Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[marsplasticeraser]

Bike lanes only benefit bikers?

Bike lanes benefit anybody who commutes, I’d say most directly benefiting are commuters in cars.

Bike lanes take cars off the road. For the majority of journey bikers are on bike pathways or quiet roads and there is no impact on drivers. It only really impacts drivers downtown, and that is a negligible amount based on all studies, not only on calgary but throughout Western Europe and North America. .

Any increase in bike commuting leads to a direct reduction of cars on the road and people on transit. .

There is also the benefit of better health due to the activity, which leads to reduced health care cost. This benefits every tax payer.

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Good post... I do ask why you are ok with some of the city funded projects you don't use over an arena?
The bike lanes are for a very small portion of the city and for the most part, inner city. (Just curious)

[Eric Vail]

Can you imagine the congestion on the roads if there wasn't public transit?
Transit doesn't just benefit those who ride on it either.

[Travis Munroe]

I am sure there are all sorts of issues with this but what if the city used a cap system based on funding. If you want 50% tax payers money, tickets are capped at a league average. If you want 25%, tickets can go 15% higher than league average, etc.

Basically if you do not want to run as all private business does by funding your own projects and want city help, then you must give back to the city in the form of not pricing even more of the city out.

Go as far as giving the city 1,000 seats in the nose bleeds which are dispersed to those that would otherwise be priced out.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Can you imagine the congestion on the roads if there wasn't public transit?
Transit doesn't just benefit those who ride on it either.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Good post... I do ask why you are ok with some of the city funded projects you don't use over an arena?
The bike lanes are for a very small portion of the city and for the most part, inner city. (Just curious)

Others have already articulated this well, but:

1. Accessibility. Open to anyone VS. new arena, where fewer seats and higher prices reduce accessibility.

2. Nature of the benefit: healthy populations, educational, traffic efficiency, one could even stretch towards crime reduction in providing facilities for youth to use (not hanging my hat on this one, but it's part of making the city I want to live in) VS. new arena...some civic/cultural pride*, some charity**, helping catalyze an area redevelopment***

3. Who primarily benefits: citizens of Calgary VS. a private business


I tried to keep my snarky cynicism out of it, but here are some further qualifications to the arena benefits:
*at present, this is only sustaining what currently exists; until the threat to move is really tangible/realistic, a new arena does not offer any more than the Saddledome. Really cynically, we're cheering for laundry. I'll be taking my kids to a lot more Junior B games in small towns, WJC training camps at Winsport, and SAIT hockey games before spending significant money on the Flames (or even Hitmen).

**cynically, whatever money the Flames directly give is offset by their sweetheart arena mgmt deal. The money raised from fans would decrease to some extent, but lots would be redirected to other charities and charitable experiences.

***I'm not saying an arena is a bad way to do it, but I'm also not convinced that sporadically dropping 19000 people into an area results in ideal vibrancy. I will acknowledge that without an arena, you are more likely to see the area feel like Eau Claire 2.0 or Core 2.0 in the evening. I'm just not sure what the area feels like on non-game/concert nights. I do think it is sensible to build this area to capitalize on major events, incl. Stampede; it makes more sense to do it boldly in conjunction with an arena, but I think it can also happen more gradually, with less risk, while leaving a 2 sq -block plot of land as a parking lot until the time when a new arena is actually needed, not just wanted.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by getbak

There are just under 500,000 households in Calgary. If each one paid $20 per year for 30 years, that's $300 million. That would pay for half the cost of the new arena.

A simplistic way of looking at it, and for me, it is still way too much. I don't want the 400,000 lowest value households in Calgary paying anywhere near $20 for this, nor do I want to pay $20+ as a fortunate member of the top 20%.

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I am sure there are all sorts of issues with this but what if the city used a cap system based on funding. If you want 50% tax payers money, tickets are capped at a league average. If you want 25%, tickets can go 15% higher than league average, etc.

Basically if you do not want to run as all private business does by funding your own projects and want city help, then you must give back to the city in the form of not pricing even more of the city out.

Go as far as giving the city 1,000 seats in the nose bleeds which are dispersed to those that would otherwise be priced out.

I wouldn't be opposed to ideas like this, but I'd much rather the Flames just build it themselves, charge as much as they can, and contribute to society through income and property taxes, just like every other for-profit business.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

There are just under 500,000 households in Calgary. If each one paid $20 per year for 30 years, that's $300 million. That would pay for half the cost of the new arena.

Sure.

Do you know how many services for citizens you could provide using that logic? Affordable senior housing, improved transit, aid to the homeless, flood protection, snow clearing.

There is an endless list of needs and sports and culture belong on the list. But I don’t think the argument of “its only $20” helps persuade why the money should go to CSEC over other needs.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Sure.

Do you know how many services for citizens you could provide using that logic? Affordable senior housing, improved transit, aid to the homeless, flood protection, snow clearing.

There is an endless list of needs and sports and culture belong on the list. But I don’t think the argument of “its only $20” helps persuade why the money should go to CSEC over other needs.

To be clear, I wasn't arguing that it should.

I just found it funny that "I wouldn't want to pay more than $20 a year" was used as an argument against public funding for the arena when that's basically the maximum amount being requested by the Flames for public funding for the arena.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by getbak

To be clear, I wasn't arguing that it should.

I just found it funny that "I wouldn't want to pay more than $20 a year" was used as an argument against public funding for the arena when that's basically the maximum amount being requested by the Flames for public funding for the arena.

If you ignore the existence of progressive taxation...the city's last offer would result in more than $20/yr on my tax bills.

Really parsing words here, but i was asked how much I was willing to pay, and I said I'd find it hard to swallow even $20 a year (which means I'm not comfortable paying it). IMO it's not a very useful metric for this discussion. It's not like I'm going to really miss the $20, there are just myriad other places I'd like to see the funds directed. Same goes for $200, same goes for $2 or even $0.20. I probably won't raise an eyebrow if they just want 2 pennies from me though. Then again, if everyone in the city gave me 2 pennies, I'd be ten thousand dollars happier. I promise I'll even give some to charity.

What is a crazier idea - asking everyone in the city to raise $10k for a lower-upper class guy like me, or $200M for some local billionaires? Both ideas are stupid.

If these small denominations really aren't such a big deal, why have the Flames not been asking for donations to build the new arena? Or better yet, tacking on a purpose-dedicated ticket-tax for the last 13 years?

[DirtyMike]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

Bike lanes only benefit bikers?

Bike lanes benefit anybody who commutes, I’d say most directly benefiting are commuters in cars.

Bike lanes take cars off the road. For the majority of journey bikers are on bike pathways or quiet roads and there is no impact on drivers. It only really impacts drivers downtown, and that is a negligible amount based on all studies, not only on calgary but throughout Western Europe and North America. .

Any increase in bike commuting leads to a direct reduction of cars on the road and people on transit. .

There is also the benefit of better health due to the activity, which leads to reduced health care cost. This benefits every tax payer.

I am all for bike lanes but not sure that I agree that it benefits all commuters. I think a large number of bike lane users in the summer are folks who live in the inner city (e.g. Beltline) and hop on their bike in work clothes for a quick 10 minute ride, 95% of the way in a bike lane. Without bike lanes, these people would simply make the 20-30 minute walk in. I don’t think having a bike lane makes a big difference to the guy riding in from the burbs, since bike lanes only cover 5-15% of the commute.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Parallex

If the Flames care at all about public perception they'd find a way to put a significant actual real public use element into the operations so they can claim that they're providing something to the public for the public dollars with at least a fraction of credability.

What about the millions contributed to the Flames Foundation and all of the other charitable and other public causes CSEC supports?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

What about the millions contributed to the Flames Foundation and all of the other charitable and other public causes CSEC supports?

Aren’t most of these dollars flames fan contributions through 50/50 and things like the golf tournament and in lieu of rent as opposed to direct contributions from the flames?

And secondly are they any more charitable then other businesses in Calgary. Your Suncor and Imperial make massive charitable donations.

So while any charity is good are the flames a leader in charity?

[The Boy Wonder]

The volume of vehicles benefitting the commuters in cars is a falsehood.

Lets just say that bike traffic has reduced the number of people driving in on 12th Ave by 10% during rush hour (absolutely over estimating but stick with me here) it actually just restricts morning traffic to 90% of the same volume in vehicles driving in 66% of the space... How does that improve things?

Bike lanes make sense in densely populated, relatively flat cities with milder climates. the river valley, winter and urban sprawl make calgary an almost perfect example of where bike transit makes no sense.


Speaking only for myself, I would gladly take all of my tax dollars that went to building the stupid bike lanes and put it towards an arena that I will actually use.

[GioforPM]

The theory of bike lanes reducing traffic makes sense, but the ones I've observed downtown don't bear the theory out in practice. They are rarely occupied - I'd guess less than one bike per light change. And they create congestion in the remaining roadway.

I'm all about the transit though. I gave up downtown parking years ago. It's easier for me because I'm at the end of an LRT line (so I almost always get to sit). It's much more pleasant to sit and read than to drive.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The theory of bike lanes reducing traffic makes sense, but the ones I've observed downtown don't bear the theory out in practice. They are rarely occupied - I'd guess less than one bike per light change. And they create congestion in the remaining roadway.

Curious what the facts bear and not anecdotes or feelings.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

Curious what the facts bear and not anecdotes or feelings.

I doubt there's a study this early in. But I'm right beside a bike lane and it's always dead space.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by GGG

Aren’t most of these dollars flames fan contributions through 50/50 and things like the golf tournament and in lieu of rent as opposed to direct contributions from the flames?

And secondly are they any more charitable then other businesses in Calgary. Your Suncor and Imperial make massive charitable donations.

So while any charity is good are the flames a leader in charity?

Not sure of the breakdown of their contributions.


That's one way of looking at the organization, like any other business/good corporate citizen. So along those lines, losing the Flames would be like Suncor and Imperial relocating their head offices and taking all of their local charitable donations with them. Regardless of whether they are any better or worse, it would still represent a significant net loss.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Not sure of the breakdown of their contributions.


That's one way of looking at the organization, like any other business/good corporate citizen. So along those lines, losing the Flames would be like Suncor and Imperial relocating their head offices and taking all of their local charitable donations with them. Regardless of whether they are any better or worse, it would still represent a significant net loss.

It sure would. But none of that is legitimate reason to supplement a private company in a new arena.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I doubt there's a study this early in. But I'm right beside a bike lane and it's always dead space.

The city does have daily counters on their website

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

The city does have daily counters on their website

I happen to know first hand that the numbers are fudged. U of C students were sent out during the trial period to gauge cyclist traffic to see if we needed lanes and they were told that instead of doing an analysis of how many people in a set time period, to not complete their reports until they hit x number of riders.

Also the counter counts each wheel of the bike as a rider and a “tick” so each downtown rider who goes home the same way counts as 4 individual bike lane users per day.