Bettman: No basis for a Calgary arena deal anytime soon

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Poster

The words right out of my mouth!

I still dont get why anyone thinks the Flames shouldnt be paying for the entire building costs. Its their business, their profits, why shouldnt they pay for it?

Any other for private business not expected to BUILD & PAY TAXES on their for profit facilities?

Seems an odd position to take that the Flames owners are upset because the city wants them to pay for their building.

Because a) a new arena is not a positive investment in a city like Calgary, and b) having a team in the city provides a non zero amount of benefit to Calgary.

I'm as pro Nenshi's stance as any on here, but I am 100% certain that some public money needs to and should go towards a new arena. This is also Nenshi's position.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well to be fair, they would have to.

It will probably be used for figure skating which makes sense as it is the second largest attraction at the Olympics behind hockey. They would need their own venue as much as hockey would, unless the Corral or Max Bell was utilized...which would scream amateur hour at best and lose up to 10,000 seats PER EVENT.

It is becoming more and more transparent that the IOC wants Calgary as much as Calgary wants the games. I really am starting to wonder if the Calgary bid group, once given a mandate, can extract anything from the IOC themselves in regards to funding. Which would be a complete 180 from anything ever seen in this regard before.

One thing that the city simply cannot accept though is sharing the games with other cities. Particularly the hockey...i get there may be really good reasons for the ski jumping to go to Whistler, but beyond that if the city cannot provide venues for everything else, they need to bow out.

This is interesting - they certainly seem to making that clear publicly. The IOC may want Calgary even more for a variety of reasons (let alone that no other viable cities seem interested).

Maybe the IOC can offer something meaningful to the City by way of contribution or credit that can be used to bridge the arena gap.

If I was Calgary I would be asking the moon and the stars. You can bet the large stakeholders like NBC want the games back in North America. And there is no doubt that a Calgary games would include NHL participation.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Because a) a new arena is not a positive investment in a city like Calgary, and b) having a team in the city provides a non zero amount of benefit to Calgary.

I'm as pro Nenshi's stance as any on here, but I am 100% certain that some public money needs to and should go towards a new arena. This is also Nenshi's position.

as a taxpayer, i could also support a discussion about how the City can contribute.

not with a gun to my head though. this is a Flames project, they need to play nice not the other way around.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by RM14

I think the city is asking for a new arena, as much as the flames are.

they are?

not one person i know speaks of how badly they would like a new arena and i havent really heard any politicians talk about other than in response to CalgaryNEXT.

im quite content with the current facility and what it provides to our city and seems most others are as well. except the Flames of course.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Poster

they are?

not one person i know speaks of how badly they would like a new arena and i havent really heard any politicians talk about other than in response to CalgaryNEXT.

im quite content with the current facility and what it provides to our city and seems most others are as well. except the Flames of course.

What?

Nenshi launched his re-election campaign beside a rendering of an arena in East Village/Vic Park. That's what spawned the whole reaction from the Flames to begin with. They were PO'd that he attached their name to a project they had not agreed to and likely were never going to get behind.

His own words...

I keep hearing people say that ‘the Mayor doesn’t want an arena’. This is simply not true. I recently released my vision for a cultural and entertainment district in the River’s District, in the eastern part of downtown, and a new arena is a vital part of that plan. We know, however, that it takes more than just an arena to make a vibrant community (after all, the Saddledome has been there for 34 years without spurring much additional real estate development) and I have outlined a solid plan to make a cultural and entertainment district a reality.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Poster

they are?

not one person i know speaks of how badly they would like a new arena and i havent really heard any politicians talk about other than in response to CalgaryNEXT.

im quite content with the current facility and what it provides to our city and seems most others are as well. except the Flames of course.

Yes they city has recognized a new building is needed (remember, it's "Nenshi's plan" for the proposed site, according to his video during the election). The City is actively planning the entertainment district (plan being released in April) and are considering other options to develop and entertainment center without CSEC.

Currently the building does not meet the needs of the city. If there is a concert planned and it snows too much, they have to freaking cancel the concert due to safety concerns. It happened last year.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Poster

as a taxpayer, i could also support a discussion about how the City can contribute.

not with a gun to my head though. this is a Flames project, they need to play nice not the other way around.

I think the city has been perfectly clear about what it expects and under what terms it can contribute... "no public dollars without public benefit"... if CSEC want public dollars then they're going to have to provide a public service and their normal business operations do not constitute a public service.

[The Boy Wonder]

As a taxpayer, and someone who has spent time in a lot of newer arenas there are two things that really jump out at me:

1. The city has every right to hold their ground, much like the city of Seattle did and they are going to have an NHL caliber rink without the crippling public debt. This will ensure that if we do get a new arena we won’t be bending over to get it
2. About 20 years ago when the gardens, forum, etc were all still functioning there wasn’t this perceived lifespan of an arena at 30 years which is what the flames organization would have you believe. Yes the dome has ####ty decorations and not great concourse layout but it will be fine for the next 10-15 years and I don’t think the organization will move in that time.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think the city has been perfectly clear about what it expects and under what terms it can contribute... "no public dollars without public benefit"... if CSEC want public dollars then they're going to have to provide a public service and their normal business operations do not constitute a public service.

The city was wiling to contribute $185 million towards the arena, so the city does see public benefit.

The largest rift between the two sides as I see it right now is how the city and taxpayers recover their contributions.

The city proposal has the city recouping the $185 million from the Flames via property tax or lease.

The Flames want the city to recoup the city's contribution via other means. They say CRL, but I think they really mean take it from the property taxes of the new developments around the arena whether it is officially a CRL or not. In other words, don't take it out of CSEC's pocket.

There are still other numbers to negotiate like how much will the city's final contribution will be, but the main impasse right now is how the city will recover their investment.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by troutman

He also erred in saying a new arena is vital for an Olympic Bid. The IOC was just here and said the Saddledome was fine for their purposes.

I don't buy this new revelation from the Olympic committee, I believe this was a shrewd point made on their part to put support for the idea of a Calgary Olympics over the top.

They know as well as anyone that follows winter Olympics that there will need to be two arenas with significant capacity to cover all the events. They also know that Calgary will almost assuredly receive part of the funding for a new hockey arena from the federal government if the Olympics are tied in as they know both team and city want a new arena, so they decided to stay calm and sell an easy Olympic games to the city rather than get themselves involved in an ugly city debate which would likely turn more citizens off of an Olympic bid.

It was a perfect political move from the Olympic committee.

- Will an arena deal likely be reached in time to have it built for the 2026 Olympics? Yes

- Will an arena deal be reached in time to have it built by 2026 if Calgary doesn't get/take the Olympics? Yes


So instead of making things seem more expensive to the city they took the shrewd step of easing off and saying "whoa, look guys the Saddledome is fine for the Olympics", and suddenly a bid looks way more palatable.

They are absolutely hedging their bets on an arena being built in time and it's a good bet and perfect public perception move on their part, imo.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The city was wiling to contribute $185 million towards the arena, so the city does see public benefit.

The public benefit in that instance is the revenue stream provided by a new privately owned arena (vs. the old publicly owned arena).

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The largest rift between the two sides as I see it right now is how the city and taxpayers recover their contributions.

Well... yeah. Unfortunately the answer from CSEC is: "in no way whatsoever". If they can find some way to recoup the cities investment in dollars that would be ideal. If CSEC is going to continue to be obstinate on repayment in dollars then CSEC is going to have to find some way to reimburse us the money in public services.

[Parallex]

nm

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Parallex

The public benefit in that instance is the revenue stream provided by a new privately owned arena (vs. the old publicly owned arena).

Um no. That revenue stream is a loser in terms of public benefit. The numbers quoted by Nenshi is that the property tax on the arena would be around $6 million per year. Which means it would take about 30 years to recover the $185 million at 0% interest. Even longer if you are trying to recover the interest the city will pay on a $185 million loan over 30 years.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The Flames want the city to recoup the city's contribution via other means. They say CRL, but I think they really mean take it from the property taxes of the new developments around the arena whether it is officially a CRL or not. In other words, don't take it out of CSEC's pocket.

And therein lies one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the Arena...

The CSEC characterizes property tax or a lease agreement as "repaying the City's contribution".... which is the thing they point to when they say the City isn't contributing any money.

For every other individual/entrepreneur in canada that pays property tax or leases office space, this is a head scratcher...

its not 'repaying' anything... its the cost of doing business that every private enterprise has to deal with....

[CroFlames]

I think the city should charge hotel room tax of $1/night to pay for the arena.

Make visitors to the city pay for it.

Check out this article: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...tel-rooms-sold

helped fill 3.1 million hotel rooms in Calgary last year, a six per cent increase from the previous year, said Cindy Ady, CEO of Tourism Calgary.

It's hard to find a reliable number of the actually number of hotel rooms in Calgary, but if the average is 3 million a year sold, that's an extra $3MM in toward the arena fund. I've read Calgary has 11,000 hotel rooms but not sure how true that is.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think the city should charge hotel room tax of $1/night to pay for the arena.

Make visitors to the city pay for it.

Check out this article: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...tel-rooms-sold



It's hard to find a reliable number of the actually number of hotel rooms in Calgary, but if the average is 3 million a year sold, that's an extra $3MM in toward the arena fund. I've read Calgary has 11,000 hotel rooms but not sure how true that is.

inefficient tax on business.

where are the fiscal conservatives tired of being taxed to death?

Why should my business that has absolutely nothing to do with a proposed arena be forced to incur greater costs to travel to the city of Calgary?

Is it just because my faceless business has a bunch of money and can afford it?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Make visitors to the city pay for it.

So by saying "make visitors pay" you're really saying make hotel owners pay right?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think the city should charge hotel room tax of $1/night to pay for the arena.

Make visitors to the city pay for it.

Check out this article: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...tel-rooms-sold



It's hard to find a reliable number of the actually number of hotel rooms in Calgary, but if the average is 3 million a year sold, that's an extra $3MM in toward the arena fund. I've read Calgary has 11,000 hotel rooms but not sure how true that is.

I'm asking sincerely as I had heard they did this somewhere in Texas but how do you go about getting hotels to agree to this tax? I mean it directly raises their prices. Is it a tax that can just be implement by the city without their choice?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

inefficient tax on business.

where are the fiscal conservatives tired of being taxed to death?

Why should my business that has absolutely nothing to do with a proposed arena be forced to incur greater costs to travel to the city of Calgary?

Is it just because my faceless business has a bunch of money and can afford it?

Do hotel owners pay the GST for their guests? No.Will hotel owners pay the the arena tax? Also no.

As far as the why, well that's been beaten to death a zillion times. Sports franchises have been raping cities for stadium money since pro sports became a big commercial enterprise. Calgary will not be the first city that finally stands up to these billionaires who demand money. Its sucks, but it's the truth.

The sooner you accept that truth, the sooner you'll be able to stomach taxing visitors to pay for the rink.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Do hotel owners pay the GST for their guests? No.Will hotel owners pay the the arena tax? Also no.

Then let's just pay for the whole thing with the ticket tax. Or just have a plebiscite amoung hotel owners (if they feel it won't affect their business why would they say no?).