[News] Calgary, Alberta, & CSEC agree in principle to $1.223bn Event Centre + infrastructure

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

People are so weird when it comes to this stuff. A few years ago we found out that the federal government couldn't account for 20,000 projects and double digit billions of taxpayer money that just went up in smoke and it's barely a blip on the radar for the average Canadian. The province and the city kick in a hundreds of millions for a project that Calgarians will absolutely be able to see and use whether it be for sports, music, stampede, etc and people get all angry like that money came right out of their personal bank accounts. People need to realize that even if they don't plan on using the facilities, at least there's tangible evidence of taxpayer money spent as there's a good chance if used for something else we will never see any evidence of it being spent.

Same with 12 billion for a car battery plant for Volkswagen. Crickets.

The various forms of governments waste so much money if you can actually get a useful peace of infrastructure that benefits your city out of them take it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-a...rict-1.6370698


Not to nitpick of details, but how does a parkade cost $235.4 million, and what is the public benefit of that? This fancy repurposable parkade with 503 spots cost $80 million:


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...cmlc-1.6041589


Is this new one encased in gold?

I just assumed multiple parking sites but that is a good question if it is single one

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Same with 12 billion for a car battery plant for Volkswagen. Crickets.

The various forms of governments waste so much money if you can actually get a useful peace of infrastructure that benefits your city out of them take it.

I think there are issues with those as well but at least they’ll create permanent new and well paying jobs. Most of the time the government comes out as a loser on them though

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-a...rict-1.6370698


Not to nitpick of details, but how does a parkade cost $235.4 million, and what is the public benefit of that? This fancy repurposable parkade with 503 spots cost $80 million:


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...cmlc-1.6041589


Is this new one encased in gold?

I think parking is 23.5m from the earlier report. They screwed up the decimal on the article. A simple glance shows adding those all up isn't equal to the total

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...tadium-funding

Titans getting a new stadium - Details on funding split

Weirdly the private company is still paying 40% of the construction cost on the Titans stadium and that is the largest percentage of public funding for a sports facility in US history.

In Calgary the taxpayer is paying 900 million of the construction costs and the private entity is paying 40 million of the construction cost, for a split of 4% for the private entity and 96% for the taxpayer.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I think parking is 23.5m from the earlier report. They screwed up the decimal on the article. A simple glance shows adding those all up isn't equal to the total

LOL, ok well that makes a lot more sense.

[getbak]

It's $35.4 million for the parkade. Someone slipped and added an extra $200 million.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Remember that Arenas don’t really create new economic activity they move economic activity within a city. So if the goal is to revitalize an area to create a vibrant area it can do that if done very carefully.

The argument that this increases the tax rates of someone doesn’t really
Work as that tax base would generally be somewhere else in the city. Even if people start looking a marginal benefits of the few extra concerts it doesn’t offset the city investment.

Like the deal because you feel having the opportunity to go to flames games and concerts and the spirit the flames game brings to the city is worth some nominal amount of money which is meaningless to you overall level of taxation.

Don’t try to justify with the economics.

Is that still true when a city is growing 2-3% a year?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by nik-

Emotional? Maybe. Financial? It's never been able to be shown. In report after report, study after study. You'd think after how many municipalities have gone through this same thing, someone would have found it by now.

Having a new arena doesn't generate disposable income, it just moves it. This is a taxpayer funded asset value increase for billionaires. The cool factor of having a new arena will be gone in a year. The money will be gone forever.

I disagree with this in a local sense.
I am going to spend my Flames and concert money on the Flames and concerts. If they were not here, I am not spending that same money elsewhere in the city on other events. I know that. I spend it on larger items out of province, or I just don't spend it.

So, without a new arena and Flames or concerts being here, my disposable income is simply not being spent here. I doubt I am the only one.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Present a clear argument please. This is just ad hominem attacks.

You'll be waiting a long time for that...

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I disagree with this in a local sense.
I am going to spend my Flames and concert money on the Flames and concerts. If they were not here, I am not spending that same money elsewhere in the city on other events. I know that. I spend it on larger items out of province, or I just don't spend it.

So, without a new arena and Flames or concerts being here, my disposable income is simply not being spent here. I doubt I am the only one.

I have gone to the same amount of hockey games out of city vs at the Saddledome the past 2 years.

And I had seasons tickets for 20 years.

I hate going to a game in Calgary, especially after being to other cities.

Bad Stadium, Bad Parking and Traffic. Few food options within walking distance before the game, and nothing but Casino to do after the game.

Now does that extra economic uptick "repay" the expense to the city. I'm sure it doesnt. But in today's world where there are so many option to spend your $$ that arent kept in the city having world class entertainment options generates some extra revenue

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I disagree with this in a local sense.
I am going to spend my Flames and concert money on the Flames and concerts. If they were not here, I am not spending that same money elsewhere in the city on other events. I know that. I spend it on larger items out of province, or I just don't spend it.

So, without a new arena and Flames or concerts being here, my disposable income is simply not being spent here. I doubt I am the only one.

Your anecdotal story may be true but in the aggregate it is just shuffling money around. In the 05 lockout and the 2012 lockout there were studies done. Money spent in bars and restaurants around the arenas went down, money spent in other parts of NHL cities at bars and restaurants went up, in total the same amount of money was spent.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Name one worse way a city has spent 1.2 billion dollars.

The City is not spending 1.2 billion dollars on an arena, and to say it is doing so is disingenuous.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

People are so weird when it comes to this stuff. A few years ago we found out that the federal government couldn't account for 20,000 projects and double digit billions of taxpayer money that just went up in smoke and it's barely a blip on the radar for the average Canadian. The province and the city kick in a hundreds of millions for a project that Calgarians will absolutely be able to see and use whether it be for sports, music, stampede, etc and people get all angry like that money came right out of their personal bank accounts. People need to realize that even if they don't plan on using the facilities, at least there's tangible evidence of taxpayer money spent as there's a good chance if used for something else we will never see any evidence of it being spent.

People don't like it because important social and programmatic issues are falling by the wayside as the province grows as rapidly as it has been. Say you may never see the benefit if money went elsewhere all you want, but it isn't true. $300M from the province could build 6-7 new schools, or improve services across major cities for years. What's likely is that now this even gets worse as less is available from the larger pot for funding these projects.

The benefit of this arena, as other have said, is very hard to pinpoint for the city and is vastly overstated. I can tell you the #1 benefactor is Murray Edwards and CSEC as they go to the top of the food chain in terms of NHL value and earning power and they somehow got the city and province to pay for 2/3rds of this.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The Mayor said on the radio this morning that revenue sharing and overrun responsibilities are still being negotiated. These are kind of big deals. It sure feels like this announcement was rushed so the UCP can claim victory. Smith is already calling it an election issue.

That’s interesting. For all those people that looked at this and concluded it is either a good deal or bad deal for taxpayers, I’m guessing they had their mind made up in advance.

I think some people see it like Cali; you pay whatever you have to to make sure the club doesn’t leave. Or some simply abhor the idea of money going to aid private enterprise.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Can't say I'm thrilled about $300 million dollars of provincial public money going to a facility that the majority of people won't be able to afford to enter.

If it's anything like other new arenas it will have 15 new types of luxury seating that are completely unaffordable for 99% of Flames fans, and the upper bowl tickets prices will rise ~30% to allow ownership to "only" charge $10-15k per seat, per season for the new upper echelon seating.

But it's not.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

The City is not spending 1.2 billion dollars on an arena, and to say it is doing so is disingenuous.

The Flames are spending 40 million on the construction of an arena and other amenities. The taxpayer is spending nearly 1.2 billion on the construction of an arena and other amenities. For the construction phase that is the most accurate way to describe it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

But it's not.

Can the current design be realized without the 300 million dollars from the province? From the layouts provided it doesn't look like it. If it can't be built without that infrastructure spend then it is for the arena.

[liamenator]

Most observers and policymakers seem not to grasp just how massively franchise values have jumped in recent years. If I were in the room, I would have hammered this point over and over: with this deal, the Flames' franchise valuation is going to jump at least $350 million, maybe more. The city doesn't see any of that value (nor should it). It feeds entirely to the owners in terms of net worth, borrowing and purchasing power, etc. In this sense, it's fair to expect CSEC to contribute at least half the upfront/financing costs in order to achieve that outcome, or to at least provide clearer and more robust pathways for the city to access some of the revenue generated by the new facility over the next 35 years.

CSEC's play worked, and they make out like bandits here. I am happy there will be a new rink, but the last deal was so much better for the city.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Can the current design be realized without the 300 million dollars from the province? From the layouts provided it doesn't look like it. If it can't be built without that infrastructure spend then it is for the arena.

No idea, however there must be a reason why the City wanted a larger scale project. Such as a new road (i.e. during Q&A, they said 5A street)

Remember this was unanimously approved. (previous deal was not)