[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I just dont understand the issue here so Flames are kicking in 200 million that leaves 750 million shortfall

Calgary has lets call it 1 million people, each tax payer contributes $750 to the project TOTAL

take that over 10 years and its $75/year!! why is this such a bad thing to contribute to the growth of the city


I understand that's an oversimplification of the math and population doesn't mean tax paying population but even multiply it by 5 and take it over 30 years means its $125/yr roughly

You are oversimplifying. Does the family of 5 on a single income want to contribute to this? A pensioner living on fixed income? And you could use your rationale on every single potential project for the city so then you need to prioritize. How many worthwhile projects get unfunded so this can move forward?

Overall I support this but in terms of the city's spending budget this is a very big deal.

[MacDaddy77]

yes but do the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa own the arenas? (honest question I don't know)

I am not looking at it as me the tax payer building the flames ownership a complex, I look at it as the flames ownership contributing money to assist in building a public facility, sure they will receive revenue but is that really a big deal to people? Flames have to make money or what's the point.

The fact there is private funding to a city (publicly) owned facility and not the other way around makes this a no-brainer in my opinion.

If it was the other way around I could see the argument

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

yes but do the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa own the arenas? (honest question I don't know)

I am not looking at it as me the tax payer building the flames ownership a complex, I look at it as the flames ownership contributing money to assist in building a public facility, sure they will receive revenue but is that really a big deal to people? Flames have to make money or what's the point.

The fact there is private funding to a city (publicly) owned facility and not the other way around makes this a no-brainer in my opinion.

If it was the other way around I could see the argument

You are ok with the City contributing money and not seeing any revenue from a building they "own"?

The flames want them to own the building so they don't have to pay property tax.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

yes but do the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa own the arenas? (honest question I don't know)

I am not looking at it as me the tax payer building the flames ownership a complex, I look at it as the flames ownership contributing money to assist in building a public facility, sure they will receive revenue but is that really a big deal to people? Flames have to make money or what's the point.

The fact there is private funding to a city (publicly) owned facility and not the other way around makes this a no-brainer in my opinion.

If it was the other way around I could see the argument

Yes. The owners of those clubs shelled out the dough, and built the arenas using their own money. They own the arenas.

EDIT: The club owns the arena, the city does not. Just to be clear.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

A lot of people aren't ok with shelling out money so that a billionaire can make millions more is this really a hard concept to understand? You're saying, let me give you this money of mine, so that you can charge me more money to see your thing so that you can make millions of dollars.

as opposed to what? never build anything? I know I'm one person however I have no issue at all with the city increasing my taxes so the city I choose to live in can have state of the art amenities for people to enjoy if they choose.


I am not from here but have chose to call Calgary home for 20 years now and I'm proud of the growth and amenities the city builds to try and improve the city

Even if I were to never step foot in this building (which I will) and the new library ( which I highly doubt I ever will) I'm proud they are being built

[bax]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

A lot of people aren't ok with shelling out money so that a billionaire can make millions more is this really a hard concept to understand? You're saying, let me give you this money of mine, so that you can charge me more money to see your thing so that you can make millions of dollars.

This is also a vast over simplification. Does a brand new facility not make the city better in the long term? Does it not make cheering for the Flames a more enjoyable experience? I for one don't want to still be going to the saddledome in 6-7 years time. Is already outdated

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If they don't want to pay, that's fine. But somebody does, so it will have to be a consideration. The Stadium is simply not going forward without remediation. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist.

As for location, there are several of plots of land around the city where they can build...they'd just have to buy the piece of land (you know, like every other developer who wants to build something). Stampede Park or the Remington Lands close by are still good options for a stadium, and would be much easier to work with.

Is there room in those other locations? King suggested no but that may have just been a convenient answer.

I'm starting to think location is a bigger factor in this than I had first thought.

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You are ok with the City contributing money and not seeing any revenue from a building they "own"?

The flames want them to own the building so they don't have to pay property tax.

yes I'm absolutly ok with this, for one piece of wasted land not paying taxes there will be significant growth of other businesses paying taxes where without the project there will not be any.

is it better to have the land empty and collect nothing for tax or build the arena and have the flames only pay nothing and have the rest of the development collect tax?

I know what side I sit on

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

as opposed to what? never build anything? I know I'm one person however I have no issue at all with the city increasing my taxes so the city I choose to live in can have state of the art amenities for people to enjoy if they choose.


I am not from here but have chose to call Calgary home for 20 years now and I'm proud of the growth and amenities the city builds to try and improve the city

Even if I were to never step foot in this building (which I will) and the new library ( which I highly doubt I ever will) I'm proud they are being built

There are other options. Like TX Flame pointed out, in Texas the hotels, car rentals, and other touristy things have a tax levied on them to help pay for major venues such as the famous Cowboy Stadium.

So instead of the citizens being taxed, the tourists and visitors are being taxed.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

yes I'm absolutly ok with this, for one piece of wasted land not paying taxes there will be significant growth of other businesses paying taxes where without the project there will not be any.

is it better to have the land empty and collect nothing for tax or build the arena and have the flames only pay nothing and have the rest of the development collect tax?

I know what side I sit on

Will the remaining potential development fill the CRL over the next 30 years without the anchor tenant contributing? I am not so sure.

[Cappy]

Hey guys,

Just a helpful hint for those asking about CRL's and how they really work.

Googling CRL's may not get you a ton of results as they are pretty much a Canadian term. The US calls them Tax Increment Funding (TIF) and there is scores of literature about them only. Have a look.

[MacDaddy77]

sure, I'm ok with taxing tourists extra, I've never heard of this before.

1 million people pass through the stampede each year, lets raise the ticket prices $5/pp we'll have this sucker paid for in no time

plus add a $5 airport tax?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

sure, I'm ok with taxing tourists extra, I've never heard of this before.

1 million people pass through the stampede each year, lets raise the ticket prices $5/pp we'll have this sucker paid for in no time

plus add a $5 airport tax?

The point is, there are other options.

I'm of the opinion Calgary needs a new rink and stadium.

But seeing other Canadian teams pony up and pay for their own arenas makes me not exactly thrilled to shell out dough to Murray Edwards.

PS: I moved away from Calgary, so I wouldn't exactly be taxed by this.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Is there room in those other locations? King suggested no but that may have just been a convenient answer.

I'm starting to think location is a bigger factor in this than I had first thought.

This is the Remington lands:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Eas...7f68f4!6m1!1e1

I don't see land size being an issue that couldnt be worked with. This area would be pretty perfect...it's already in an emerging entertainment/event district, close to a community like East Village that is starting to emerge as a real hub, and would be right next to where the City plans to put the Green Line LRT (and is walking distance to the other LRT lines as well).

The Stampede too has plenty of land to work with. I think the big issue with those locations is that someone else, not the Flames, owns the land (the Flames don't own WV either of course, but the Flames clearly seem to think it's a better way to go for them). I don't believe the Flames and Stampede board have a great working relationship either.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Table 5

This is the Remington lands:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Eas...7f68f4!6m1!1e1

I don't see land size being an issue that couldnt be worked with. This area would be pretty perfect...it's already in an emerging entertainment/event district, close to a community like East Village that is starting to emerge as a real hub, and would be right next to where the City plans to put the Green Line LRT (and is walking distance to the other LRT lines as well).

The Stampede too has plenty of land to work with. I think the big issue with those locations is that someone else, not the Flames, owns the land (the Flames don't own WV either of course, but the Flames clearly seem to think it's a better way to go for them). I don't believe the Flames and Stampede board have a great working relationship either.

Just tear down Fort Calgary and build it there. Riverfront and everything!

[FiveSeven]

I really don't care. I pay taxes regardless of what they spend it on. This is something I will actually use, love, and enjoy.
It's not some stupid bridge or piece of artwork. It's functional and provides many things to all citizens.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

It's not some stupid bridge or piece of artwork. It's functional and provides many things to all citizens.

Yeah, unlike all those silly non-functioning bridges we spend money on. Oh silly hall.

[TSXCman]

It's not a good sign when a bridge doesn't count as a functional product...

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by FiveSeven

I really don't care. I pay taxes regardless of what they spend it on. This is something I will actually use, love, and enjoy.
It's not some stupid bridge or piece of artwork. It's functional and provides many things to all citizens.

Name one city/town/hamlet/property in the middle of nowhere that doesn't spend money on art.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I just dont understand the issue here so Flames are kicking in 200 million that leaves 750 million shortfall

Calgary has lets call it 1 million people, each tax payer contributes $750 to the project TOTAL

take that over 10 years and its $75/year!! why is this such a bad thing to contribute to the growth of the city


I understand that's an oversimplification of the math and population doesn't mean tax paying population but even multiply it by 5 and take it over 30 years means its $125/yr roughly

Or each person could save $550 by only paying $200 for a fieldhouse.