[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by troutman

Facebook friend wrote this letter - some good points:

Just sent this letter in. Remember folks, you only have until Friday at noon to have your feedback on the arena deal added to the record and actually considered by council (hah).

To His Worship Mayor Nenshi, Councillor Woolley, and whomever else it may concern,

I'm writing to provide my feedback on the proposed fundamentals of the Victoria Park Event Centre. First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude to Councillor Woolley for his motion to extend the period of public engagement for this project. As was rightly pointed out, the amount of time provided to the public is, frankly, insultingly short for a deal of this scope. When Council unanimously approved a motion on March 4 (again moved by Councillor Woolley) requesting that administration develop a plan for "public feedback on the terms and conditions of any potential deal," it's hard to imagine that four days to review the deal was what they had in mind. Yet here we are.

The feedback I'd most like to provide is that in my opinion, there is not enough information released to date for the public to provide meaningful feedback. Statements from your worship and other members of council clearly state that this is "a good deal for Calgary" and that the city will see benefits, and according to the City's website, that the City will receive a "return on investment," but the numbers provided are underwhelming at best. A $400 million return on a $275 million investment over 30 years is an ROI of approximately 1.1% for the city—assuming there are no cost overruns on a half-billion dollar project, that revenue estimates are accurate, and ignoring that items like property tax revenue from retail tenants could be generated from investments other than an event centre. There are countless studies in recent years suggesting that arenas and event centres never deliver the promised economic stimulus, and Calgarians deserve a better answer as to why this deal will be different.

The community benefits listed are also overstated, as they imply a situation where the Flames will absolutely leave if we do not build this centre now. That is a highly questionable position, at least based on the information the public has currently. Not to deny that a prominent sports team and athletic facilities contribute to community identity and health, but to list those as benefits of this project is to imply that we don't currently have them.

Based on those criticisms alone, it is difficult to see how this is the best deal the city could receive, and I would urge council to either do a better job of explaining the benefits, or listen to the many, many frustrated Calgarians who are asking you to turn down this project. I have read other letters that other citizens have publicly posted listing a variety of other concerns, and I encourage you to take those concerns seriously.

However, given the dialogue to date and the rushed feedback period, I assume it is very likely that this project will go forward, regardless of the feedback Council receives. That being the case, I would like to respond to the question of what I'd like to see in an event centre.

Given that significant public funds are going into the centre, it would be ideal to see the centre made accessible to all Calgarians. Mandating that a certain percentage of seats to all events over the life of the agreement be allocated to heavily discounted or free tickets for low-income Calgarians would go a long way to ensuring this public accessibility.

If the goal is to create an entertainment district, one thing that has been lacking for Calgary's film community is smaller screening spaces. A range of screening rooms from 50-100 seat rooms through 500-600 seat rooms could address a longstanding gap and benefit the dozens of film festivals that take place in Calgary every year.

Since this is an event centre and not a sports arena, it would be nice if the public support programs went to a wider range of groups than just community sports organizations, as there are many other community organizations that are in need of such support. If that isn't possible, building in some assurance that these funds will support such organizations in a wide range of communities would be useful, with a specific focus on marginalized groups, people with disabilities, immigrant and refugee youth, and indigenous communities.

The city should clarify and quantify the value of the lands involved in this deal, specifically the Enoch Sales property and the Victoria Park bus barns, and measures should be taken to ensure that the City receives adequate compensation for any transfers of these lands, which could include caps on the differential between the 2018 land value of the Enoch property and its value at the time of sale, or other such measures. It is also vital that these land deals do not impair the city's ability to build the Green Line on time, on schedule, and with a routing that meets the needs of commuters.

Again, it is my hope that Council will either reject this deal, or will better explain the benefits aside from a marginal and questionable return on investment, and claims of economic development that go against a wide and established body of study questioning the benefits of arenas and event centres. And I thank Councillor Woolley for his attempt to allow for actual, considered feedback on this proposal, in a motion that I was disappointed to see the rest of council reject.

Sincerely,

Good letter

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Good letter

Terrible letter. Nothing will be served by extending the conversation. It will just be more of the same that we’ve had for years. Two opposing sides that keep trying to prove their point. Enough already! Just sign off and start the damn thing. It will all get fine tuned after that

[Robbob]

Yeah this has been talked about for eons. I think the City already stood up and rejected all of the bad offers. I think through this process they have got to a place where it is good for both. This has been going on for a long time and I am sure they know the details, this is what we pay them for.

[CroFlames]

If we need more time after 12 years of consideration, well then maybe we shouldn't get a new arena.

[Ozy_Flame]

No deal where the City spends more than a penny is going to please everyone. The fury and hot-headedness of this is expected, because it's a big contentious issue with a million opinions and its a Calgary tradition to complain about City spending.

This is one project that needs a Private/Public partnership to get done and keep professional hockey in town. At some point we just have to shut up and get the deal done, consulting Calgarians again is just going to waste time and inevitably end up in the gutter yet again.

While I'm not educated enough to comment on the specifics of the deal, sometimes you just have to pull the trigger and bring people kicking and screaming. And even then it doesn't sound like it's even that bad after all.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is an awful take.

There is nothing bad about the dome from a pure accoustic perspective. It's not the Big 4 which is hot garbage. It's about the roof.

Arena tours fly most/all of the rigging, the roof of the dome doesn't allow for that. That dictates that the concert setup is largely free standing, like one would see at a stadium. Those economics are different than an arena tour. Put simply, you don't budget for a free standing setup for an arena tour. Thus most large ARENA tours bypass Calgary.

thanks but nobody cares about why the sound is bad, whether it's the dome itself or the speaker setup that the dome forces on the few big arena acts that actually try. they charge the same high ticket prices as other, much more capable venues; there's no discount or disclaimer on the ticket saying "warning: you will be assaulted by a distorted wall of muddy BWWOOOMMPP low frequencies for 2 hours that will ensure all other parts of the music are rendered completely unrecognizable, except for maybe when the audience sings along. but it's not our fault because economics of the situation dictate that we have to use a free standing setup. no refunds, enjoy!"

it will be a great day when the new centre opens and Calgarians aren't forced to drive 3 hours to Garbagedumpistan to see popular artists on stage.

[Weitz]

Staples now has an article out supporting the Calgary Arena deal haha. I didn't read his original article and won't read this one but he is all things terrible. I do enjoy the follow on twitter and watching him get roasted.

[Mayo]

I know it's a bad deal for the city, but as an income earner and a tax payer I give way more to the city than what I get back. I'll consider it even with this new barn (~$200/person)

[Wormius]

As a resident, I would like to think that if taxpayer money is going towards this, at least give everybody 2 vouchers to see any event they want at the new arena. It would have my complete blessing.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Wormius

As a resident, I would like to think that if taxpayer money is going towards this, at least give everybody 2 vouchers to see any event they want at the new arena. It would have my complete blessing.

A nice idea conceptually but almost impossible to implement.
How many seats allocated? If Garth Brooks is coming to town, how many of those vouchers can be used for that event? Who gets priority?
Big difference between a major concert and a monster truck rally.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A nice idea conceptually but almost impossible to implement.
How many seats allocated? If Garth Brooks is coming to town, how many of those vouchers can be used for that event? Who gets priority?
Big difference between a major concert and a monster truck rally.

It's also ironic, looking mainly at the large letter posted above, arguing that on one hand the arena doesn't bring enough economic benefit to the city, they also then argue that free benefits be given out and that the space be used for likely uneconomic film festivals and the less fortunate.

So...they don't like it because it doesn't make returns but we'll like it more if you make it even less economic for the city.

That's "2+2 = potato" talk...like John Horgan wrote the letter or something

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A nice idea conceptually but almost impossible to implement.
How many seats allocated? If Garth Brooks is coming to town, how many of those vouchers can be used for that event? Who gets priority?
Big difference between a major concert and a monster truck rally.

Yeah, it's not without issues, but there should be something tangible provided to the people who are supporting the project. Maybe it could be something simpler, like a gift card valued at tax payer contribution / number of Calgary residents.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Yeah, it's not without issues, but there should be something tangible provided to the people who are supporting the project. Maybe it could be something simpler, like a gift card valued at tax payer contribution / number of Calgary residents.

The city does get something tangible. 2% of all ticket revenues. If it chose the city could spend that 2% on vouchers for people to events.

All of these ideas don’t change any of the underlying economics just the optics. Any additional benefits like tickets to events would need to be paid for assuming that the deal negotiated was the best possible point for the city.

The main benefits to the city are the 75 million in community contribution, the 155 in ticket revenue, and the 19.1 in arena based property taxes. Those are the tangible benefits to the people supporting the project.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mayo

It's also ironic, looking mainly at the large letter posted above, arguing that on one hand the arena doesn't bring enough economic benefit to the city, they also then argue that free benefits be given out and that the space be used for likely uneconomic film festivals and the less fortunate.

So...they don't like it because it doesn't make returns but we'll like it more if you make it even less economic for the city.

That's "2+2 = potato" talk...like John Horgan wrote the letter or something

This is the debate of service bs business.

If something will exist without subsidy then the city shouldn’t subsidize it
If something will not exist without subsidy and the existence provides sufficient economic, cultural, social, intangible benefit to its citizens then the city should subsidize it.

So for something like the NHL it’s becuase it generates income it shouldn’t receive subsidy compared to uneconomic things which likely don’t exist without subsidy and therefore may warrant subsidy.

So the question around an Arena and the flames is really would the flames exist in Calgary without subsidy and at that rate of subsidy to they provide enough economocnand cultural benefit that the subsidy makes sense.

The same question should be asked for the uneconomic film festival. Is the cultural benefit worth the subsidy.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by troutman

Facebook friend wrote this letter - some good points:

Just sent this letter in. Remember folks, you only have until Friday at noon to have your feedback on the arena deal added to the record and actually considered by council (hah).

To His Worship Mayor Nenshi, Councillor Woolley, and whomever else it may concern,

I'm writing to provide my feedback on the proposed fundamentals of the Victoria Park Event Centre. First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude to Councillor Woolley for his motion to extend the period of public engagement for this project. As was rightly pointed out, the amount of time provided to the public is, frankly, insultingly short for a deal of this scope. When Council unanimously approved a motion on March 4 (again moved by Councillor Woolley) requesting that administration develop a plan for "public feedback on the terms and conditions of any potential deal," it's hard to imagine that four days to review the deal was what they had in mind. Yet here we are.

The feedback I'd most like to provide is that in my opinion, there is not enough information released to date for the public to provide meaningful feedback. Statements from your worship and other members of council clearly state that this is "a good deal for Calgary" and that the city will see benefits, and according to the City's website, that the City will receive a "return on investment," but the numbers provided are underwhelming at best. A $400 million return on a $275 million investment over 30 years is an ROI of approximately 1.1% for the city—assuming there are no cost overruns on a half-billion dollar project, that revenue estimates are accurate, and ignoring that items like property tax revenue from retail tenants could be generated from investments other than an event centre. There are countless studies in recent years suggesting that arenas and event centres never deliver the promised economic stimulus, and Calgarians deserve a better answer as to why this deal will be different.

The community benefits listed are also overstated, as they imply a situation where the Flames will absolutely leave if we do not build this centre now. That is a highly questionable position, at least based on the information the public has currently. Not to deny that a prominent sports team and athletic facilities contribute to community identity and health, but to list those as benefits of this project is to imply that we don't currently have them.

Based on those criticisms alone, it is difficult to see how this is the best deal the city could receive, and I would urge council to either do a better job of explaining the benefits, or listen to the many, many frustrated Calgarians who are asking you to turn down this project. I have read other letters that other citizens have publicly posted listing a variety of other concerns, and I encourage you to take those concerns seriously.

However, given the dialogue to date and the rushed feedback period, I assume it is very likely that this project will go forward, regardless of the feedback Council receives. That being the case, I would like to respond to the question of what I'd like to see in an event centre.

Given that significant public funds are going into the centre, it would be ideal to see the centre made accessible to all Calgarians. Mandating that a certain percentage of seats to all events over the life of the agreement be allocated to heavily discounted or free tickets for low-income Calgarians would go a long way to ensuring this public accessibility.

If the goal is to create an entertainment district, one thing that has been lacking for Calgary's film community is smaller screening spaces. A range of screening rooms from 50-100 seat rooms through 500-600 seat rooms could address a longstanding gap and benefit the dozens of film festivals that take place in Calgary every year.

Since this is an event centre and not a sports arena, it would be nice if the public support programs went to a wider range of groups than just community sports organizations, as there are many other community organizations that are in need of such support. If that isn't possible, building in some assurance that these funds will support such organizations in a wide range of communities would be useful, with a specific focus on marginalized groups, people with disabilities, immigrant and refugee youth, and indigenous communities.

The city should clarify and quantify the value of the lands involved in this deal, specifically the Enoch Sales property and the Victoria Park bus barns, and measures should be taken to ensure that the City receives adequate compensation for any transfers of these lands, which could include caps on the differential between the 2018 land value of the Enoch property and its value at the time of sale, or other such measures. It is also vital that these land deals do not impair the city's ability to build the Green Line on time, on schedule, and with a routing that meets the needs of commuters.

Again, it is my hope that Council will either reject this deal, or will better explain the benefits aside from a marginal and questionable return on investment, and claims of economic development that go against a wide and established body of study questioning the benefits of arenas and event centres. And I thank Councillor Woolley for his attempt to allow for actual, considered feedback on this proposal, in a motion that I was disappointed to see the rest of council reject.

Sincerely,

This is generally a good letter, well done, although I can't say I agree with all of it.

Regarding reduced price tickets (or even free ones) for the less fortunate will never fly. The argument would be that those less fortunate aren't getting the benefit of the City spent money, but those people for the most part aren't paying property taxes anyway, and aren't contributing to the City money anyway.

[Johnny Makarov]

I'd rather they just keep the Flames in the dome and build an 8000 person concert auditorium like the Microsoft Theatre in LA. Only $120million to build.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Wormius

As a resident, I would like to think that if taxpayer money is going towards this, at least give everybody 2 vouchers to see any event they want at the new arena. It would have my complete blessing.

This is hilarious..

Let's say every citizen has to pay $200 to make this happen.

This is over 35 years no?

If The Flames aren't worth $6 a year in civic value then I don't know what to tell you

[The Yen Man]

It'll be a real piss off if this thing gets extended again. Enough with the "consultation". That's all that's been happening over 12 freaking years. Get the process done so the fricking thing can be built already.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I'd rather they just keep the Flames in the dome and build an 8000 person concert auditorium like the Microsoft Theatre in LA. Only $120million to build.

Eventually the Dome has to be replaced. It's going to be 40 years old soon. Might as well build the new Event Center.

[Flamette]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I'd rather they just keep the Flames in the dome and build an 8000 person concert auditorium like the Microsoft Theatre in LA. Only $120million to build.

No! If you can't get through a bathroom line in a 20 minute intermission, the functionality of the arena is beyond bandaid fixes.