Evan Woolley's motion to reconsider Flames Arena funding fails 4-11

[Weitz]

I still don’t understand why a regular fan even wants a new arena.

Significantly more money for the same experience with a slight bell or whistle. But really just more money to watch hockey. Who wants that?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

My view is just this: we could have an old arena and some other stuff - or a new arena and nothing else. I think this is what needs to be fleshed out. And why would the Flames leave if they only got to play in an older arena? Does it make any significant difference to TV deals, attendance, merchandise sales, etc. The need for the arena itself seems to be involved with non-hockey events. So why would the CSEC need to relocate a hockey team over that?

But thats not the case. It is not a zero-sum scenario.

We could very realistically have an old arena and nothing else.

The arena funding, whether it goes ahead or is cancelled doesnt guarantee the Green Line or Tax Reductions or service improvements or....anything else really.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

But thats not the case. It is not a zero-sum scenario.

We could very realistically have an old arena and nothing else.

The arena funding, whether it goes ahead or is cancelled doesnt guarantee the Green Line or Tax Reductions or service improvements or....anything else really.

That's the reason this whole thing is a bit disingenuous.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's the reason this whole thing is a bit disingenuous.

No...its entirely disingenuous.

These councillors are wasting time and resources in order to publicly prove that they are doing their due diligence to prioritize saving time and resources.

[powderjunkie]

I don't think any/many arena deal skeptics have been suggesting the city take the theoretical 'savings' from no arena deal and dump them straight into the current Green Line pit without any further consideration.

It's natural to discuss civic priorities and which capital projects would best serve the people. There is plenty of room for nuance.


The other thing I'd point out is how many pro-arena arguments are predicated on a black/white view that no new arena today = Flames 100% gone tomorrow. The timeline and probability of that actually happening were very much up for debate, with a whole bunch of forks in the road between now and then.

It's all moot now, but I'm glad Calgarians are being reminded of this situation...

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by Locke

But thats not the case. It is not a zero-sum scenario.

We could very realistically have an old arena and nothing else.

The arena funding, whether it goes ahead or is cancelled doesnt guarantee the Green Line or Tax Reductions or service improvements or....anything else really.

so, your worst case scenario is that the taxpayers save $300,000,000?

Are you sure you are an accountant?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Weitz

But really just more money to watch hockey. Who wants that?

Murray Edwards (and by extension Ken King).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

so, your worst case scenario is that the taxpayers save $300,000,000?

Are you sure you are an accountant?

I'm sure. I'm also a realist.

Are you sure the taxpayers are going to save that $300M? How? Will they lower the taxes and not collect it or use it towards something else?

Thats the thing. Taxpayers arent saving jack.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

so, your worst case scenario is that the taxpayers save $300,000,000?

Are you sure you are an accountant?

Well the money wouldn't be saved, it would just be spent on the Green Line instead. Nobody is talking about saving money with this motion.

[dino7c]

If they backtrack the team is gone...who would want to do business with a city that bails on approved deals. This goes beyond the Arena project.

And let's see these tax savings when the first leg of the green line is over budget and costing over 40M a year to run.

[Bigtime]

Woolley is up now.

"Farkas is seconding Woolley's motion, but they're removing the wording that directs some of the arena money to CPS for a downtown police station, since #yyccc can't actually direct CPS on how to use their budget."

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I still don’t understand why a regular fan even wants a new arena.

Significantly more money for the same experience with a slight bell or whistle. But really just more money to watch hockey. Who wants that?

On the margin I agree with you. But over the long term if you want to continue watching the Calgary Flames in Calgary you want that. I don't think people realize that there isn't an option available where there is an NHL team in Calgary 5-10 years from now with the Saddledome as their home arena. A modern arena is the baseline required for professional sport. We don't have that and we're too small of a center for a private investor to invest in one without civic contribution.

I get it, we're a strong market for NHL hockey, but not if we can't have modern facilities for a team to play in. Somehow Regina built a new football stadium, but here in Calgary we have money for gold plated architecture and infrastructure for literally everything except for sports. McMahon is an embarrassment for a city of Calgary's size and the Saddledome is now bordering on embarrassing.

[sureLoss]

Meghan Potkins
@mpotkins
Coun. Keating says it would be "extremely easy" for him now to take from arena to restore Green Line funding. Keating said the Green Line "must live within its financial mandate" and that he cannot support "cancelling one project to prop up another."

[ComixZone]

Meghan Potkins
@mpotkins
Woolley says there "seems to be a certain acceptance" that the Green Line vision doesn't matter anymore.
"What I struggle with immensely is why this project (arena) is so untouchable when everything else is supposed to be on the table." #yyccc

I would say perhaps because other projects aren't accompanied by significant private investment as well.

[Bigtime]

The arena reconsideration FAILS 4-11
Keating no
Demong no
Gondek no
Davison no
Colley-Urquhart no
Sutherland no
Woolley yes
Carra no
Chu no
Maglioccaa no
Chahal yes
Farrell yes
Jones no
Farkas yes
Nenshi no

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Good. Dumb motion gets crushed.

[Muta]

Good, and not surprised in the result. Let's just build this thing, end fifteen years of dithering and discussion, and move on already.

[Bunk]

Much ado about nothing on Woolley’s motion. It was never gonna change, but Woolley got all the political juice and more that he wanted.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Much ado about nothing on Woolley’s motion. It was never gonna change, but Woolley got all the political juice and more that he wanted.

I am curious how this plays out. For me this is a reason never to vote for him again. I wonder how many voters find this a good move.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I still don’t understand why a regular fan even wants a new arena.

Significantly more money for the same experience with a slight bell or whistle. But really just more money to watch hockey. Who wants that?

People like to go to concerts and many more will come with a new facility.

As a season ticket holder I am not pumped about the 10-25% increase that is going to come with this but as someone that goes to the Dome a ton I can agree that we need a new building.