[News] New Arena - Plan B - Victoria Park

[sketchyt]

I keep seeing different values in terms of how much the city/CSEC are contributing to a new arena. Would like to see how it compares to this:

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Let's set aside the argument of whether sports teams and arenas generate incremental economic activity.

It ignores one fundamental thing...none of the benefits of economic activity flow to the City. Liquor tax go to the province, sales tax goes to the province, corporate tax goes the feds/province, and personal income tax goes to the feds/province.

Yet it's the City that's being asked to front a billion dollars. That makes no sense.

That being said, I still support the City partially subsidizing new arenas and stadiums because I believe there is tangible value in the pride and entertainment of having professional sports teams in my city.

The city does see money come in for ctrain and parking though. I think that is why it is important to work together so the city options are preferred. I have been thinking and that is probably the biggest boost a facility gives a city (in terms of monies to the city)

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think primarily because it's not accessible to all, so its value needs to be measured on a more economic basis (since the community benefit is considerably less).

For people who can't afford to go to Flames games, why would they want even a dime spent on a new arena?

I would argue that the "community" aspect of the Flames goes far beyond the 18,000 people that sit in the actual arena.

I value living in a city with an NHL team - and I support a reasonable subsidy from the city - regardless of whether there is a tangible, quantifiable economic benefit. I respect that others don't share this opinion, but it doesn't make it "wrong".

[GioforPM]

I've read as much as I can take on this kind of stuff. I disagree with those who dismiss economic reports as inevitably flawed without reading them. They can be flawed for sure, and its not an exact science, but they are data.

On the other hand, there isn't a whole "host" of studies like someone said. I'd say there is a handful. And while they generally tilt towards "no net economic benefit", they don't all do so, and a lot that do are heavily qualified and careful to point out that the actual benefits are hard to predict and quantify.

Of course, my own view is that, economic benefits aside, I want a new arena and I'm not fussed if some money comes from government, even if it isn't quickly or obviously recouped. I recognize there are "no money for private business" arguments. I will never sway those opinions. I don't understand why those posters don't just say that and then stop. It's not much of a debate to say "I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with this". It's a position and there's no arguing with it (kinda like abortion).

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

I would argue that the "community" aspect of the Flames goes far beyond the 18,000 people that sit in the actual arena.

I value living in a city with an NHL team - and I support a reasonable subsidy from the city - regardless of whether there is a tangible, quantifiable economic benefit. I respect that others don't share this opinion, but it doesn't make it "wrong".

That's more or less my mindset too.

In 1983 the city contributed $30M to the construction of the Saddledome. Over what will be most likely a 40 year lifespan I'd argue the City got good value out of that investment, both tangible and intangible.

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think primarily because it's not accessible to all, so its value needs to be measured on a more economic basis (since the community benefit is considerably less).

For people who can't afford to go to Flames games, why would they want even a dime spent on a new arena?

I understand what you are saying...However, I haven't used the library for at least 20 years. Why do I want me dime spent on the library? Or the Westside Rec centre which is so far away from me? Hospital? Haven't been. Looks nice though. I can name dozens of projects. The bottom line is that these facilities make the city a better place to live. Whether or not you use it directly isn't the question. The question is how it impacts the quality of life for Calgarians. It also give you the choice to partake or not.

The other argument that I have issue with is people who say that it only impacts 20,000 people -- fans at the games. However, Calgary Transit claims yearly ridership of 100,000,000. So...the city can double count many times over (I alone is 300 of the transit "users" due to daily commuting) for their arguments. However, the number of seats in the dome only count once despite dozens upon dozens of events?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

I understand what you are saying...However, I haven't used the library for at least 20 years. Why do I want me dime spent on the library? Or the Westside Rec centre which is so far away from me? Hospital? Haven't been. Looks nice though. I can name dozens of projects. The bottom line is that these facilities make the city a better place to live. Whether or not you use it directly isn't the question. The question is how it impacts the quality of life for Calgarians. It also give you the choice to partake or not.

The other argument that I have issue with is people who say that it only impacts 20,000 people -- fans at the games. However, Calgary Transit claims yearly ridership of 100,000,000. So...the city can double count many times over (I alone is 300 of the transit "users" due to daily commuting) for their arguments. However, the number of seats in the dome only count once despite dozens upon dozens of events?

You're missing out - even if you don't read books, it's the best free movie/tv dvd store around. They have EVERYTHING.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by stone hands

When 40% of a fan site dedicated to the flames is saying they would rather have the team walk than pay for a private business building of operations, I think that speaks volumes

Calgarypuck is a pretty well educated group as far as sports message boards go, though. This isn't the typical "rah rah, I want my arena and don't care about civic issues" group of fans that you typically find on most team boards.

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by Bunk

You're missing out - even if you don't read books, it's the best free movie/tv dvd store around. They have EVERYTHING.

I actually heard that, but it's been a while since I used a disc of any variety.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

I understand what you are saying...However, I haven't used the library for at least 20 years. Why do I want me dime spent on the library?

The library doesn't cost $150 for a 3 hour visit, with the majority of that going to book publishers and star authors. Again, we're not comparing similar things.

The library, rec centres, LRT, giant interchanges - all of those aren't supposed to make money, but the arena's main function will be to make money, and make it for the Flames. Why does the City have an interest in making the Flames money? Its interest should be this: spend as little as possible commensurate with not losing the franchise to another city.

It is odd to me to see CP, usually rife with foam-at-mouth fiscal conservatives, suddenly give voice to so many who are willing to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers into a vanity project for the affluent. I am far from a fiscal conservative, and I'd be fine with the City providing land and infrastructure, and even partnering on a ticket tax with the Flames on an arena project in the $300-400 million dollar range, but that money should be negotiated with a hard cold realistic look at what else that public cash could go towards and whether or not a city in the middle of a severe depression should be spending it at all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stone hands

When 40% of a fan site dedicated to the flames is saying they would rather have the team walk than pay for a private business building of operations, I think that speaks volumes

I don't think that is what the poll says at all. 40% of people say #### off if the flames threaten to move.

If the question was changed to how much are you willing to pay to fund an arena I think the number would be difference.

I would suspect there would be broad based support for a property tax exemption/reduction for a Flames owned arena and paying for the supporting infrastructure to allow for Roads and Transit to properly service the building. And to have the rest of the site ready for complimentary development.

I doubt many would have an issue with the city underwriting the ticket tax loan either.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by jammies

The library doesn't cost $150 for a 3 hour visit, with the majority of that going to book publishers and star authors. Again, we're not comparing similar things.

The library, rec centres, LRT, giant interchanges - all of those aren't supposed to make money, but the arena's main function will be to make money, and make it for the Flames. Why does the City have an interest in making the Flames money? Its interest should be this: spend as little as possible commensurate with not losing the franchise to another city.

It is odd to me to see CP, usually rife with foam-at-mouth fiscal conservatives, suddenly give voice to so many who are willing to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers into a vanity project for the affluent. I am far from a fiscal conservative, and I'd be fine with the City providing land and infrastructure, and even partnering on a ticket tax with the Flames on an arena project in the $300-400 million dollar range, but that money should be negotiated with a hard cold realistic look at what else that public cash could go towards and whether or not a city in the middle of a severe depression should be spending it at all.

I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with what some Calgarians believe is important to them and the city. Many are Flames fans that would like a new venue, many want the team to be financially competitive with the competition so the young guns era never returns, some want sports facilities that are on par with the other major cities so they can have pride over apologies when entertaining visitors, some like to go to concerts and would rather stay in Calgary for them rather than have to travel to Edmonton for the big acts. There is also many that are more interested in their tax money going to other things and that's fine as I don't think there's every been any situation like this in any city where it's been unanimous or close one way or another. People are always divided over where they believe tax money should go. This is no different.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bunk

You're missing out - even if you don't read books, it's the best free movie/tv dvd store around. They have EVERYTHING.

And as of December free online courses through Lynda.com
https://calgarylibrary.ca/news/free-...ith-lynda-com/

Your Calgary Public Library membership now gives you free access to Lynda.com online courses.

Lynda.com is a leading online learning platform that helps anyone learn business, software, technology and creative skills to achieve personal and professional goals.

Lynda.com offers 4,000+ top quality, short format video courses featuring industry experts, and provides quick skill updating in the rapidly changing areas of technology, design, and web development, as well as professional development courses.

To get started, login with your Calgary Public Library card and PIN using the browser on your computer or mobile device. (Don't login from the Lynda website or app.)

Then you can create your own profile, bookmark videos, track your courses, and earn certificates for completing learning paths. There's no limit on the number of courses you can take.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with what some Calgarians believe is important to them and the city. Many are Flames fans that would like a new venue, many want the team to be financially competitive with the competition so the young guns era never returns, some want sports facilities that are on par with the other major cities so they can have pride over apologies when entertaining visitors, some like to go to concerts and would rather stay in Calgary for them rather than have to travel to Edmonton for the big acts. There is also many that are more interested in their tax money going to other things and that's fine as I don't think there's every been any situation like this in any city where it's been unanimous or close one way or another. People are always divided over where they believe tax money should go. This is no different.

I mean I know you're absolutely desperate for this to happen, but this has to be the worst excuse ever given for wanting a new arena. The salary cap exists now, a new arena doesn't give them some cheat code where they can circumvent the cap. The arena isn't making them anymore financially competitive then right now, they can spend to the cap now and they'll still be able to spend to the cap later when the arena opens. It makes the owners richer since there will be more luxury boxes and fewer seats than the Dome so they can charge more per ticket, but that doesn't translate to more cap space.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Think about it, every year the players take home about $60-70 million and they usually aren't spending that money in the city. That salary is brought in by the fans. If those fans don't spend that money on the Flames it goes somewhere else in Calgary that likely stays in the city. The studies aren't "fancy studies", it's pretty common sense when you actually look and read the studies.

But think about who they pay taxes to. Even the visiting players pay taxes in many jurisdictions.

Look, I'll just say this:
I have read opinions that a new rink should have no funding, or no more than 'x' dollars. But that makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is what is the flames alternatives? If Seattle, okc, houston or whoever give them a better deal they should take it. So IF they have options (I have no idea what their options are) then Calgary needs to match them. If most people were honest with themselves, if given a choice of a bad deal in Calgary and a lucrative one elsewhere, you go where your wanted (and get paid). Just reasonable behaviour.

KK has no tact, I know that. But when he says look, if we get a good deal we will look at it, and who knows we might act on it, so many people get mad at that. That's not my reaction. Mine is to fully understand what other cities would offer them. That's all.

As for studies, I had read one fully and one partially a very long time ago and thought they were garbage. Written by people trying to push an agenda, not using proper valuation methodology or properly considering opportunity cost. So maybe there are better ones now, but I'm skeptical.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

But think about who they pay taxes to. Even the visiting players pay taxes in many jurisdictions.

Look, I'll just say this:
I have read opinions that a new rink should have no funding, or no more than 'x' dollars. But that makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is what is the flames alternatives? If Seattle, okc, houston or whoever give them a better deal they should take it. So IF they have options (I have no idea what their options are) then Calgary needs to match them. If most people were honest with themselves, if given a choice of a bad deal in Calgary and a lucrative one elsewhere, you go where your wanted (and get paid). Just reasonable behaviour.

KK has no tact, I know that. But when he says look, if we get a good deal we will look at it, and who knows we might act on it, so many people get mad at that. That's not my reaction. Mine is to fully understand what other cities would offer them. That's all.

As for studies, I had read one fully and one partially a very long time ago and thought they were garbage. Written by people trying to push an agenda, not using proper valuation methodology or properly considering opportunity cost. So maybe there are better ones now, but I'm skeptical.

Their taxes go to the provincial and federal government? The city gets the shaft. The provinces release their budgets every year largely independent of what cities do. The province didn't give a penny to Edmonton for their arena, and I can't see Calgary getting one too. If the Province makes cuts, guess what, the city is at a further loss. It's bad optics on the provincial government to provide Calgary with an significant increase in funding after a 1 billion dollar arena props up.

So that's the thing, Calgarians get the shaft. Their fines, parking and property taxes go up to fund such an item -- some of whom don't even watch hockey -- while the City yeilds no revenue. Meanwhile some little town in Alberta doing something politically appetizing so they get extra funding from all these NHL tax revenues. Or who knows.

But I will revert to my IKEA example. Very expensive capital expenditure, people love to shop there (it provides good service), and it provides jobs and tax revenue. Still, nobody is suggesting the public paying for a new IKEA warehouse? Why the double standard?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Their taxes go to the provincial and federal government? The city gets the shaft. The provinces release their budgets every year largely independent of what cities do. The province didn't give a penny to Edmonton for their arena, and I can't see Calgary getting one too. If the Province makes cuts, guess what, the city is at a further loss. It's bad optics on the provincial government to provide Calgary with an significant increase in funding after a 1 billion dollar arena props up.

So that's the thing, Calgarians get the shaft. Their fines, parking and property taxes go up to fund such an item -- some of whom don't even watch hockey -- while the City yeilds no revenue. Meanwhile some little town in Alberta doing something politically appetizing so they get extra funding from all these NHL tax revenues. Or who knows.

But I will revert to my IKEA example. Very expensive capital expenditure, people love to shop there (it provides good service), and it provides jobs and tax revenue. Still, nobody is suggesting the public paying for a new IKEA warehouse? Why the double standard?

Fair enough about the mismatch about who pays and who gets benefit but your IKEA example is easy to reply to. IKEA is substitutable. There are similar (not exactly the same, but similar) subs. You can't substitute NHL hockey with the hitmen, or NLL or anything else really. So who cares if IKEA chooses to be around. The NHL can't be substituted, and people love it.

There is no IKEA furniture fan forum page out there that has been around for 15 years with thousands of members that have posted thousands of threads right?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with what some Calgarians believe is important to them and the city. Many are Flames fans that would like a new venue, many want the team to be financially competitive with the competition so the young guns era never returns, some want sports facilities that are on par with the other major cities so they can have pride over apologies when entertaining visitors, some like to go to concerts and would rather stay in Calgary for them rather than have to travel to Edmonton for the big acts. There is also many that are more interested in their tax money going to other things and that's fine as I don't think there's every been any situation like this in any city where it's been unanimous or close one way or another. People are always divided over where they believe tax money should go. This is no different.

Since someone already mentioned the salary cap, I won't rehash it. But another flaw in this thinking is simple business evaluation.

Imagine you're a dragon and someone is proposing a business idea that's dependent on the local government throwing you a billion dollars, and that you're business is worth a billion. What would you say to this guy? You'd tell him it sounds like his business ain't worth #### unless it's getting a hand out.

The Flames franchise is currently worth half a billion and it hasn't even taken your billion dollars yet. You think they NEED it? That they can't compete without it? Just look at how many jerseys are at the red mile, how many sell outs and luxury boxes are sold. Just Google Murray Edwards. If there's any person who doesnt need a hand out from struggling Calgarians in a bloody depression, its Murray ####ing Edwards. Maybe if it was some small time owner I could understand, but a billionaire two times over? You think if one key player is making 7 million, and then you consider current CEO:average salary ratios, you know the team is bloody raking it in. I promise you the on ice competition won't get any better with public subsidary.

You know, if they were a budget team, chances are they'd be acting more like the Yotes and surviving near the cap floor by taking on dead contracts like Pronger and Datsuk. That's the mark of a fiscally struggling franchise.

Honestly, you'd think some of these things were obvious?

[Jason14h]

There are a finite amount of NHL teams available.

Cities are willing to pay (build stadiums to get one)

If another city is willing to pay for a stadium, the Flames will either move or Calgary will have to pony up.

If no city is willing to build a stadium then the Flames will pay themselves or stay in the Dome.

Whether or not a city "should pay to subsidize millionaires" is irrelevant if ANY city is willing to do so who does not have a team.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Fair enough about the mismatch about who pays and who gets benefit but your IKEA example is easy to reply to. IKEA is substitutable. There are similar (not exactly the same, but similar) subs. You can't substitute NHL hockey with the hitmen, or NLL or anything else really. So who cares if IKEA chooses to be around. The NHL can't be substituted, and people love it.

There is no IKEA furniture fan forum page out there that has been around for 15 years with thousands of members that have posted thousands of threads right?

I betcha more people walk through those IKEA doors in a given year than the same 25 thousand who only show up 41 times. Maybe IKEA doesn't have a forum, but it's hardly easily substituted. If it was, it wouldn't be growing as crazy as it's been.

IKEA is worth 43 billion yo. It's fan base speaks for itself