Flames to announce plans to announce arena plans in the... future...

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The city has been a great asset to the Flames for over 30 years, its residents being a key reason the value of the franchise has risen to over $400 million.

Even in the late 90's and early 2000's? The Flames organization essentially had to threaten relocation in order to get fans to purchase tickets.

[DoubleK]

This thread is gold!

My opinion>your opinion>>>>everyone else's opinion>>>put the rink in Airdrie

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm reasonably sure the discussion exists, because we are speaking in it.

Read the sentence again - it's the parameters that don't yet exist, not the discussion

I'm also reasonably sure that you don't want to speculate because your position - that the City should be looking at "helping" the Flames with the arena - relies on a completely specious counter-factual of there somehow being a downside to not committing public funds. So, when pressed to detail exactly what might happen, you'd rather say nothing and continue to try to obfuscate.

you have no idea what my position is, but it doesn't seem to stop you from speculating

(emphasis added)

Is this not you?

Wake city hall up? They haven't received any proposal yet, so what are they "waking up" to? When you speak of "alternatives", are you not referring to the Flames putting pressure on the City by pretending they will move somewhere else - be that Balzac or Seattle - to pry forth some dollars? Is this not the discussion you say doesn't exit, that is, whether or not it is justified to spend taxpayer money subsidizing a business that needs no subsidization?

by wake city hall up, I simply meant get things moving forward

All your talk about the value of the franchise to the city IS a straw man, as you are implicitly claiming that somehow we are in peril of losing the franchise should the City not step up with cash or land or some other kind of preferential treatment. This is ridiculous. The Flames are, apparently, 7th in the league in revenues. They are not going to jeopardize that over a spat with City Hall.

These are businessmen, not jilted teenagers - they won't take their toys and go home if they don't get what they want, they will look at other ways of spending someone else's money (like financing paid for by upping ticket prices) to build their arena. If City Hall wants in on building something for sports, let's spend that money on new indoor soccer facilities or community rinks, not a palace where I can sit for 2 or 3 hours drinking beer.

Again, you attempt to define my view on my behalf. And again, you throw up straw men while attempting to paint me with that brush.

You make your views clear on this. And you're welcome to them.

I believe the parties will reach a deal that makes sense for everyone. We'll see how it shakes out.

I won't respond to any more of your posts because they are tiring, extreme, predictable, and repetitive.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Why Nenshi existence of fandom, or travel expense is of any importance to some is dumb.

Because when you can't find substantive, evidence based arguments for wanting to throw public money at your favourite team, you need to drum something up so as not to make yourself look like a shameless partisan.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

by wake city hall up, I simply meant get things moving forward.

Oh yah, that's what you mean - the Flames should threaten to move the arena to Airdrie, because the city will then act upon imaginary proposals that they have not yet received, in some way undefined by you (but not "extreme" like my view of not giving them money or land). That seems like a perfectly valid reading of what you were saying, and also kudos on defining a position of "no corporate welfare for a group of billionaires" as "extreme".

Thanks for withdrawing from the debate, as well. I'm sorry pointing out your unspoken assumptions annoys you so much.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Bunk

He's a big football fan. As a student at U of C, he was one of the few that actually showed up to watch Dinos games. He's also a big Stamps fan - goes to games when he can and was very excited about the victory.

His travel to the Grey Cup was out of his office travel budget, but I'd also add that he's an extremely frugal traveller, almost to the point of absurdity.

Just for clarification, great to hear he is actually a fan. I was supporting the idea of him being part of the grey cup, as a representative of Calgary regardless. I'm pretty bad at conveying tone in my writing some times.

Winning a professional sports championship is a major point of civic pride, and being involved in civic pride activities is part of his job description.

And to your other point policy aside, as a voter I would say the most appealing thing about Neshi is the respect he seems to show towards our money. Unfortunately I think I am about to get a lecture about bike lanes, public art or pedestrian bridges for saying that.

[Tinordi]

Apparently being against the City providing public money and lands to billionaire owners of a $400 million dollar business is an 'extreme' position.

Do you people leave the house? Read the Markusoff articles again, when Burke went on saying the Saddledome was inadequate the city was flooded with people against providing public money. That, by definition, means that that view point is not extreme. It means it's actually a mainstream position.

But continue the fallacy of the middle. That those who are against your opinion are somehow some fair outlier from the rational middle of the debate.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The city has been a great asset to the Flames for over 30 years, its residents being a key reason the value of the franchise has risen to over $400 million.

Which is why any suggestion of the Flames moving is just so hollow. Again, the Flames need Calgarians and their passion for hockey alot more than Calgary needs the Flames. The city itself is the primary reason for the franchise valuation of $400 million. There is simply no way the franchise walks from that for a spin of the roulette wheel in Las Vegas or wherever else they would threaten to move to.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Which is why any suggestion of the Flames moving is just so hollow. Again, the Flames need Calgarians and their passion for hockey alot more than Calgary needs the Flames. The city itself is the primary reason for the franchise valuation of $400 million. There is simply no way the franchise walks from that for a spin of the roulette wheel in Las Vegas or wherever else they would threaten to move to.

Plus the league won't allow a move that interferes with expansion (and the fees).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Apparently being against the City providing public money and lands to billionaire owners of a $400 million dollar business is an 'extreme' position.

Do you people leave the house? Read the Markusoff articles again, when Burke went on saying the Saddledome was inadequate the city was flooded with people against providing public money. That, by definition, means that that view point is not extreme. It means it's actually a mainstream position.

But continue the fallacy of the middle. That those who are against your opinion are somehow some fair outlier from the rational middle of the debate.

This post appears to be directed at me, so I'll respond...

In your usual fashion, you attempt to insult anyone who has a different opinion than you. That makes it difficult to respect your posts.

But allow me to explain something for you:

If there are a range of opinions on a subject, the opinions at each end of the spectrum (in this case: zero funding, and full support/subsidization) are, by definition, extreme views.

It's really not that difficult of a word to understand.

And just because lots of people share that view, that in no way negates or reduces its status as extreme. There is no law that says an extreme view is necessarily uncommon. In fact, they are often all too common.

/posted from my house

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Apparently being against the City providing public money and lands to billionaire owners of a $400 million dollar business is an 'extreme' position.

Yes, that position is one extreme - the other extreme being that the City should give them the Katz treatment no questions asked.

We all know that in the end there will be some type of City assistance for this new arena/stadium complex, be it in the form of land or infrastructure or otherwise. And as there should, given that entertainment facilities such as these are a public good to a certain extent - they bring in sporting events, concerts, and trade shows that improve that both raise the profile of our city and make it a more liveable place.

The issue that we will see resolved in the near future concerning is the amount of assistance the development will receive. I'm hoping that we can have a rational debate and avoid some of the more extreme rhetoric we've seen in this thread already.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Do you people leave the house? Read the Markusoff articles again, when Burke went on saying the Saddledome was inadequate the city was flooded with people against providing public money. That, by definition, means that that view point is not extreme. It means it's actually a mainstream position.

You do realize that people who are angry about an issue are far more likely to complain about it right? Based on my discussions (anecdotal, I know) with people on the subject, the majority wouldn't have a problem with a limited form of public support for a new sports complex as discussed.

For the record, I think that a privately financed arena is doable in the Calgary market but there is no way we get a stadium without public help.

[Tinordi]

Yes, that position is one extreme - the other extreme being that the City should give them the Katz treatment no questions asked.

ALL this is rhetorical posturing in the attempt to undercut my argument. I've presented data, facts, principles and reasoning as to why it is not appropriate to subsidize billionaires. The only "argument" you now use is that that is an "extreme" position because it means that one side achieves its desired outcome and the other side doesn't. By that logic anything is extreme where one side wins and another loses. You invoke the logical fallacy of appealing to the middle ground.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_moderation

An appeal to moderation, otherwise known as the false compromise or the argument from middle ground is a logical fallacy that states that the answer to a problem is always between two extremes. It is closely related to the balance fallacy.

The problems with this fallacy are numerous but one I want to highlight is that you have made yourself the arbiter of what the middle is. In public policy decisions involving millions of dollars we need to have our objective criteria be something better than "making sure everyone gets a little bit of something." The bottom line is that this money that the city is putting up either by cash or land or other in-kind services is money that is taken from other purposes. That's the big problem.

This then leads to the Balance Fallacy. Whereby your view that public money should be used because you want a new arena is an equal but opposite view to mine that public money should be spent with the highest scrutiny and effect. I would argue that these arguments are not balanced. You can think whatever you like, but you should know that subsidizing billionaires so you can drink beer in a palace is not an equally valued opinion to using public money with the objective of maximizing social welfare.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Zarley

You do realize that people who are angry about an issue are far more likely to complain about it right? Based on my discussions (anecdotal, I know) with people on the subject, the majority wouldn't have a problem with a limited form of public support for a new sports complex as discussed.

For the record, I think that a privately financed arena is doable in the Calgary market but there is no way we get a stadium without public help.

Polls say otherwise. Something like 80 per cent of Calgarians are against public funding for a privately-owned arena.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

ALL this is rhetorical posturing in the attempt to undercut my argument. I've presented data, facts, principles and reasoning as to why it is not appropriate to subsidize billionaires. The only "argument" you now use is that that is an "extreme" position because it means that one side achieves its desired outcome and the other side doesn't. By that logic anything is extreme where one side wins and another loses. You invoke the logical fallacy of appealing to the middle ground.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_moderation



The problems with this fallacy are numerous but one I want to highlight is that you have made yourself the arbiter of what the middle is. In public policy decisions involving millions of dollars we need to have our objective criteria be something better than "making sure everyone gets a little bit of something." The bottom line is that this money that the city is putting up either by cash or land or other in-kind services is money that is taken from other purposes. That's the big problem.

This then leads to the Balance Fallacy. Whereby your view that public money should be used because you want a new arena is an equal but opposite view to mine that public money should be spent with the highest scrutiny and effect. I would argue that these arguments are not balanced. You can think whatever you like, but you should know that subsidizing billionaires so you can drink beer in a palace is not an equally valued opinion to using public money with the objective of maximizing social welfare.

You do realize that there's money set aside for culture and sport right, that can't be used for social services? It's not a trade off between building affordable housing or building an arena. Your position is indeed extreme because you see things as very black and white when in fact there are many shades of grey.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

You do realize that there's money set aside for culture and sport right, that can't be used for social services? It's not a trade off between building affordable housing or building an arena.

It's a relatively small amount of money. And it pays for things like hockey rinks and soccer fields. Do you really think there's public support for diverting much of that funding into subsidizing a private entertainment complex that will be patronized mainly by affluent Calgarians?

Originally Posted by heep223

Your position is indeed extreme because you see things as very black and white when in fact there are many shades of grey.

So the position held by 80 per cent of Calgarians is extreme?

Tinordi is bang on. It's fuzzy logic to take an opinion that is held by the overwhelming majority of people, then take an opinion that is held by a small minority of people, and say the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.

Say some people believe the mayor should be paid $2 million a year. Most people say, no, the salary he makes today is fine. I guess those are both extreme positions, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, eh? Like the sensible middle-ground is that he should be paid $1 million a year? Or at the very least get a sizeable raise?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Polls say otherwise. Something like 80 per cent of Calgarians are against public funding for a privately-owned arena.

Do you have a link to said poll?

The only thing I can find is a Herald web poll that supports my argument.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by heep223

You do realize that there's money set aside for culture and sport right, that can't be used for social services? It's not a trade off between building affordable housing or building an arena. Your position is indeed extreme because you see things as very black and white when in fact there are many shades of grey.

We should probably use the money set aside for culture and sport on organizations that don't make multiple, multiple millions every year and are owned by billionaires.

That sounds like a better idea.

[CliffFletcher]

Keep in mind the Herald are huge cheerleaders for publicly funding a new arena. All of their editorials are highly partisan on the issue.

Here's a poll from the Sun

A story from Metro.

If such a proposal were to include a request for financial involvement from the city, Jones said the matter should be put to the citizens of Calgary.

“I would love to do it with a plebiscite,” he said. “Let the people of the city decide: Do you want your taxpayer dollars spent on this?”

Ald. Andre Chabot doubted a plebiscite would be necessary, noting polls within the last few years have shown Calgarians are overwhelmingly opposed to putting tax dollars towards a new arena.

“I think the general public is of the opinion that it’s a fairly lucrative industry – certainly insofar as the players and the kind of money they’re making – and they don’t feel that they should be contributing to their profitability,” Chabot said.

Ald. Gord Lowe said that sentiment is reflected around the council table.

“As far as I know there is precisely no appetite in council to put public money into a private venture,” he said.

Politicians live and die by polling. I trust that they have their finger to the wind when they firmly oppose public funding for private arenas.

[corporatejay]

Markusoff had a great article in the Herald yesterday regarding this argument that we shouldn't be "subsidizing billionaires". The reality is the city should look at any potential deal with the Flames from a pure cost/benefit analysis to the city. The owners being billionaires is nothing more than inflammatory language. If it makes financial sense for the city to do a deal and help subsidize an arena, they should do it, regardless of the wealth of the potential owner.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ionaire-factor



Tinordi, your position is getting old. People, including myself have given a number of examples where the city "giving land" could potentially turn into a net benefit. You see things as simply black and white and it's just not that simple.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Keep in mind the Herald are huge cheerleaders for publicly funding a new arena. All of their editorials are highly partisan on the issue.

Here's a poll from the Sun

A story from Metro.



Politicians live and die by polling. I trust that they have their finger to the wind when they firmly oppose public funding for private arenas.

Do you read the herald? I don't think Markusoff has been cheerleading for an arena at all.