[News] Tentative Agreement Reached! New Arena!

[MoneyGuy]

So some people think that consultation shouldn’t happen or should be brief because people are mostly idiots. Those “idiots” will be paying for this and deserve to have a say even if you agree with them. Consultation needs to happen and is now more formally legislated in the MGA.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by nik-

You don't think that reading a bunch of other posters on a Flames forum might constitute a vocal minority?

The myopia is astounding.

Sure, I'd say there is probably a less vocal minority for the stadium too (though I dunno about the vocal part vis a vis posting on a niche internet site). It's not what I was arguing. I don't think there's much value being added by one vocal minority being given an extension to spout off more.

Ultimately for me I think the elected reps should vote on it. I don't think folks writing angry letters are raising new points Councillors don't know about at this stage.

They know the populace is divided... they have the facts of the deal... they've been given a mandate to govern. Go vote and make your choice. Turn the page.

If people have more of a systemic issue and feel for example that public spending over X dollars should have a referendum (Kelowna has a process where if __% of people writing in opposition to certain levels of borrowing as a similar formal intervention mechanism in large civic projects) then they should advocate for changes to the system long term.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

So some people think that consultation shouldn’t happen or should be brief because people are mostly idiots. Those “idiots” will be paying for this and deserve to have a say even if you agree with them. Consultation needs to happen and is now more formally legislated in the MGA.

I'm happy with consultation. I just wish there was a way to only consult people that are informed, whether they agree with me or not is irrelevant

[MikePatton]

If this is successfully delayed by Woolley and co, what financial impact would an extended engagement period have? There would surely be associated costs, yes? I feel like that would be the most important negative impact of delaying.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by nik-

Maybe reread the garbage you type.





I mean it's pretty clear what your opinion of anyone who disagrees with this is. The funny thing is it says way more about you than the people you're trying to denigrate.



Exactly, so don't try the "show me the evidence" crap when it's clearly a dishonest request for information you won't even consider anyway.

My opinion is that a large group of the people who are more vocally against this and other large capital projects come from less educated and financially stable environments. When it comes to matters like this, I don’t care about their opinion because they won’t listen to reason and don’t have the financial acumen to understand large capital funding even if they did. If economists wanted more time or a majority of the city councillors did, the i might be on board with it. You want to call me a bad person for that, go right ahead. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

[Yobbo]

We're all Flames fans and love this team. Most of us want nothing more than to have our team stay in Calgary, and have a nice new arena for them to play in.

How that figures out in the end is beyond me, but I don't think fighting within our group really accomplishes much. We all have our opinions on all sorts of subjects, but we shouldn't really brow beat others for having differing opinions than our own.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The free market has come to an agreement which benefits both sides, but we need more time to consult with John Q. Trailer Thrash who doesn’t want any public money going to an event Center solely because they can’t afford some of the ticket prices without even a consideration to the benefits to the City as a whole from a new events Center.

This just needs to be quoted, because it's hilarious.

What's next, are you going to tell us that the City is really just using The Invisible Hand here? Or are you just going to keep rambling on about how opponents are uneducated

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This just needs to be quoted, because it's hilarious.

What's next, are you going to tell us that the City is really just using The Invisible Hand here? Or are you just going to keep rambling on about how opponents are uneducated

Two independent parties came to an agreement with the use of an arbitrator, that as fair market of a deal that you can get by any of the post-secondary economics courses you’ve probably never taken.

[SilverGS]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

These councillors were always going try and delay the vote again the next time it comes up in council (tomorrow).

The last time the extension was voted down it was unclear if the deal would be pulled off the table by CSEC if they voted to extend. Seems prudent to know exactly what would happen to the deal if council did decide to extend public engagement.

Also puts CSEC in a difficult position. Say no and the critics will say they are trying to force the deal through. Say yes and it gives time for those against the deal to turn more people against it.

I get that. I was just a bit confused over how this was allowed after they voted against it.

Basically as I understand it though is they are using a different avenue to forward their own supported agenda and ignoring what the council voted for. I guess the City Manager has a say in this somehow and they have petitioned to her to do what council voted against. A bit sneaky but I guess if it is allowed what can you do.

[Textcritic]

I find it pretty incredible that in one breath you say this ...

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

My opinion is that a large group of the people who are more vocally against this and other large capital projects come from less educated and financially stable environments.

... and then follow that up with this ...

When it comes to matters like this, I don’t care about their opinion because they won’t listen to reason and don’t have the financial acumen to understand large capital funding even if they did. If economists wanted more time or a majority of the city councillors did, the i might be on board with it. You want to call me a bad person for that, go right ahead. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

... given that none of us has the foggiest idea about the demographic makeup of this large group of people. The point of the matter is that you have no idea how many of the vocal minority are educated, to what degree, and how many of them are actual economists. The willingness and hurry that you are in to stereotype a faceless, unidentified swath of people on the basis of ONE opinion is both astounding and disturbing. It is in fact not a good look. Not at all.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The irony of TAO saying the majority of people opposing this deal are uneducated when all of the, you know, academic research on the subject says virtually all arena deals are terrible, is a laugh riot. The only way anyone can say this deal is good is in that wonderful world of relativity where compared to most arena deals it might not be awful, but it's still not good.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The irony of TAO saying the majority of people opposing this deal are uneducated when all of the, you know, academic research on the subject says virtually all arena deals is terrible, is a laugh riot.

Im not saying everyone opposing the deal is uneducated, but I’m sure saying the vocals one seems to be. Head over to the Calgary Herald and read the conversations, or take a gander of the people voicing support for Farkas and Woolley in their Facebook pages. Not a single solitary argument like yours, just drivel about funding Murray Edwards and how their services are getting cut while the Flames are being handed free money.

These are the people that need more “consultation”. Yeah.... no thanks.

Everyone knows stadiums are not great deals, but this is the best we are going to get and it’s better than most. Saddledome needs replacing with or without the Flames.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

My opinion is that large group of the people who are more vocally against this and other large capital projects come from less educated and financially stable environments.

Interesting comment, considering every reputable study indicates these publicly-funded sports stadiums are always a dubious, if not outright terrible, financial investment for the taxpayer over the long term. If anything, we are ignoring the educated opinion, and going with our heart.

edit: doh, beaten by Clay...

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Rando

NIMBY = Not in my backyard.

About the three egregious use of nimby round here lately.

It's been bizarre, I thought NIMBY was one of the most well known acronyms around. Even AlpinOracle in this thread used it as "projects that benefit a councilor's ward", like literally the exact opposite of not in my back yard.

And he's right back here claiming people against this arena deal are generally uneducated.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Interesting comment, considering every reputable study indicates these publicly-funded sports stadiums are always a dubious, if not outright terrible, financial investment for the taxpayer over the long term. If anything, we are ignoring the educated opinion, and going with our heart.

edit: doh, beaten by Clay...

They are not great, but one day the Saddledome is going to crumble down in a winter storm or require substantial work just to stay in use. I’d rather a sports team pay for some of the cost of the new rink rather than us having to pick up the entire tab.

Or we could just be the only +1M population in the city in the entire world who doesn’t have an arena/event Center once the Flames leave and the old barn becomes unusable.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Interesting comment, considering every reputable study indicates these publicly-funded sports stadiums are always a dubious, if not outright terrible, financial investment for the taxpayer over the long term. If anything, we are ignoring the educated opinion, and going with our heart.

edit: doh, beaten by Clay...

Originally Posted by jayswin

It's been bizarre, I thought NIMBY was one of the most well known acronyms around. Even AlpinOracle in this thread used it as "projects that benefit a councilor's ward", like literally the exact opposite of not in my back yard.

And he's right back here claiming people against this arena deal are generally uneducated.

You misunderstood what I said, or I wasn’t clear. Either way, I meant Farrell lead the charge on NIMBYism in Kensington so it was no surprise to me she would be against a project.

[ST20]

I think the city did a good job in not caving to the CalgaryNEXT proposal. However, further public consultation and back and forth arguments are unproductive and repetitive at this point.

It is quite simple. If you want a team; Calgary as a city will need to help build an arena since it is not a big enough city to warrant any owner wanting to build one completely on their own dime.

The simple facts are:
- Arena's have little economic benefit to cities the size of Calgary the only reason to build an arena are the "intangible" benefits
- Teams that have built their own arena privately have massive populations and wealth (Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Las Vegas, Toronto, Vancouver, etc.) that will attract many more events
- Almost all businesses do not own their own buildings they lease it and will move buildings to wherever makes the most sense (worker pools, taxes and other incentives, customers, etc.) whether or not it is the same city, state, province or country
- There is a misconception that sports teams print money... They don't. Most of the value is in the franchise value (similar to stocks) not the profits they bring in (the flames are worth $450MM and a new arena will cost $550MM).
- It is financially easier to move to Houston or any other city with an arena already built than it is to spend up front capital that is worth more than your franchise because of the above reason
- The argument that the team will never leave Calgary because attendance is great compared to somewhere else doesn't hold too much weight because of the above reasons (see Phoenix for proof the free market principals don't apply)
- The free market does not apply to sports leagues. They are anything but a free market (drafting, restricted player movement, salary caps, restricted teams, revenue sharing, etc.).
- Sports teams/leagues are an exclusive club and more similar to a Cartel
- Just a random interesting fact about the sports industry in general is that the entire combined value of the big four American sports is magnitudes lower than the cardboard box industry which tells you a little bit about how these leagues are run...

Some of those facts are bordering on opinion but I think you get my gist. Given the circumstances, this is really a question about whether or not you believe that having hockey in Calgary is a long term benefit outside of strict measurable finances.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

You misunderstood what I said, or I wasn’t clear. Either way, I meant Farrell lead the charge on NIMBYism in Kensington so it was no surprise to me she would be against a project.

But the new arena isn't in Farrell's ward, and it never was going to be. So stop using NIMBY wrong or at minimum, completely irrelevantly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Im not saying everyone opposing the deal is uneducated, but I’m sure saying the vocals one seems to be. Head over to the Calgary Herald and read the conversations, or take a gander of the people voicing support for Farkas and Woolley in their Facebook pages. Not a single solitary argument like yours, just drivel about funding Murray Edwards and how their services are getting cut while the Flames are being handed free money.

These are the people that need more “consultation”. Yeah.... no thanks.

Everyone knows stadiums are not great deals, but this is the best we are going to get and it’s better than most. Saddledome needs replacing with or without the Flames.

Most of the vocal supporters though know arena deals suck. They are educated. They are just unwilling to accept any deal that isn't 100% privately financed. Not uneducated, more like hardliners.

[White Out 403]

I don't know why it's so hard for some people here to come to grip with other peoples opinions. Disagree all you want... but having the opinion that it's ####ty to give a quarter billion dollars so a wealthy individual can make more money by building a new hockey rink is a legitimate , good faith opinion. You can make a case that community need and solidarity provide a good enough benefit... but to pretend the people who are opposed are all knuckle dragging idiots is the height of arrogance. 47% of Calgarians are idiots? #### off.