Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I hate that this is starting to go public again.

Am I the only one who does not understand this line of thinking? Public money = public discussion. That doesn't mean we need to see every detail of the negotiation, but I don't think the fact sheets from the city earlier on were at all unreasonable (one can certainly argue some semantics, but at the end of the day you'd only be arguing that the city is trying too hard to protect tax dollars...).

Also, what's the point of hammering out a deal behind closed doors if the result is enough public outcry to squash it when it's released? Incremental information helps everyone measure public opinion.

Originally Posted by Matty81

Yeah I don't see this as a Flames led initiative, it's four guys stating their personal opinions that surprise no one. Tbh I'm outside of Calgary now but I think the Flames and the city need to find a way to get a deal done here soon - I was strongly against the flames initial proposal but I think arguments solely focusing on economics are flawed here... Peter made comments to the extent of the flames having cultural/social significance to the city and I agree, I don't think you can put a price tag on what the flames mean to the city and say that's it.

I hope something gets done soon, it's been depressing frankly watching a bunch of nimby killjoys and blowhard oil guys and their delegates hammering on each other with our hockey team as collateral.

Was there any other purpose for this filmed sit-down? Did they discuss other topics? Who paid Straycatt Productions?

Honest questions, I actually don't know the answers, but I think the answers are what determine whether propaganda is an appropriate word...

[flambers]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Am I the only one who does not understand this line of thinking? Public money = public discussion.

...

In my view it does not equal a public discussion. Nor should a public discussion be required. That type of thing always derails the topic.

I watched the video, it was well done. There is no harm for the alumni to send out this type of message.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by flambers

In my view it does not equal a public discussion. Nor should a public discussion be required. That type of thing always derails the topic.

I watched the video, it was well done. There is no harm for the alumni to send out this type of message.

I agree if you had public discussions on everything, nothing would ever get done. Public input for the most part occurs during voting.

I'm not saying that the public discussion should never occur. I'm just saying it's already happened and minds on either side aren't being changed at this point so it's unproductive.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by flambers

In my view it does not equal a public discussion. Nor should a public discussion be required. That type of thing always derails the topic.

I watched the video, it was well done. There is no harm for the alumni to send out this type of message.

I'm not criticizing the video at all (though I am curious about who quarterbacked it).

I'm criticizing CSEC's demand for [apparently one-sided] radio silence. They're not happy that the ridiculous things they asked for in the last round got out. Maybe they should never have asked for them, then.

Originally Posted by ST20

I agree if you had public discussions on everything, nothing would ever get done. Public input for the most part occurs during voting.

I'm not saying that the public discussion should never occur. I'm just saying it's already happened and minds on either side aren't being changed at this point so it's unproductive.

Public discussion does not have to slow things down (a venture of this size shouldn't happen that quickly to begin with) or de-rail them. Sunlight only offers the negotiators some guidance in term of public sentiment. For instance, the mixed-response in here, one of the biggest die-hard Flames fan communities, should give the city pause to how much more generous they/we are willing to be.

I'll also call BS on public input mostly happening through elections. While this may be somewhat true for a lot of people, it is the monitoring of issues and provision of feedback throughout the term that paves the way for people to actually base their votes on something (such as, how well the candidate addressed public feedback/concerns).

Seeing which councillors trot out pathetic ideas is an important part of 'public discussion', as is people disagreeing with them.

[sureLoss]

Some news. Tomorrow the Event center committee will release an economic impact study for the Rivers District. Monday they will compete for funds against the BMO Centre, Arts Commons, and fieldhouse.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...bate-1.4990986

Ahead of a city council meeting on Monday that will help determine which capital projects will take priority, proponents of a new arena are pushing for it to be on top of the pile.

Coun. Jeff Davison, who chairs the event centre assessment committee, confirmed they've been in conversation with the Flames ownership and talks are progressing.

"We are having high-level talks. Those talks have been positive. They have been proactive, and they have been respectful of each other's working positions," he said.

It's a far cry from previous talks on a new home for the Flames that ended in acrimony between the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation and Mayor Naheed Nenshi.

On Friday, the event centre committee will unveil both an economic impact study for the Rivers District where an arena could be built and an update on resources and the work plan for a new facility.

"This is not about an arena; it's about an entire district, and it's about bringing our city back to life," said Gondek.

On Monday, the event centre will face off against three other projects identified as priorities for funding — the aforementioned BMO Centre, a proposed Arts Commons Expansion and a new fieldhouse.

[sureLoss]

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...dollars-needed

The arena, along with the council-approved expansion of the BMO Centre, would “transform Victoria Park into a year-round, permanent gathering place” for Calgarians, Coun. Jeff Davison said Thursday.

“We’re operating now under the assumption that there is a need for public participation in the funding of this project,” Davison said.

“On top of the investment and the jobs and the revenue it would create, the event centre is the anchor point in developing a cultural gathering place for all Calgarians. We’ve confirmed that it’s critical that the event centre be so much more than a single use hockey arena, that the public spaces adjacent to the event centre are just as critical as the event centre itself.”

Ernst & Young, commissioned to conduct an economic impact study of the development of the Rivers District, will release its findings at Friday’s event centre committee meeting.

If council chooses to prioritize the arena project, Davison said a proposal would then be submitted to Calgary Sports and Entertainment for consideration. He said council would need to go to city administration to find a source of funding for the project.

[powderjunkie]

On top of the investment and the jobs and the revenue it would create, the event centre is the anchor point in developing a cultural gathering place for all Calgarians.

Other than temporary construction jobs, what jobs are being created?

Other than higher ticket, suite, and concessions prices, what revenue is being created?

If the answer to both is surrounding restaurants and businesses, I'll just leave the word 'substitution' right here...


I know I'm trotting out the same counter-points that have been stated so many times, but it's really all there is to be said when the same [weak] arguments are brought forward.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Other than temporary construction jobs, what jobs are being created?

Other than higher ticket, suite, and concessions prices, what revenue is being created?

If the answer to both is surrounding restaurants and businesses, I'll just leave the word 'substitution' right here...


I know I'm trotting out the same counter-points that have been stated so many times, but it's really all there is to be said when the same [weak] arguments are brought forward.

I hate the temporary construction jobs arguement. Environmentalists trot this out all the time as well. It's just ignorance of the fact that there is necessary work that does not fall into the traditional 9-5 mindset. 1000 people working for one year is the same as 100 people working for 10 years as far as the economy is concerned (ignoring time value of money).

It would also be smart for the city to target a larger project now vs in 5 years from now when construction competition and salaries could be through the roof again...

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by tkflames

I hate the temporary construction jobs arguement. Environmentalists trot this out all the time as well. It's just ignorance of the fact that there is necessary work that does not fall into the traditional 9-5 mindset. 1000 people working for one year is the same as 100 people working for 10 years as far as the economy is concerned (ignoring time value of money).

It would also be smart for the city to target a larger project now vs in 5 years from now when construction competition and salaries could be through the roof again...

yeah, i mean I am not necessarily 'pro arena'; i think that there's a fair contribution that the City and taxpayers should make... 33%... more than that needs a solid argument for the 'public good' for me, though i am not against it.

as for the temporary nature of the jobs, in working in a related field, i think people should understand that this is a misnomer... the jobs is temporary only in the sense that ANY construction project is temporary because there is a construction timetable.

For the people working at these jobs, its not temporary - it just the next project on the docket... Every general contractor and sub trade carry over a team of workers and in order to keep that group gainfully employed, they require a steady stream of projects lined up. This is not really that different from oil companies whose departments need a steady stream of work otherwise they get laid off...Once a construction project is completed, the workers simply move onto the next project...

its 'temporary' only in the sense that the construction job itself if predicated on an end date. But for the folks that work in industries like construction or related professions, there is a steady stream of projects; the hope is that there is always the next job in order to ensure you are able to keep good people working.

[powderjunkie]

I don't disagree with any of what's said above about 'temporary' jobs. Calling them temporary is overly simplistic, but it connotes the spirit of the argument well enough. A project that delivers full-time, sustainable/long-term jobs is almost always more valuable to the community & economy than jobs that are more precarious, and the reasons should be pretty obvious.

Availability of cheaper labour is a great argument for government's and private enterprises to invest in major projects. A high proportion of any government spending ends up in the pockets of citizens. It all comes down to priorities and public benefit...a fieldhouse, arena, ring-road, library, or LRT line all deliver plenty of employment hours for their construction (perhaps certain projects mean more wages paid per overall project dollar, but that should be a minimally important detail when comparing the validity of of a project)...the real question is which deliver more benefit to more citizens?

When people bitch about the cost of the library, why don't they find solace in the many employment hours used to construct it?

In the area of 'more benefit', I'd reiterate that a fieldhouse is creating something brand new that didn't previously exist. As is a ring-road or LRT line. IMO it's probably fair to say that the previous Central library was more desperate for replacement than the Saddledome, for a lot of reasons. Also, the space where the previous library was is now a valuable asset (most likely to go to Bow Valley College, perhaps well below market value, but that result would still be of benefit to Calgary).

A new arena delivers some very nice improvements and features, but ultimately has less capacity and higher barriers to entry. It trades however many sq meters of parking lot space for a nearly identical footprint of...parking lot space. Same P/T jobs as current (if anything, I'd be surprised if design improvements didn't result in fewer total employees required to operate the building, which is a positive for CSEC, but not taxpayers).

I just don't see how it should be anywhere higher than the bottom tenth of the city's major project wish-list right now.

[81MC]

Cultural centre, but we can’t even get rid of the scaffolding around the ArtsCommons.

[Bunk]

I interviewed Michael Brown, CEO of CMLC today for my podcast. He sits on the Event Centre Assessment Committee, and is steward of the Victoria Park Plan. We talked extensively about the arena.

Will be released early next week. Hopefully you’ll all have a listen. He did say he optimistic the timeframe for an agreement is the next 2-3 months.

[Parallex]

It would also be smart for the city to target a larger project now vs in 5 years from now when construction competition and salaries could be through the roof again...

Yeah... but Tariff-Man down south is making steel and aluminum more expensive.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yeah... but Tariff-Man down south is making steel and aluminum more expensive.

It's allot more complicated than that.

The prices dipped back down quite a bit now, not all of the way down. But at this point it could take years and years to unwind all of the damage he has done, and it might not even be the most prudent action for the next administration to rip the band-aid off right away.

I think its entirely possible the US could first open up to just North America again in the next two years, and that will actually entrench the new Canadian off shore tariff regime further, pushing prices back up to the high levels from 5 or 6 months ago

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/steel

[browna]

As soon as city councillors a few months ago started calling this thing an “event centre” and not an arena, and reminiscing about first concerts seen in buildings, you knew the proverbial dam had busted.

[Mr.Coffee]

I have heard from a decent source that ownership does not have the same kind of wealth they used to. That is obvious. But more specifically a guy like, say, Markin who was worth over $1B is now worth closer to like 90M.

So I’m pretty sure if Calgary wants to keep the Flames they’ll want to buck up and help pay for the arena. If so much public funds was suddenly available for a half cocked Olympics bid, I see no reason why money can’t be made available for this considering the exponential value to citizens over multiple decades of entertainment vs. 14 days.

Also, again if people think we are on the brink of some kind of boom in the next 5 years you’re delusional or just not reading the news.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also, again if people think we are on the brink of some kind of boom in the next 5 years you’re delusional or just not reading the news.

Look at you and your ability to see into the future!

[stone hands]

i like the insinuation that the city is going down the drain economically and will not get any better...so why not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a building for a private enterprise and make an already prohibitively expensive entertainment avenue for many calgarians currently even more out of reach as their financial outlooks dwindle

[Monahammer]

Calgary will be poor so we should pay for an arena to keep the flames is a terrible argument.

The business decisions of the owners outside of their CSE operations should not be considered at all during these negotiations imo. So what the owners have less money than before? Somehow this means to some people that the city should comp them a free cash cow?

[GordonBlue]

be a shame if they put the fieldhouse on the backburner to push the arena forward.

If I understand correctly if the arena gets public money then the BMO Centre, Arts Commons, and fieldhouse do not.