Burke at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce

[theoforever]

Benefits to the city or not. One thing for sure rich always get richer.

[Azure]

One would have to think that if the taxpayers would be paying for the arena and nobody would have a problem with the plans would be in motion already.

The fact that nothing is happening indicates that the Flames might be trying to get money from the province/city and it isn't happening at the moment.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Azure

The fact that nothing is happening indicates that the Flames might be trying to get money from the province/city and it isn't happening at the moment.

While I don't discount some informal talks may have taken place any real negotiations surely would have made it into the media circles if this was the case. I think they are simply making sure they have settled on a project scope and location before negotiating with the province/city.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If I'm not mistaken, the economic benefit has been proven to be a negative for new sports arenas

even if that is true, which I doubt. Losing a team would be much more negative than building an arena.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If I'm not mistaken, the economic benefit has been proven to be a negative for new sports arenas

Actually, the economic benefit for an arena by itself has been observed to be near zero (not negative). This however does not take into account many if the things he just mentioned, including development around the arena, tax dollars paid by occupants, etc.

It's simply that a new arena and the jobs it directly provides shows no economic benefit. It's not a negative, but when building an arena there has to be more to it than just "New arena, now there's a team in it."

Here's a good quote from someone smarter than myself, and an interesting article on the subject:

"All of the independent, scholarly research on the issue of whether sports teams and facilities have a positive economic impact has come to the same conclusion: One should not anticipate that a team or a facility by itself will either increase employment or raise per capita income in a metropolitan area."

http://www.mintpressnews.com/stadium...nomics/190351/

That said, regarding new plans for the arena and the debate over taxpayer dollars:

[Tyler]

[strombad]

[nik-]

Originally Posted by strombad

Archaic weirdos ... or anyone that works in an office?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by nik-

Archaic weirdos ... or anyone that works in an office?

One of two.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by strombad

Actually, the economic benefit for an arena by itself has been observed to be near zero (not negative). This however does not take into account many if the things he just mentioned, including development around the arena, tax dollars paid by occupants, etc.

It's simply that a new arena and the jobs it directly provides shows no economic benefit. It's not a negative, but when building an arena there has to be more to it than just "New arena, now there's a team in it."

Here's a good quote from someone smarter than myself, and an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/stadium...nomics/190351/
That said, regarding new plans for the arena and the debate over taxpayer dollars:

Exactly so, but as mentioned above, direct ancillary benefits are significant (assuming of course a good business model).
What is remarkable, though, is the deal Katz made with the city of Edmonton. He really bent them over a barrel on that one. If I understand it correctly, Katz is contributing $161.5 million to the overall project (including winter garden), only $23.7 million is actual cash investment – the other $138 million investment will come in the form of a lease, paid over 35 years. Katz also receives all revenue operating revenue from the facility.
The 11th richest man in Canada (according to Forbes) only puts up 23.7 Million in cash for a 600 million dollar project?
In addition, the city of Edmonton is really mortgaging the future on projected increased tax revenues through new development around the arena... which I'm not suggesting isn't sound economics, but it's definitely a huge risk to the taxpayer.
I expect this has been covered in great detail here already, but here is the link to the deal in Edmonton:

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...agreement.aspx

Katz has ruthlessly leveraged Edmonton's love affair with the Oilers into the biggest sweetheart deal ever - it has nothing to do with welfare mentality, and Flames ownership will be lobbying for more of the same for them. These guys did not rise to be among the richest men in Canada for no reason.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Ritchie = sutter pick

[RM14]

A refreshingly good read on Calgary Flames ownership and contributions to the city.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...tml?id=9929766

The owners of the Flames are indeed well off, and the players well compensated for their talents, but that’s hardly cause to dismiss the idea of providing a measure of support to the team, which even a decade ago, was estimated to have an economic impact of between $75 million and $100 million annually.

Far from denigrating the Flames and their owners, we should count ourselves lucky that they’re part of our community. We’re talking about individuals such as Alvin Libin, who helped establish the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta with a mission of providing world-class cardiovascular health care, education and research. Philanthropist Allan Markin is another of the team’s owners. Along with supporting countless other causes, Markin gave $18 million to the University of Calgary in 2004. The donation capped $22 million in gifts to the U of C by Markin in a five-year period and another $20 million to St. Mary’s University College.

[mccalgary71]

Originally Posted by RM14

A refreshingly good read on Calgary Flames ownership and contributions to the city.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...tml?id=9929766

Quote:

The owners of the Flames are indeed well off, and the players well compensated for their talents, but that’s hardly cause to dismiss the idea of providing a measure of support to the team, which even a decade ago, was estimated to have an economic impact of between $75 million and $100 million annually.

Far from denigrating the Flames and their owners, we should count ourselves lucky that they’re part of our community. We’re talking about individuals such as Alvin Libin, who helped establish the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta with a mission of providing world-class cardiovascular health care, education and research. Philanthropist Allan Markin is another of the team’s owners. Along with supporting countless other causes, Markin gave $18 million to the University of Calgary in 2004. The donation capped $22 million in gifts to the U of C by Markin in a five-year period and another $20 million to St. Mary’s University College.

Excellent article did not even realize the studios were being almost totally funded by government agencies.


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RM14

A refreshingly good read on Calgary Flames ownership and contributions to the city.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...tml?id=9929766

I'm not sure I understand the point. Are these guys going to leave Calgary or stop giving to charities if the city doesn't fund a new arena?

And this is a real howler:

Granted, a new arena would carry a bigger price tag than a film studio, but opposition to helping the Flames build a new home seems to be based on principle — objection to the idea of using public money to fluff up private interests.

I'm sure there wouldn't be much opposition to the city putting up $20 million towards a new arena. The fact it's going to be more like $200 million is what will bring down a firestorm of criticism - though clearly not from the Calgary Herald. Good to see Calgary's newspaper of record has the back of the city's plutocrats.

[Joborule]

Not really (although they could pull out the card if need be), but moreso they have contributed to the community for a long period of time, so some public funding towards the arena project shouldn't be off the table.

50/50 is too high, but I don't believe the public would be upset (much) if 25-33% of the arena comes from tax payers. This is a project that could have significant impact to the area it's built at, and provide Calgarians amenities it didn't have before. Having a 'LA Live' in Victoria Park or the West Village would be awesome.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by RM14

A refreshingly good read on Calgary Flames ownership and contributions to the city.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...tml?id=9929766

I read this article, and while I agree with the main message, I don't agree with it overall.

Firstly, these guys are businessmen in Oil and Gas. They will be here Flames or no Flames. Being a philanthropist is who they are, Flames or not. So trotting out the thought that taxpayers should give to them because they gave to the community is pretty faulty logic.

Second, the comparison between funding a $28 million movie studio and $500 million rink (which is used only part of the year) is a huge stretch too. To me they are just not the same things. One is a pure entertainment investment (rink) and the other is helping foster an industry in Calgary outside Oil and Gas (Studio).

Other than his really poor examples and comparisons, he is right. I do think we as taxpayers should be willing to talk on the arena. However, there has to be clear expectations that government will be a minor contributor money wise. The lion share has to come from business. If they want to put up more money, and exchange for better revenue share then by all means.

Drawing a line in the sand and saying zero money is just stupid. I am actually surprised Druh "Intangible value bridge" Farrel is taking that stance.

So, I think the Flames are an economic generator for the city. We need to recognize and appreciate that. However, they are also going no where. They are not going to move the team over this or even threaten it. They saw what happened last time, and this time they have even less PR ammo.

So as long as the city plays their cards right, and throws in a minor amount, and helps other ways (red tape, land, etc) I am totally fine with some of my taxes going to a new dome. Just don't be stupid like Edmonton.

[jofillips]

out of interest was the stadium being built (and publicly funded right?) in Edmonton full of taxpayer controversy/debate like this?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

So as long as the city plays their cards right, and throws in a minor amount, and helps other ways (red tape, land, etc) I am totally fine with some of my taxes going to a new dome. Just don't be stupid like Edmonton.

I don't think most Calgarian will have a problem with the city putting up the money for land and infrastructure around the complex. But if the owners want much more than about $50 million in support from the city, they're going to have a real battle on their hands.

I think the Herald editorial board realizes that. Because frankly, that editorial comes across like the beginning of a PR campaign that the Herald is embarking on to maximize the amount of money the owners extract from the city.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Second, the comparison between funding a $28 million movie studio and $500 million rink (which is used only part of the year) is a huge stretch too.

You're missing a significant zero on the $28 as it's $228. Movie producers are also millionaires and billionaires and the city is funding a facility for their private enterprise. The main revenues go back to LA or wherever. The Calgary Flames have done a heck of a lot more for this city than movie companies. Although I agree with the studio project.

It seems this money wen't to the movie studio though pretty smoothly without any crying, yet anytime talk of a new arena, people whine that our Billionaire owners can pay for it themselves. Even though they haven't once ask for anything. The main point I take away is that we are lucky to have the Flames and a community minded ownership group.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by RM14

You're missing a significant zero on the $28 as it's $228. Movie producers are also millionaires and billionaires and the city is funding a facility for their private enterprise.

No, the studio is $22.8 million: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...115/story.html

Alongside the $5 million by the province, the facility will be funded by $10 million from the City of Calgary, $6.8-million from Calgary Economic Development and $1 million from William F. White.

He multiplied it by 10 to make the numbers closer to the cost of an NHL arena.