Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[jayswin]

I can't believe how off track this thread got from one guy who literally admitted he takes the contrarian side to "balance" discussion.

[TheScorpion]

Boy, I can't wait to see Jankowski in the new arena.

[transplant99]

There is no coming back from this thread.

Remarkable.

[Joborule]

Well there's nothing new that can really be said that hasn't been said already. Until some actual new information transpire (rather than new quotes on the current situation), and CSEC and the city get back to negotiating, we're gonna be rehashing the same points, in this hole that goes deeper, and deeper.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I can't believe how off track this thread got from one guy who literally admitted he takes the contrarian side to "balance" discussion.

And the guy who had the gall to call him out got publicly slapped by the mod account. How does that work?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I can't believe how off track this thread got from one guy who literally admitted he takes the contrarian side to "balance" discussion.

i dont think thats what he was trying to say...

I think he was saying the tone of the thread was unfairly biased to be anti-flames, while his view was a balanced one. As a result, he came across as pro-flames relative to the tone of the thread. In a scenario where the thread was unfairly biased to be anti-flames, he would have come across as biased in the other direction (because his view is the perfectly balanced one)

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by JFK

And the guy who had the gall to call him out got publicly slapped by the mod account. How does that work? The fact that I'm actually leery of posting this afraid of getting an infraction shows you something is seriously wrong with the way this board is looked after. I've never been part of a group of anything where open discussion about how things are run isn't encouraged, here it is shut down, and it's not like there is another area to discuss this.

Moderating is like a condo board, do your time and get out. Being on HFboards, that's atleast something they get right. A new breed is always filtering in or out, you're not left with a seemingly angry grumpy group of middle aged men.

Oh please, the dog piling in this thread had become insufferable, not once have I been disrespectful and I have been entirely transparent. The Mod acted appropriately, if I acted at all in the wrong, Mods - please ban me. But typical millennial...blame everyone else. I will leave this thread so that you can have YOUR "democracy" to yourselves.

[stone hands]

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Redlan

Oh please, the dog piling in this thread had become insufferable, not once have I been disrespectful and I have been entirely transparent. The Mod acted appropriately, if I acted at all in the wrong, Mods - please ban me. But typical millennial...blame everyone else. I will leave this thread so that you can have YOUR "democracy" to yourselves.

Are you drunker then I am? I edited the post like an hour ago because the whole public pissing match wasn't worth it. Did it take you an hour to type up this reply?

Hardly a millennial.

[Barnes]

Is Boyd signed yet?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by nik-

How do people seriously type ridiculousness like this up and think that they're making good points?

I think the example's cited were extreme, but the concepts had merit...
1) In a society where taxation is used to fund public goods, some people benefit a lot more than others for any single good due to differences in factors such as inclinations, wealth, and free time. People with more free time can spend more time at the library. Poor people can't enjoy arenas if they can't afford skates or skating lessons.
2) The extent of public benefit associated with many public goods is subjective.

For example, the city and province subsidise fine arts and establishments such as the zoo because there is a subjective public benefit, cultural and educational component. Additional facilities subsidised include public pools and hockey arenas - to promote healthy and active life styles and culture. And by subsidising such establishments, participation is cheaper than it otherwise would be. Public art is free, because the city paid for it. Ice time is cheaper because its subsidised. So too is going to the leisure centre and the zoo.

Likewise, if a new arena was subsidised, it might also be cheaper to attend events there than if it was fully privately funded facility (for example through a lower ticket tax). That includes concerts, flames games, and other events. And, like many of the establishments cited above, a new arena does promote culture and sport and active lifestyles.

Additionally some people highly value the cultural component of public art; many others do not care about public art, but they still end up paying for it through taxes. Others highly value the culture component of a pro-hockey team - so why shouldn't it also be subsidised?

The central library is another example of this - the public benefit of libraries is an easy argument to make. The benefit is obvious. But why does the central library needed to cost $245m and be visually stunning? Much more difficult argument to make. I bet a facility that was less visually stunning could have been built for substantially less, while still providing the same vital public benefit that libraries provide.

[AC]

How I feel whenever I check this thread:

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I think the example's cited were extreme, but the concepts had merit...
1) In a society where taxation is used to fund public goods, some people benefit a lot more than others for any single good due to differences in factors such as inclinations, wealth, and free time. People with more free time can spend more time at the library. Poor people can't enjoy arenas if they can't afford skates or skating lessons.
2) The extent of public benefit associated with many public goods is subjective.

For example, the city and province subsidise fine arts and establishments such as the zoo because there is a subjective public benefit, cultural and educational component. Additional facilities subsidised include public pools and hockey arenas - to promote healthy and active life styles and culture. And by subsidising such establishments, participation is cheaper than it otherwise would be. Public art is free, because the city paid for it. Ice time is cheaper because its subsidised. So too is going to the leisure centre and the zoo.

Likewise, if a new arena was subsidised, it might also be cheaper to attend events there than if it was fully privately funded facility (for example through a lower ticket tax). That includes concerts, flames games, and other events. And, like many of the establishments cited above, a new arena does promote culture and sport and active lifestyles.

Your logic highly flawed that ticket prices would be lower with partial municipal funding. The Flames stating that the ticket tax is their contribution is essentially a statement that they charge what the market will bare for tickets. Unless clauses are written into the agreement the ticket prices will not change regardless of who funds the building.

I think the zoo is an excellent comparison to an Arena. The zoo receives roughly 8 million a year in subsidies and gets about 1.5 million visits per year. 50% of visitors are from outside the city of Calgary. 30% of families in Calgary visit annually or more. It also is in some ways inaccessible as it costs $80 for a family to visit. What you don't see is them wanting to double or triple the subsidy they currently receive.

Public Art should be brought up due to its inconsequential value.

One thing to remember is that the Flames are subsidized. They are gifted the entertainment business and pay below market rent. This issue is about the Flames asking for an increase from a 6 million dollar subsidy to a 15 million dollar subsidy per year. What are the flames doing that makes it worth us increasing the subsidy that we currently give them

As for Leisure Centers and Rinks I think just looking at user numbers would show that they are substantially better at getting people active than the Flames are.

As for the library I agree with you, we should have spent on a modest functional building over an architectural leading one. However the cost difference between the two likely isn't more than 10-20% of the budget so while I would have preferred to spend 200 million I suspect those bringing up the library would still be doing so if it was a plain ugly grey box.

So in conclusion all of the things you listed do a better job of accomplishing your stated goals do then an increase in the Flames subsidy would.

[Gaudfather]

Calgary needs Amazon to select them as the new home of HQ2 - and a new arena could just be a rounding error as part of a massive redevelopment for their campus! Naming rights in perpetuity!

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I think the example's cited were extreme, but the concepts had merit...
1) In a society where taxation is used to fund public goods, some people benefit a lot more than others for any single good due to differences in factors such as inclinations, wealth, and free time. People with more free time can spend more time at the library. Poor people can't enjoy arenas if they can't afford skates or skating lessons.
2) The extent of public benefit associated with many public goods is subjective.

For example, the city and province subsidise fine arts and establishments such as the zoo because there is a subjective public benefit, cultural and educational component. Additional facilities subsidised include public pools and hockey arenas - to promote healthy and active life styles and culture. And by subsidising such establishments, participation is cheaper than it otherwise would be. Public art is free, because the city paid for it. Ice time is cheaper because its subsidised. So too is going to the leisure centre and the zoo.

Likewise, if a new arena was subsidised, it might also be cheaper to attend events there than if it was fully privately funded facility (for example through a lower ticket tax). That includes concerts, flames games, and other events. And, like many of the establishments cited above, a new arena does promote culture and sport and active lifestyles.

Additionally some people highly value the cultural component of public art; many others do not care about public art, but they still end up paying for it through taxes. Others highly value the culture component of a pro-hockey team - so why shouldn't it also be subsidised?

The central library is another example of this - the public benefit of libraries is an easy argument to make. The benefit is obvious. But why does the central library needed to cost $245m and be visually stunning? Much more difficult argument to make. I bet a facility that was less visually stunning could have been built for substantially less, while still providing the same vital public benefit that libraries provide.

The difference here is that the zoo is run by the Calgary Zoological Society, which is a not-for-profit organization. The Calgary Public Library, like all library systems, is also not-for-profit.

Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation, on the other hand, is a corporation. A company that exists specifically in order to make money.

Do all three have some tangible cultural impact on the city? Sure. But let's not act like all three--the zoo, the library and the Flames--are equally trying to simply raise the level of culture in Calgary.

CSEC exists to make money, impacting the culture is an ancillary benefit to the corporation.

Now, if CSEC wanted to reorganize as a not-for-profit society that existed primarily to benefit the culture of Calgary, I'd be more willing to subsidize the new arena with taxpayer dollars. I bet the tickets would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

[CorbeauNoir]

Originally Posted by Redlan

I never accused you, I made an observation, you leaped to a conclusion, quite vehemently I may add. It is this passive aggressive response that keeps me in this thread...”don’t have enough of a backbone” drips of this aggression.

I find it interesting, and quite frankly ridiculous, that there are some posters that repeat ad nauseum that they are incredulous of the Flames information yet lap up a politician's word as the gospel. It is also very interesting that there is at least one poster that has yet to actually post in a hockey related thread yet is only active in political discussion - Nenshi and his henchmen make social media their bitch. The mayor can be trusted no more and no less than the Flames, the difference being, he is a lot better at this.

What other insinuation can this possibly mean? If you're going to bitch and moan about passive aggressiveness how about you use actual names and make actual accusations instead of hiding behind this pussyfooting?

[boggledepot]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Now, if CSEC wanted to reorganize as a not-for-profit society that existed primarily to benefit the culture of Calgary, I'd be more willing to subsidize the new arena with taxpayer dollars. I bet the tickets would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

In addition, if the CSEC was a not-for-profit I imagine they would quite happy to accept the proposal the city offered. Funny enough, it would be as a not-for-profit that the CSEC could make a legitimate case for not paying property tax.

I might be wrong about this, but does anybody recall Ken King saying something along the lines that "professional sports isn't philanthropy."

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

One thing to remember is that the Flames are subsidized. They are gifted the entertainment business and pay below market rent. This issue is about the Flames asking for an increase from a 6 million dollar subsidy to a 15 million dollar subsidy per year. What are the flames doing that makes it worth us increasing the subsidy that we currently give them

Sure - the flames are obviously subsidised in two key ways:

1) No property tax - this is fixed subsidy after the effects of inflation. It's annualized value roughly remains unchanged over time. I'm not sure what the annual value of this subsidy is.

2) Building is subsidised - this is subsidy with an annual value roughly equal to (Cost of construction subsidised/life-of-facility). The longer the facility lasts, the lower the annual subsidy. So the saddledome costs $200m and lasts 40 years, the annual subsidy is ~$4m per year after present-value calculations

So annual subsidy today = $4m + no property tax

What the flames are suggesting is that they continue to recieve subsidy one (no property tax), and wants an increase to subsidy 2. If the city is asked to pay a subsidy of $250m on the new stadium and the new stadium lasts 50 years, then the annual subsidy the flames are asking for is roughly C$8m after present value calculations

Annual subsidy with new arena = $8m + no property tax

So the flames are technically asking for an incremental subsidy in the range of $4m per year, give or take. Its less than half of what you're suggesting it is.

Originally Posted by GGG

Your logic highly flawed that ticket prices would be lower with partial municipal funding. The Flames stating that the ticket tax is their contribution is essentially a statement that they charge what the market will bare for tickets. Unless clauses are written into the agreement the ticket prices will not change regardless of who funds the building.

This is probably true for the flames, but probably not true for concerts. Taylor Swift if going to charge $120 for ticket and on top of that a concert-goer will pay a ticket tax. The more the city subsidises, the lower the tax, the lower the cost.

Originally Posted by GGG

So in conclusion all of the things you listed do a better job of accomplishing your stated goals do then an increase in the Flames subsidy would.

I 80% agree with this. But not entirely...namely, the flames say they should be able to keep their currently subsidy of paying no property tax and no rent. The city disagrees and wants to either charge them property tax or rent.

So in other words, the city is actually trying to reduce the flames' annualised subsidy under a new arena arrangement. And this is what Ken King is terrible at communicating.

[GGG]

The new subsidy of the Flames proposal is far higher than what you are calculating. The flames are only promising a 35 yr lease

225 million up front for a 35 yr lease at a 3% discount rate is about 10 million per year. A little more actually plus the city contribution per the Flames proposal doesn't include land or Saddledome demo which makes it about 300 million Flames bumping up the subsidy further.

This means my statement of the Flames wanting to double or triple their annual subsidy is more or less correct. I peg their current subsidy at around 6 million in just discounted rent. I don't believe that capital value of the current building should be used when calculating their current subsidy as in the build new case the city doesn't recover that 4 million per year so you either have to add it on both sides or none at all.

The city proposal is essentially to maintain the current rate of subsidy of the Flames. I do think that once the Saddledome gets to its end of useful life this equation might change.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I 80% agree with this. But not entirely...namely, the flames say they should be able to keep their currently subsidy of paying no property tax and no rent. The city disagrees and wants to either charge them property tax or rent.

So in other words, the city is actually trying to reduce the flames' annualised subsidy under a new arena arrangement. And this is what Ken King is terrible at communicating.

Boo frickin hoo would be the response from majority of people. The Flames need a new arena moreso than the city wants one, so if they want the city to chip in a fair amount of coin, some form of property tax or rent is gonna have to be paid.

If they really don't want to do that, then the alternative is to build the thing with their own money competely. The city in that case probably would be willing to waive property tax, and donate the land and infrastructure costs themselves.