Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But that’s not the point. It’s how you prioritize this over other finding needs. Everyone asking for a buck from the city can argue the impact on individual taxpayers is immaterial.

The City is prioritizing the entertainment district right now to spur Vic Park development.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But that’s not the point. It’s how you prioritize this over other finding needs. Everyone asking for a buck from the city can argue the impact on individual taxpayers is immaterial.

It is the point if the argument is "my taxes will go up" and not "my current taxes will be reallocated". If the taxes were not going up without it, it's not a priority question, it's an additional amount question. And if the amount is very minimal, IMO that impacts the argument.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It is the point if the argument is "my taxes will go up" and not "my current taxes will be reallocated". If the taxes were not going up without it, it's not a priority question, it's an additional amount question. And if the amount is very minimal, IMO that impacts the argument.

Except what if the increased tax amount is less than the extra shifts you get, or the extra widgets you sell in your business or however else you get you pockets lined? If the cost is minimal compared to the economic benefit to the tax payers, then isn't it a good investment?

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by dino7c

What does your personal opinion on music have to do with anything

The Who is a pretty big draw, one of the biggest bands of all time...not coming to Calgary

You're not wrong but the way Nenshi has been dragging his feet on this I doubt the new venue will be open by 1974.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Except what if the increased tax amount is less than the extra shifts you get, or the extra widgets you sell in your business or however else you get you pockets lined? If the cost is minimal compared to the economic benefit to the tax payers, then isn't it a good investment?

Sure. But that's a different argument than what some are making which is "I want zero public money". I get that argument, but I think it's a one line statement of position and then there's no reason to say much more.

If it's a net benefit argument, there's lots to talk about, lots of studies, etc. At the end of the day it's hard to quantify the net benefit, considering that there are intangible and unquantifiable benefits.

Me, I just want to see a deal done that isn't outrageous either way. I'd also like to see it negotiated by professionals before the politics side is even broached.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Metallica has played Edmonton twice since they have been to Calgary...and the last time they went to both the Calgary show was scaled back because they were unable to place the stage dead center in the arena like they did everywhere else.

I'm sure there are other examples but I know that one to be fact

Since they put in the new scoreboard, the Saddledome can't handle centre-stage shows anymore. The building already had a low ceiling because of the saddle shape, but then they went and put a really tall scoreboard in that can't be moved out of the way. Since then, any show that uses any kind of centre-stage set-up has to either be revised or it has to skip Calgary.

If you look at the tickets for the Carrie Underwood tour, it appears her stage is going to basically stretch from one end of the arena to the other. That's likely why she's playing every other city in Western Canada, including Saskatoon, but skipping Calgary.

[Manhattanboy]

Anyone hearing anything out there as to status of negotiations?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It is the point if the argument is "my taxes will go up" and not "my current taxes will be reallocated". If the taxes were not going up without it, it's not a priority question, it's an additional amount question. And if the amount is very minimal, IMO that impacts the argument.

Not much difference there. It’s always about allocation - you have to convince people this is a deserving reason for their taxes to go up vs. other competing priorities. If you ignore other needs by simply stating it won’t cost you very much, it’s not very persuasive IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Not much difference there. It’s always about allocation - you have to convince people this is a deserving reason for their taxes to go up vs. other competing priorities. If you ignore other needs by simply stating it won’t cost you very much, it’s not very persuasive IMO.

It's totally different. The posts I was talking about just said "my taxes are going up".

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's totally different. The posts I was talking about just said "my taxes are going up".

If someone has had enough of anything, the “it’s only one more” argument is not a good one.

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Probably by Friday.

Monday, sorry.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If someone has had enough of anything, the “it’s only one more” argument is not a good one.

Again, that's not really the argument. It's "I don't want my taxes to go up because of the arena." And when asked if there's a value to it, the answer is invariable "one dollar of public money is too much". My issue is not that it's an invalid position. It's that it's a position that requires no further debate. It's not about what deal would work best. It's about not wanting any deal at all. Fair enough, but it's the beginning, middle and end of the argument. There's nothing further to talk about.

[Bunk]

The episode with Ryan Pike is up:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2019/05/...flames-nation/

First half is Arena talk, second half is team talk. Enjoy!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Again, that's not really the argument. It's "I don't want my taxes to go up because of the arena." And when asked if there's a value to it, the answer is invariable "one dollar of public money is too much". My issue is not that it's an invalid position. It's that it's a position that requires no further debate. It's not about what deal would work best. It's about not wanting any deal at all. Fair enough, but it's the beginning, middle and end of the argument. There's nothing further to talk about.

I thought you were initially referring to people not wanting their taxes to increase. Which is one position, which could be rebutted by arguing economic gain for the taxpayers or an allocation of funding argument.

But if you’re referring to people not wanting “one dollar of public money” to go towards an arena then people that believe this aren’t talking about their taxes going up, generally speaking. It’s about public subsidy for private business.

I think back to your point that it’s only a few dollars for each taxpayer, and I’m still left with how weak a position that is for the arena side. It’s essentially admitting it’s a bad idea but not big enough to care about.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I thought you were initially referring to people not wanting their taxes to increase. Which is one position, which could be rebutted by arguing economic gain for the taxpayers or an allocation of funding argument.

But if you’re referring to people not wanting “one dollar of public money” to go towards an arena then people that believe this aren’t talking about their taxes going up, generally speaking. It’s about public subsidy for private business.

I think back to your point that it’s only a few dollars for each taxpayer, and I’m still left with how weak a position that is for the arena side. It’s essentially admitting it’s a bad idea but not big enough to care about.

I don't think so - I think it's the opposite. I hear people think it's a big deal to their taxes without any real concept of the actual impact. Is that admitting it's a bad idea or just having a misconception of the magnitude of cost?

[jayswin]

Yeah, Gio is dancing around with words to diminish those that don't want any money going to this, but at the end of the day not wanting a single penny of tax dollars going to a private corporation is a valid opinion.

His statement is very telling, while he claims he doesn't believe no public funding is an invalid argument, he suggest otherwise, his bias shines through.

My issue is not that it's an invalid position. It's that it's a position that requires no further debate. It's not about what deal would work best. It's about not wanting any deal at all. Fair enough, but it's the beginning, middle and end of the argument. There's nothing further to talk about.

He maybe doesn't realize it but what he's doing here is basically saying "the adults who can debate properly understand there's room to make a deal, it's just the details that have to be hammered out, which some are willing to at least debate. While the no side just says no".

Well this suggests that the no side has nothing and is willing to give nothing to a debate, which suggests the actual debate is how many dollars go to it, not whether any money at all goes to it.

That is not the debate, and not wanting a penny going towards is not arguing in bad faith or bringing nothing to the discussion, he's attempting to take that position out of the discussion, to silence it because he wants a new arena.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't think so - I think it's the opposite. I hear people think it's a big deal to their taxes without any real concept of the actual impact. Is that admitting it's a bad idea or just having a misconception of the magnitude of cost?

For many it's an issue of how a society operates, not necessarily the amount of loonies added to their taxes each year. You have a country where mental illness treatment is woefully under funded, schools are overcrowded and many basic societal foundations are cracking.

We also have a very uncertain future economic forecast in western world. These are things that well off people likely don't notice in their day to day, but for many the idea that a single penny would go into the pockets of billionaires wanting a new arena to make more revenue for themselves is downright appalling and irresponsible.

Your semantics over whether it's current tax dollars being shuffled around or new tax dollars being added is inconsequential to the fundamental and very valid belief that our tax dollars need to take care of society before they help billionaires make money.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, Gio is dancing around with words to diminish those that don't want any money going to this, but at the end of the day not wanting a single penny of tax dollars going to a private corporation is a valid opinion.

His statement is very telling, while he claims he doesn't believe no public funding is an invalid argument, he suggest otherwise, his bias shines through.





He maybe doesn't realize it but what he's doing here is basically saying "the adults who can debate properly understand there's room to make a deal, it's just the details that have to be hammered out, which some are willing to at least debate. While the no side just says no".

Well this suggests that the no side ahs nothing and is willing to give nothing to a debate, which suggests the actual debate is how many dollars to it.

That is not the debate, and not wanting a penny going towards is not arguing in bad faith or bringing nothing to the discussion, he's attempting to take that position out of the discussion, to silence it because he wants a new arena.

Thanks for putting insults into my mouth. I have never suggested that those who oppose any public money aren't "adults" or are taking that position in bad faith. I don't mean to diminish the argument, it's perfectly valid. I just think it's not a position that is amendable to debate. Whereas how much, what's a good deal, what public facilities can be included is a longer, more involved discussion.

What is bad faith is having that position and then pretending to debate the merits of a deal, when in reality, no deal is good enough.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

For many it's an issue of how a society operates, not necessarily the amount of loonies added to their taxes each year. You have a country where mental illness treatment is woefully under funded, schools are overcrowded and man basic societal foundations are cracking.

We also have a very uncertain future economic forecast in western world. These are things that well off people likely don't notice in their day to day, but for many the idea that a single penny would go into the pockets of billionaires wanting a new arena to make more revenue for themselves is downright appalling and irresponsible.

Your semantics over whether it's current tax dollars being shuffled around or new tax dollars being added is inconsequential to the fundamental and very valid belief that our tax dollars need to take care of society before they help billionaires make money.

That's all fair enough. But I don't think it's semantics to differentiate the arguments of (a) not wanting any public money to go into an arena, (b) saying there are priorities (which suggests that if there was simply a lot more revenue and other items were better funded that the position would be different) and (c) simply saying that one's personal taxes would be negatively impacted. Those are three different arguments and conflating them is not helpful either.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The episode with Ryan Pike is up:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2019/05/...flames-nation/

First half is Arena talk, second half is team talk. Enjoy!

This is an informative podcast featuring handsome, intelligent people.