[News] CalgaryNEXT Announcement. New arena details emerge.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Funny tweets and encouraging messages on social media aside what did he do?

The leadership Nenshi showed during the flood was second to none. Try to belittle it as much as you want now but he was the calm cool collected leader the city needed at the time. He was in constant communication with a confused disoriented city and yes twitter and social media was a big part of that.

You don't like the guy, you don't like the job he's doing fine but suggesting all he's done is win a popularity contest shows a disgusting lack of ignorance, especially when there are things you can hammer him on.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by greentree

Not cynical. Just not impressed.
Calgarians, you are being sold a load of bunk today, from a slickster-hickster ad man.
The city can do better than this complicated, mish-mash utility concept. Pretty second rate. Thank goodness it's just a trial balloon.

Have to agree. I was expecting better. Still seems very disorganized and not really well thought out which is surprising given how long it has taken. Selfishly as a hockey fan I'd just love to go to a new arena but this definitely didn't get me excited or give me confidence in the plan.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

We don't know if the city fronts the ticket tax money.

Who else would it be? I'd imagine that if CS&E were doing it they'd include that in their part of the ledger.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The leadership Nenshi showed during the flood was second to none. Try to belittle it as much as you want now but he was the calm cool collected leader the city needed at the time. He was in constant communication with a confused disoriented city and yes twitter and social media was a big part of that.

You don't like the guy, you don't like the job he's doing fine but suggesting all he's done is win a popularity contest shows a disgusting lack of ignorance, especially when there are things you can hammer him on.

While I would say the whole flood thing was a bit contrived, you cannot mistake the fact that Nenshi and similarly minded councillors have led Calgary to a much more impressive downtown area with a great mix of commercial, residential areas. We wouldnt be talking about a downtown arena without this shift in policy thinking.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I'd like to see a discounted cash flow comparing projected property tax receipts in the area upon redevelopment (less costs borne by the City) against the status quo.

Then we can see whether this make sense to the taxpayer.

I'd like to see that too. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to doctor those numbers that we're very unlikely ever to see an honest accounting.

If you're in favour of the development (and also a liar), you can discount the cost of city services to the new development and pretend that more of the new tax receipts can go to amortize the project cost than is actually the case.

If you're against the development (and also a liar), you can pretend that the cost of upgrades to Bow Trail and rebuilding the Bow-Crow nightmare should all be charged specifically against the cost of this development, rather than being a separate infrastructure issue that the city would have to pay for in any case.

If I were a forensic accountant, I might have the expertise to go at the raw numbers and figure out what the true costs and benefits of the project are… but if I were a forensic accountant, nobody involved – pro or anti – would be stupid enough to let me see the raw numbers in the first place.

Nobody has asked me, but here's my general opinion so far: The project looks like a good idea. Ken King has a definite point about lower cost if the various facilities are combined. Remediation and road upgrades are going to have to be done in any case and should not be included in the cost of the project. The ‘ticket tax’ is kosher and does not amount to public funding (unless the city subsidizes the interest payments, which I would oppose).

The CRL money raises some yellow flags for me, and I really would like to see CSEC pay a bigger chunk than $200m. At present, the Flames need a new building a lot more than the City of Calgary does, and the city should use that leverage to get the best possible deal on the project. But the project itself, on its merits, likely does deserve to go through.

No doubt both sides will attack me as an idiot for saying all this.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

We don't know if the city fronts the ticket tax money.

I'm using the precedent from the Edmonton deal.

Also, I will absolutely wait for more details, but the fact that King ducked the question rather than confidently state that CS&E will front the money and recoup it through a ticket tax tells me that he is expecting the City to front it.

[Regular_John]

Is Calgary really in that much need of a "field house" at this point?

From what I can tell there's a constant shortage of ice times in this city for amature sports, but I don't recall hearing of that same crunch of soccer/football/track fields.

Right now it's sort of looking like the Flames attempting to get the bill flipped for new homes for two... no wait, FOUR of it's franchises (Flames, Hitmen, Roughnecks, Stampeders) under the gist of amature/public sports facilities?

Although if I'm reading things correctly the city ends up owning all the facilities at the end of the day? With the Flames essentially being a tenant of sorts?

[calf]

Originally Posted by shutout

If you have a business and lease out a shop, are you sharing your business revenue with your landlord? No. You pay a lease amount and that is the landlords revenue.

Many malls do take a cut of a shop's gross revenue/sales, especially if they supported the store by paying for leasehold improvements before they move in.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Funny tweets and encouraging messages on social media aside what did he do?

I would like to think more than one person "handled" that situation

"no money" is just lazy

eventually stadiums will have to be built
eventually the toxic wasteland will need to be cleaned up

if he doesn't have anything constructive to say yet just hold off

of course there is some money. He just doesnt want to waste it on a new arena that will not benefit the public

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cappy

While I would say the whole flood thing was a bit contrived, you cannot mistake the fact that Nenshi and similarly minded councillors have led Calgary to a much more impressive downtown area with a great mix of commercial, residential areas. We wouldnt be talking about a downtown arena without this shift in policy thinking.

In what way?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Wait, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding that funding chart.

Right now, the City fronts the 250M (you're not understanding this), and then recoups it through ticket tax (this part you have it right). That 250M is a very large loan and a large liability on our city. It has significant risk - if oil continues to stay low, or maybe Gaudreau/Monahan/Brodie/Hamilton all have career ending injuries, it's very possible that the complex is not break-even.

I don't think you are understanding this correctly. As King stated in his presentation, the way the $250M commitment is financed has not been decided and it may be privately financed.

Regardless, the cost of the ticket levy will ultimately be borne by the Flames organization and the fans who purchase tickets.

The risk is that demand for hockey and football tickets goes to zero and the teams fold. do you see that happening?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm using the precedent from the Edmonton deal.

Also, I will absolutely wait for more details, but the fact that King ducked the question rather than confidently state that CS&E will front the money and recoup it through a ticket tax tells me that he is expecting the City to front it.

He didn't duck the question at all - he said that it could be the city fronting it, it could be standard commercial financing - it hasn't been figured out yet.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by shutout

Why would the city get any of the revenue generated?

CSE is a tenant in the building. They would pay a proper annual lease amount for the building. That is the revenue the city gets. The business revenue generated by CSE belongs to CSE.

If you have a business and lease out a shop, are you sharing your business revenue with your landlord? No. You pay a lease amount and that is the landlords revenue.

Actually, there are plenty of leases that have a revenue component built in for the landlord (food courts in malls, for example).
Not saying that will be the form here, but it is one of many possibilities. As mentioned earlier, I haven't heard much about the current Saddledome lease. I assume both parties are ok with it and a new lease arrangement can be negotiated.

[tvp2003]

As long as they kill it with the design/construction of the Event Centre, the Fieldhouse can be as plain jane as they need it to be (not suggesting it will be; just stating that the big draw here will be NHL hockey; CFL and amateur sports, while important, are coming along for the ride.

Also, the Stamps are drawing 28k based on the current infrastructure but also the current prices. Assuming the cost of tickets will reflect the available amenities, don't bet on demand swelling by 4-5k per game simply because of the nice shiny arena. Higher ticket costs will balance that out -- I'd say 30k sounds about right.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Who else would it be? I'd imagine that if CS&E were doing it they'd include that in their part of the ledger.

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm using the precedent from the Edmonton deal.

Also, I will absolutely wait for more details, but the fact that King ducked the question rather than confidently state that CS&E will front the money and recoup it through a ticket tax tells me that he is expecting the City to front it.

King said this has not been decided on it can be like Edmonton and be from the city or a commercial loan.

[Tacopuck]

I'm curious what the public reaction would be if the Flames asked the City to front the ticket tax but with a financing structure that gives the city a profit through interest on that amount but would cost less in interest compared to a typical private financier. This way while the city has to front Cash (assuming this cash is from tax revenue and is not borrowed cash) but at least makes a return on that investment

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I don't think you are understanding this correctly. As King stated in his presentation, the way the $250M commitment is financed has not been decided and it may be privately financed.

This. CSE would obviously like very much for the city to front the $250 million to be funded by a ticket tax - because then they really aren't responsible for the interest and whatnot - but King made it very clear that the city is only one option. He specifically mentioned corporate lenders as well.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Well, there would be a few things to draw. Like the multi use field house for starters, I like living close to a rec center for obvious reasons. Gives me activities, keeps me fit. Theres also the influx of bars and restaurants in the area, not just in the arena. Theres also the clean up and overall beautification of the surrounding land. You've got a really short and narrow sighted view of the entire project, arena aside (which is what we're all here for, no?)

Think of east village as well, fort calgary was a homeless infested crap hole (trust me, I work down there), they cleaned it up, they use it for regular events, it draws people. They cleaned up the river bank. They made it more "people friendly". The proposed shops, condos, general lifestyle touches. The pedestrian bridge to the island. All of that draws people, developers, and such. But it took something to kick the vision into gear, the first step.

Is this ambitious? Absolutely.. Will this be an improvement over what is one of the ugliest plots of waterfront land in the city? Undeniably. And you bet I'd love to live close by

Yes, East Village was revitalized without the need to spend 600 million on an arena. And get this, they still have to spend millions on beautifying the area. The arena isnt going to do that. The fieldhouse is a glorified gymnasium of which there are several.

I agree that stadiums can be used as a focal point to a larger revitalization (THE ICE district in Edmonton) but it also involves a massive amount of capital investment in all the other stuff (hotels, condos, etc.) and the flames havent offered that. They have said, if we build it, people will come! which studies have shown is far from true. I would also argue that stadiums are probably one of the worst epicenters for area gentrification.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Right now, the City fronts the 250M (you're not understanding this), and then recoups it through ticket tax (this part you have it right).

Right now, the banks front the 250m (you're not understanding this) and the city guarantees it as the borrower of record. If CSEC defaults on the terms of its operating agreement on the facility, then all revenues accruing to the facility will revert to the city (along with the job of booking events and paying for maintenance). The facility will not magically become empty, and the ticket tax will still be collectable. The only thing that would interfere is if the NHL actually left town, which is not going to happen barring an unforeseen disaster many times larger in scale than either the recent floods or the not-so-recent NEP.

That 250M is a very large loan and a large liability on our city. It has significant risk - if oil continues to stay low, or maybe Gaudreau/Monahan/Brodie/Hamilton all have career ending injuries, it's very possible that the complex is not break-even.

Injuries to particular hockey players are not going to cause the Flames to leave town. Show me a case where that has ever happened in the history of professional sports.

As for oil continuing to stay low: Oil is a cyclical commodity. The price is never permanently high or permanently low. But for some reason, when the price is high, people foolishly assume it will go up forever, and when it is low, people foolishly assume it will never go up again. Both of those assumptions are plainly false and need not be taken into account.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

$250m from ticket buyers is not from the taxpayer.

$240m in CRL is not from general tax revenues, but specifically from the taxes paid by property owners in the West Village.

Only the $200m comes from general revenues, and that was the money the city was planning to spend on the fieldhouse anyway.

The real question is whether the West Village would be developed in any meaningful way without a project like this to kickstart it. If you think it would be, then the $240m from the CRL could be spent on other things. But the history of the half-century since the creosote plant shut down makes me skeptical. The City of Calgary has had many development plans that were formally adopted but never came to anything. Look up the history of the failed 50th Avenue freeway for an example.

If I could thank this post I would, but I think this is the big kicker and couple with it the fact the city would own all the lands and the facilities. The area has been a general wasteland since I was born. Even the condos that appeared on the westend of downtown are a blackhole of activity.