hadn’t been authorized yet, so I count it as new.

I think they have spent about $400m to date on various things. This would extend the total CRL Expenditure close to $1b, but I think a decent chunk has been paid back already. 20 yr extension would easily pay off another $550m based on the current and anticipated tax base in the Rivers District.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You must be able to see the difference between a library and a privately owned for profit business.

I see the difference between an area with alot of potential for private development WITH an event center that will drive traffic to it throughout the cold dark winter months on a consistent basis vs an underutilized and under developed and taxable area without an anchor to promote foot traffic.

I think of it this way, if someone told me that the city was going to give you Strange Brew a 66% investment in a business that I wouldn't use but pay tax on however; that by giving you the 66% investment this would lead to more facilities that I would use around the area of the business i wouldn't use I would say go for it.

I realize this is only my opinion but there are ALOT of people that will use the entertainment district and restaurants, hotels bars and shops that will come once an arena is there, even if they don't use the arena itself

This is larger than just the building itself, but without a Hockey arena and event centre bringing in 20,000 2-3 times a week in our worst weather months the area is wasted potential.

[Tyler]

You do realize that we've had a 20,000 seat event centre 1 block away from it's proposed location for the past 35 years and it has not spurred any private development in 3+ decades?

[MacDaddy77]

that's not true,

The arriva, Guardian and keynote towers for just a few have all been built in the last 5-15 years. you think with more amenities and an actual entertainment district with shopping and restaurants wont lead to more?

Also, the Saddledome is currently surrounded by only the Stampede board land and not the city so that in itself leads to a barrier

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Tyler

You do realize that we've had a 20,000 seat event centre 1 block away from it's proposed location for the past 35 years and it has not spurred any private development in 3+ decades?

The Saddledome is buried in Stampede Park, is isolated and isolating to its surroundings. It invites no interaction with the building or facilitates any ancillary use of associated outside public space, nor commercial space. There is a reason why it has not generated activity and other arenas have - it was not designed to. I have little doubt what’s planned will be successful in this regard, because it is designed intentionally to do those things.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Judging how other people spend their money, based on little to no information, and making blind assumptions about what matters to them, with no clue as to what actually does, is as low brow as it gets. Based on your past posting record though, I will simply move on.

There is really no judgement on my end, I’m just over the STH excuse of “well I spend my money when the value isn’t there, so I need a new arena or else I’m out.” It’s a pretty tired “threat” at this point, and I wish people would stop going on about it and #### or get off the pot. If you’re holding on to your ticket to get into the new arena, well, listen to the poster who says there’s no line and re-up whenever a decision is made instead of wasting cash on something you don’t enjoy.

This is a big expense, let’s talk about it in practical terms that apply to everyone (like below) and not spend our time whining because the bathroom lines are long. It’s hundreds of millions of dollars. Joe Schmo don’t give a hoot if you miss five minutes because the dam is about to burst. And he certainly won’t be convinced if you tell him “well with a new arena I might only miss two minutes!”

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I see the difference between an area with alot of potential for private development WITH an event center that will drive traffic to it throughout the cold dark winter months on a consistent basis vs an underutilized and under developed and taxable area without an anchor to promote foot traffic.

I think of it this way, if someone told me that the city was going to give you Strange Brew a 66% investment in a business that I wouldn't use but pay tax on however; that by giving you the 66% investment this would lead to more facilities that I would use around the area of the business i wouldn't I would say go for it.

I realize this is only my opinion but there are ALOT of people that will use the entertainment district and restaurants, hotels bars and shops that will come once an arena is there, even if they don't use the arena itself

This is larger than just the building itself, but without a Hockey arena and event centre bringing in 20,000 2-3 times a week in our worst weather months the area is wasted potential.

I agree with this, and my point was at least that we have to think bigger than individual needs and wants. I’m prepared to pay some money, and not because someone wants more leg room, but because the arena can be part of a much bigger plan to improve part of the city. That’s what is appealing. Long term growth, revitalisation of an area, and at least the potential of attracting more people based on an improved experience of Calgary, not just shorter lines at the bathroom.

Both people opposing this because “money spent = bad” and STH who complain about the concourse need to pull their heads out of their bums and think a little bigger if they want an argument with legs.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You must be able to see the difference between a library and a privately owned for profit business.

I'm ok with the library, there's at least value in that. But if you ask my opinion, Studio Bell was a waste of money. That place is underwhelming to say the least.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There is really no judgement on my end, I’m just over the STH excuse of “well I spend my money when the value isn’t there, so I need a new arena or else I’m out.” It’s a pretty tired “threat” at this point, and I wish people would stop going on about it and #### or get off the pot. If you’re holding on to your ticket to get into the new arena, well, listen to the poster who says there’s no line and re-up whenever a decision is made instead of wasting cash on something you don’t enjoy.

This is a big expense, let’s talk about it in practical terms that apply to everyone (like below) and not spend our time whining because the bathroom lines are long. It’s hundreds of millions of dollars. Joe Schmo don’t give a hoot if you miss five minutes because the dam is about to burst. And he certainly won’t be convinced if you tell him “well with a new arena I might only miss two minutes!”

Again, this entire discussion line was related to a specific comment about the experiences at the Dome, and whether they were different than other arenas, whether a new building would remedy them, etc. And it was only within that context that they were submitted (or intended)

And it was never a threat.

It is a very simple line of discussion. Does the Dome provide a good enough experience to entice fans to continue spending their money there? And the answer, from every STHer that I have seen or heard respond, is a resounding 'NO!"

That is a separate conversation from determining how a building should be funded.

But in and of itself, as a single item of conversation, the Dome is a dump. And people will stop supporting the team in increasing numbers, if it remains the status quo.

I fully expect other people to respond with "Waaa!" when people complain about the washrooms, and the cold water, and such. Yes, we are very fortunate to be able to buy STs. But that doesn't change the fact, or diminish the fact that, in its current state, many of us will stop buying.

And that would eventually lead to no team. If people are cool with that, great. If people want a team, it will require a new building. How we solve the inherent problems of funding a building is another conversation entirely.

[FiftyBelow]

The economics literature largely suggest that pro sports arenas have negligible net economic effects--some suggest even negative net economic effects--to local economies. A quick search on Google scholar will yield such articles for those who care enough to read. I can't stand the myth of the alleged economic benefits arising from pro sports arena welfare.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You must be able to see the difference between a library and a privately owned for profit business.

Sports teams are a little different than regular privately owned businesses. There is a ton of public good that comes from having a sports team (city recognition, good will and city pride, benefits to other businesses in the city etc.).

Someone said earlier that there is alot of literature that proves tax payers money for an arena rarely offers economic benefit. I think it's true if you're talking benefits directly traced back to the flames but I think it overlooks those other factors. You can't measure uptick in bars, grocery stores, tourism, etc.

I believe there's a reason why cities all over the world/North America want sports teams in their city and are willingly shelling out dollars to lure them. There is public good that cannot easily be measured and I think it's a stretch to think it's not there because it's privately owned.

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by ST20

Sports teams are a little different than regular privately owned businesses. There is a ton of public good that comes from having a sports team (city recognition, good will and city pride, benefits to other businesses in the city etc.).

Someone said earlier that there is alot of literature that proves tax payers money for an arena rarely offers economic benefit. I think it's true if you're talking benefits directly traced back to the flames but I think it overlooks those other factors. You can't measure uptick in bars, grocery stores, tourism, etc.

I believe there's a reason why cities all over the world/North America want sports teams in their city and are willingly shelling out dollars to lure them. There is public good that cannot easily be measured and I think it's a stretch to think it's not there because it's privately owned.

Some of the variables you mentioned are more difficult to measure than others--certainly things such as civic pride etc. But a lot of the studies certainly account for effects on local business and tourism. Here's an excerpt from a quick study I pulled up:

"First, household spending on sports – direct spending on tickets, licensed
merchandise, etc. and indirect spending on food and drinks at or near a
sports facility - is highly substitutable for other forms of entertainment
8
spending like movie tickets, food and drinks in areas of the city far from
the facility, bowling and the like. Professional sport does not induce
residents to increase total spending by drawing on savings or borrowing
against future earnings. Residents maintain their level of entertainment
spending but alter the allocation of this spending toward sport-related
spending and away from other close substitutes. Sports redirect spending
by residents from one part of the local economy to another."

Source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7068694.pdf

In short, sports-related spending simply provide competing business for entertainment dollars that would have been spent elsewhere.