[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by troutman

Water expert astonished by proposed location of CalgaryNEXT along Bow River

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...long-bow-river

John Pomeroy, a hydrology professor at the University of Saskatchewan, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Water Resources and Climate Change, said he’s shocked by the proposed location.

“The only thing that should be happening in the floodplains in Calgary in terms of development is the development of green spaces,” he said in an interview. “It’s astonishing two years after the flood.”

Calgary Flames president Ken King dismissed the risk last week when he was asked about the new area being built in a floodplain, suggesting it’s out of the flood zone.

“The preliminary research on it would say it’s out of the floodplain,” he reiterated in an interview Friday. “In 2013, it flooded across the river.”

Still, a 2012 city study suggests the area could flood in an event larger than the one seen in 2013.

“The other thing is we’re building for the future now and we’re entering a period of climate extremes, including extreme flooding, so it’s not reasonable to assume that things will not be any worse than the past.” [Pomeroy]

“There will be an event. It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.” [Kim Sturgess, chief executive of Alberta WaterSmart]

So the arena and project might not be a good idea based on a flooding perspective, but why is the creosote cleanup not a higher priority with the city and the province if there is a good chance of flooding and further spread of the contamination?

[troutman]

Calgary Nope:

https://www.facebook.com/calgarynope
http://www.calgarynope.com/

Druh's Blog: Is CalgaryNEXT a good idea?
http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/wa...good-idea.aspx

I do not doubt for a moment that the need for modern facilities exists. It is still not clear that this is the right place to build them or that public money and free land should be given to a for-profit corporation. A comprehensive business case is essential to ensure that this proposal is in the best interests of Calgarians. I look forward to seeing that business case and discussing the overall proposal with the ownership group and my Council colleagues. I also welcome your feedback on the issue at anytime.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So the arena and project might not be a good idea based on a flooding perspective, but why is the creosote cleanup not a higher priority with the city and the province if there is a good chance of flooding and further spread of the contamination?

Because the province doesn't want to pay to clean it up, and the city won't develop because as soon as it tries, the province gets to pass its responsibility down to the city.

Your government at work.

[bax]

Originally Posted by troutman

Calgary Nope:

https://www.facebook.com/calgarynope
http://www.calgarynope.com/

Druh's Blog: Is CalgaryNEXT a good idea?
http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/wa...good-idea.aspx

I do not doubt for a moment that the need for modern facilities exists. It is still not clear that this is the right place to build them or that public money and free land should be given to a for-profit corporation. A comprehensive business case is essential to ensure that this proposal is in the best interests of Calgarians. I look forward to seeing that business case and discussing the overall proposal with the ownership group and my Council colleagues. I also welcome your feedback on the issue at anytime.

"We believe that no taxpayer funds or subsidies should be provided to build a new Calgary stadium."

Do people actually believe that this city will get new facilities without any tax money going towards it? Especially after what just happened in Edmonton? Or are they just using exaggeration to get their point across?

I really don't know at this point.

[Simanium]

Lets say this is all approved and property taxes go up to pay for everything, who would really be most affected by this? Given that people below the poverty line would have a lower rate of home ownership and properties that they do own would have low assessed values, the effect on them would be minimal. Who would actually be most affected by this wouldn't by Joe Homeowner with his $600,000 home, it would be the REIT's, developers and insurance companies that own commercial properties downtown and throughout the city. The mill rate for residential is 0.0057544, while the commercial rate is over twice as much at 0.0141942. Given the assessed values for office towers, rental buildings and other commercial buildings are massive, these multi-million dollar companies would be the ones contributing the most to CalgaryNext. So it's not so much Joe Homeowner subsidizing the billionaire Flames, but more like multi-million dollar companies doing so, many of which do not primarily operate in Alberta (eg. Brookfield, Oxford, Manulife, most of the REIT's, etc.).

[Ace]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I was wondering what will happen to this place in 20-30 years, when the arena is no longer state of the art/economic, but the football field/fieldhouse are still being used? Realistically if the Stamps get a stadium here they won't get another one for 50+ years, or maybe ever. However, the Flames will probably need another new arena in ~30 years. If all of the systems are integrated, will that mean the "events centre" has to stick around after the Flames move to the "All Luxury Box Elevated Ice Palace in 2049?"

I'm thinking (hoping) that the new facility will be built in such a way that in the future it would be reno'd and not replaced.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by bax

"We believe that no taxpayer funds or subsidies should be provided to build a new Calgary stadium."

Do people actually believe that this city will get new facilities without any tax money going towards it? Especially after what just happened in Edmonton? Or are they just using exaggeration to get their point across?

I really don't know at this point.

Doubtful, but if one city makes a mistake, should the next?

Economically, there's no or very little benefit.

So is civic pride worth a billion dollars?

[bax]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Doubtful, but if one city makes a mistake, should the next?

Economically, there's no or very little benefit.

So is civic pride worth a billion dollars?

It's not just one city making a mistake though. Every North American Arena built in recent history has had tax dollars go towards it in some way or another. It's just the way things are these days.

On the civic pride front, this proposal also includes the field house so there's an added dimension of public use. Maybe the funding model isn't perfect, but it's not "let's get a petition going to not spend any tax dollars on it all" bad.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because the province doesn't want to pay to clean it up, and the city won't develop because as soon as it tries, the province gets to pass its responsibility down to the city.

Your government at work.

Probably would've been a good way to spend some of those Ralph Bucks.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So is civic pride worth a billion dollars?

I would say yes providing it's fair and taxpayers aren't on the hook for a billion. Personally I would like to see the owners chip in a little more money but I'm aware that the numbers they released last week were starting point and nothing more.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Probably would've been a good way to spend some of those Ralph Bucks.

Probably would have been a good thing to deal with in 1966. This area has been a chicken and egg problem for decades - nobody wants to clean up up because there are no plans for development, and nobody wants to develop because there are no plans to clean it up.

[Ice_Weasel]

People need to take a step back here. The FIRST question that needs to be asked is whether or not people want professional sport franchises in Calgary. If the answer to this question is yes, then there HAS to be some level of public funding....period. There is no precedent anywhere in North America that I am aware of where new facilities have been built without some level of public involvement. Anyone who wants professional sports in their city and not pay for them is living in a fantasy world.

So if you want a local team to cheer for, the debate is how much public dollars, not whether there should be any.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

People need to take a step back here. The FIRST question that needs to be asked is whether or not people want professional sport franchises in Calgary. If the answer to this question is yes, then there HAS to be some level of public funding....period. There is no precedent anywhere in North America that I am aware of where new facilities have been built without some level of public involvement. Anyone who wants professional sports in their city and not pay for them is living in a fantasy world.

So if you want a local team to cheer for, the debate is how much public dollars, not whether there should be any.

Dude...

[Cappy]

In depth article by Kent Wilson at Flames Nation:

http://flamesnation.ca/2015/8/23/how...ut-calgarynext

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

People need to take a step back here. The FIRST question that needs to be asked is whether or not people want professional sport franchises in Calgary. If the answer to this question is yes, then there HAS to be some level of public funding....period. There is no precedent anywhere in North America that I am aware of where new facilities have been built without some level of public involvement. Anyone who wants professional sports in their city and not pay for them is living in a fantasy world.

So if you want a local team to cheer for, the debate is how much public dollars, not whether there should be any.

Rogers Arena in Vancouver, the ACC in Toronto and the Bell Centre in Montreal were privately financed. So too was the CT Centre in Ottawa - though the Province of Ontario loaned the team $27 million. So far as I know, that was paid back.

Of note, however, three of those four rinks (excepting the ACC) have resulted in huge losses to the original owner/builder. That's why teams want public support.

http://www.doniveson.ca/wp-content/u...na-Funding.pdf

(This obviously looks at the arenas themselves, and not related projects of upgraded or relocated roadways, etc.)

[calf]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

People need to take a step back here. The FIRST question that needs to be asked is whether or not people want professional sport franchises in Calgary. If the answer to this question is yes, then there HAS to be some level of public funding....period. There is no precedent anywhere in North America that I am aware of where new facilities have been built without some level of public involvement. Anyone who wants professional sports in their city and not pay for them is living in a fantasy world.

So if you want a local team to cheer for, the debate is how much public dollars, not whether there should be any.

Disagree - if people want professional sports teams here, they should support the teams by buying tickets and merchandise at prices that make the team/franchise/enterprise economically viable.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

People need to take a step back here. The FIRST question that needs to be asked is whether or not people want professional sport franchises in Calgary. If the answer to this question is yes, then there HAS to be some level of public funding....period. There is no precedent anywhere in North America that I am aware of where new facilities have been built without some level of public involvement. Anyone who wants professional sports in their city and not pay for them is living in a fantasy world.

So if you want a local team to cheer for, the debate is how much public dollars, not whether there should be any.

Gillette stadium in foxborough MA

Completely built with owner money and 20 miles outside of boston

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Dude...

Ok...."successfully built" then. The point is the same. If you answer the question "do I want professional sports in my city" with a "yes" and should their be public support "No" you might as well go for a ride on your unicorn. I have no problem if you answer the first question with a no.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by calf

Disagree - if people want professional sports teams here, they should support the teams by buying tickets and merchandise at prices that make the team/franchise/enterprise economically viable.

Can we opt in, in the same fashion on all items then please, such as park creation in communities, road improvements, bike lanes, transit builds, hospital creation, education etc..

For example, I don't have any kids at the moment, I'd like to pay nothing for creating schools and education system because I don't use them.

[bax]

Originally Posted by calf

Disagree - if people want professional sports teams here, they should support the teams by buying tickets and merchandise at prices that make the team/franchise/enterprise economically viable.

Why would the owners keep the team here and pay for a stadium by themselves when they can get public support elsewhere?

No, I don't think the Flames will move, but it's just not reasonable to expect a brand new stadium without some public dollars these days