Evan Woolley's motion to reconsider Flames Arena funding fails 4-11

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by RM14

and would it be a game changer for the Green line?

Depending on how badly the downtown segment will need to be changed, it could be enough to fill in the gap to complete Stage 1. But the Green Line still needs another $2.4B to reach Panorama Hills and about $1B to reach Seton. And because of mediocre ridership of Stage 1, it'll cost the City $40M/year in operating costs.

[nik-]

Half assing public transit while handing money to a pro sports team is such a North American city move.

[morgin]

nm

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Corral

This is a smart move and good governance. The Flames can ask their UCP buddies for the 300 million.

You really need to ket your hatred of people who think differently from you go, it must be terrible starting each day hating someone because you don't like their label.

[Ozy_Flame]

As much as I want the new shiny arena, it's way better to consider the funding for needed infrastructure, and for a line that can service hundreds of thousands of Calgarians. Plus it would seem easier for private investors to put an arena deal together than a privately-funded transit line.

There is of course the whole other issues of limiting sprawl, and I think the City needs to get on that ASAP. There should be no reason a Green Line needs to go as far as it does; better urban renewal and development principles on pre-existing land with a focus on inner-city development should go along with infrastructure for any train lines. But this is an entirely different problem that no doubt the City will need to deal with. The current expansion outward is unsustainable.

Maybe the owners can team with Brett Wilson can get their rich friends to throw in a few bucks and keep the Flames in town. But it shouldn't the higher priority for the City of Calgary.

[Bigtime]

Really a long shot that this would even pass, unlike other council votes that need a simple majority this one would require 10 votes since it would be overturning a previous council decision.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Really a long shot that this would even pass, unlike other council votes that need a simple majority this one would require 10 votes since it would be overturning a previous council decision.

Good, guy is just grandstanding

[GGG]

The green line scope needs to be re-evaluated since the province is backing down. A BRT may be the right solution if the Feds were to buy in.

300 million doesn’t meaningfully change the outcome of a 4.5 billion dollar project

[Bigtime]

Farkas has just indicated he will second Woolley's motion.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Farkas has just indicated he will second Woolley's motion.

Wow. I agree with Farkas on something. This is new.

[djsFlames]

I don't live in the SE, so imo the green line can pound sand. Mackenzie towners can take the bus a while longer.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GGG

The green line scope needs to be re-evaluated since the province is backing down. A BRT may be the right solution if the Feds were to buy in.

300 million doesn’t meaningfully change the outcome of a 4.5 billion dollar project

This, idiots will be talking like its either or...and then operating costs

[Torture]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I don't live in the SE, so imo the green line can pound sand.

That seems like a reasonable position.

[CSharp]

To me, with the economy the way it is right now, it would actually be best to build the arena over the Green Line. If Calgary wants to revitalize the downtown area and into the East Village and get businesses going again, there's no better way to do it and regain some money back afterwards. The Green Line doesn't add value to the City in any way and the City's transit system is and has always been very poor when you compare it to other major cities in Canada and around the world. The city actually needs to have a vibrant downtown to attract tenants and I think a new arena that can host top end venues will attract 10-20 times more people than it currently can. Once you get the new arena in place and it's generating revenue, then think about extending the line to the airport and finally the Green Line.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by CSharp

The Green Line doesn't add value to the City in any way and the City's transit system is and has always been very poor when you compare it to other major cities in Canada and around the world.

Huh?

Calgary's transit system is incredibly successful based on ridership for a city our size. BUT, if it was actually "very poor" wouldn't that be justification to invest in it to make it better?

[FlameyMcFlameFace]

For those against the arena, could the timing get anymore perfect?

- economy got worse
- flames are trash so the arena isn’t even full
- we have a racist coach


Sigh. What a time to be Calgarian.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by CSharp

To me, with the economy the way it is right now, it would actually be best to build the arena over the Green Line. If Calgary wants to revitalize the downtown area and into the East Village and get businesses going again, there's no better way to do it and regain some money back afterwards. The Green Line doesn't add value to the City in any way and the City's transit system is and has always been very poor when you compare it to other major cities in Canada and around the world. The city actually needs to have a vibrant downtown to attract tenants and I think a new arena that can host top end venues will attract 10-20 times more people than it currently can. Once you get the new arena in place and it's generating revenue, then think about extending the line to the airport and finally the Green Line.

You won't find many economists that talk about economic stimulus from building arenas.

"The basic idea is that sports stadiums typically aren't a good tool for economic development," said Victor Matheson, an economist at Holy Cross who has studied the economic impact of stadium construction for decades. When cities cite studies (often produced by parties with an interest in building the stadium) touting the impact of such projects, there is a simple rule for determining the actual return on investment, Matheson said: "Take whatever number the sports promoter says, take it and move the decimal one place to the left. Divide it by ten, and that's a pretty good estimate of the actual economic impact."

Others agree. While "it is inarguable that within a few blocks you'll have an effect," the results are questionable for metro areas as a whole, Stefan Szymanski, a sports economist at the University of Michigan, said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...adiums/260900/

Public transit, on the other hand:

In a new paper set for publication in Urban Studies, Chatman and fellow planner Robert Noland of Rutgers University use concrete numbers to make the case that transit produces agglomeration. They report that this hidden economic value of transit could be worth anywhere from $1.5 million to $1.8 billion a year, depending on the size of the city. And the bigger the city, they find, the bigger the agglomeration benefit of expanding transit.

Simply put, city officials now have a much stronger argument for using taxpayer money to improve their public transportation service.

"These results could be dropped directly into a cost-benefit analysis," says Chatman. "It would show a higher benefits-cost ratio for rail investments, particularly rail investments in large cities with existing transit networks."

https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/08...ou-think/6532/

Or another:

Research findings in the 2014 APTA publication, “Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment,” describe the increased economic productivity due to investment in urban transportation, especially when those investments are maintained over many years, as estimated in a 20-year scenario: “The impact by the end of the 20-year period would represent a ratio of more than $3.7 billion per year of additional GDP per $1 billion invested annually. This includes $2 billion due to the productivity effect of cost savings in the economy and $1.7 billion supported by a pattern of public transportation investment spending.”

What does that mean in terms of jobs? The study estimates an investment of $1 billion in public transportation would result in approximately 50,731 jobs.

https://www.providencejournal.com/ZZ...boosts-economy

[FlameyMcFlameFace]

For those against the arena, could the timing get anymore perfect?

- economy got worse
- flames are trash so the arena isn’t even full
- we have a racist coach


Sigh. What a time to be Calgarian.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by kevman

Huh?

Calgary's transit system is incredibly successful based on ridership for a city our size. BUT, if it was actually "very poor" wouldn't that be justification to invest in it to make it better?

Go ride other transit systems - say in Vancouver, Toronto, all rail systems in Europe, China, and Japan and let me know if your views are going to change. Calgary transit has improved a bit over the past 20-years, but they're so far behind it's not even funny!

[CaptainCrunch]

I would think that logically if the City does vote to back out on the Arena Deal that it would be prudent for the Flames ownership to explore deals that they could get elsewhere. I doubt there are too many billionaires that are willing to finance a arena in Calgary right now.