Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum

View Poll Results: Do you feel not using public funds is worth the Flames moving?
Yes 180 32.26%
No 378 67.74%
Voters: 558. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-02-2017, 01:28 AM   #1301
You Need a Thneed
Voted for Kodos
 
You Need a Thneed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
I scribbled this thinking I might submit as an op-ed to a paper, but I don't think I'll do that, so I'll just post it here. A summary of my thoughts - most of which will already be familiar to most here:

--

Mayor Nenshi last week declared that Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation’s (CSEC) CalgaryNEXT proposal in the West Village district was ‘dead’. While some viewed this statement as somewhat presumptuous, the Mayor, I believe, was actually understating the situation. More correctly, the ill-fated CalgaryNEXT proposal was actually dead on arrival.

I will preface this commentary by stating that I am, what one would call, a hardcore Flames fan. I am a season ticket holder and would very much like to see a new arena built in the near future. I am currently in the land development industry, and was previously a Senior Policy Advisor in the Mayor’s Office up until early 2015. I was involved in the very preliminary discussions, but am not currently privy to any negotiations.

Discussion has continued about the merits of the CalgaryNEXT proposal. I have debated the merits of the current CalgaryNEXT proposal with other Calgarians, including recently on Twitter with local business leader and former Dragon, W. Brett Wilson.

To use the Dragon’s Den analogy, if CSEC was the inventor making the pitch on CalgaryNEXT, and the City and its citizens the Dragons – I’m afraid the inventor would leave the show disappointed. The product is faulty, the costs to produce are too high, the revenue model is uncertain, the “valuation” is unrealistic, and the proponent is not putting enough of their own skin in the game - transferring risk to the Dragons. The Dragons have analyzed the pitch, and despite promising to keep looking at the idea further, it seems pretty clear they are going to say “I’m out”.

Most fundamentally, the arena/stadium simply takes up too much of the land needed for high density taxable uses to pay back the high cost to remediate the land, build supporting infrastructure and partially finance the arena/stadium facility itself in the proposed Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) model. It also lacks the certainty of anchor commercial property to pay back debt, and being detached physically from the downtown core, this is a significant problem facing the economics of this proposal.

Beyond the basic shortcomings of the dollars and cents of CalgaryNEXT, as a city-building endeavor, the plan is deeply flawed. The idea of an “arena district” is to leverage the activity of a central sports facility into an active and vibrant gathering place, including spin-off residential, hotel, retail, restaurant, bar, entertainment uses and public space. These uses need to be “on the way” from where you arrive to the arena. In CalgaryNEXT, the primary point of entry is the Sunalta LRT – patrons were shipped directly into the arena/stadium complex on a bridge high above the street. All the supposed spin off uses were shoved to the side of this gargantuan monolith of a building. Commercial and entertainment uses are “out of the way” and so there would be no such urban vitality - it would all be internalized to the building. Further, the CalgaryNEXT plan relied on retaining the current alignment of Bow Trail. This sterilizes a large portion of the river frontage, which is the hook for what makes the area attractive from a real estate perspective.

The West Village’s time will come. In fact, it stands a better chance without the arena/stadium than with it included. Remediating the land slowly will likely be less costly than on a strict schedule to align with the urgency of an arena/stadium development, Bow Trail can be properly re-aligned, and more developable land for taxable uses will be available, making the balance sheet of a CRL more realistic.

I believe it is time to put the CalgaryNEXT proposal to bed, and focus on the so called “Plan B” with standalone arena on Stampede Park, renovated McMahon Stadium that could be tied to an Olympic bid, and Fieldhouse at Foothills Athletic Park, as originally planned.

A new arena on Stampede Park benefits from lower infrastructure and remediation costs, walkable access to all three (current and future LRT lines) and the downtown core, abundant parking inherent to the Stampede and could anchor a truly vibrant entertainment district, including helping make the Stampede a true 365 day a year destination it has longed to become.

There is a role for the public to play to be sure, and I believe Plan B is the best chance to construct a deal that works for the Flames and most importantly, the citizens of Calgary.
A simple thanks wasn't enough for this post. Fantastic. Well written and clearly and consistent explains why CalgaryNext was dead on arrival.

I mentioned it previously, but the city's report where they surveyed all the sports organizations that would be involved in the fieldhouse - pretty much all of them had at least hesitations about how well the fieldhouse was going to serve the needs of those who would use the fieldhouse.
__________________
My LinkedIn Profile.
You Need a Thneed is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 07:03 AM   #1302
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed View Post
A simple thanks wasn't enough for this post. Fantastic. Well written and clearly and consistent explains why CalgaryNext was dead on arrival.

I mentioned it previously, but the city's report where they surveyed all the sports organizations that would be involved in the fieldhouse - pretty much all of them had at least hesitations about how well the fieldhouse was going to serve the needs of those who would use the fieldhouse.
This report? http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sire...&fileid=427930


While there were concerns from the parties involved, they didn't generally oppose the concept of a shared fieldhouse. CSEC appears to have answered the concerns of the stakeholders satisfactorily.

From Page 17 of the report:
Quote:
Sport Calgary

On 21 March 2016, the Project Team for the Fieldhouse Investigation received a letter from Sport Calgary as follow up to a presentation to that group by the CSEC. The letter states that the CSEC‟s presentation “[goes] a long way to address all 5 of the concerns [Sport Calgary has] raised on behalf of the amateur sport community.” The letter further states that Sport Calgary “believes the option of incorporating the fieldhouse into the CalgaryNEXT project has considerable merit from an amateur sport perspective.”


CalgaryMultisport Fieldhouse Society

On 29 March 2016, the Project Team received a letter from CMFS as follow up to a presentation by K. Knights & Associates and members of GEC Artchitecture. The letter states that after subsequent review with the board, CMFS feels that CalgaryNEXT/CSEC have demonstrated their willingness and substantial commitment to work closely with CMFS to ensure critical concerns are addressed, including:
  • Amenities and programming requirements vs. Foothills Fieldhouse
  • Access to the site and adequate parking
  • Availability for public use at all time taking into account Fieldhouse and Arena
  • Affordability
  • Governance (Management and Operations provided by private sector vs. City)

The letter further states that assuming the same level of engagement with CMFS is maintained in subsequent review phases, “CMFS believes there is significant merit for the incorporation of the Fieldhouse into CalgaryNEXT.”
The biggest areas of concern were the West Village location (especially from the University, who would prefer the field house be built adjacent to campus), and that having the fieldhouse attached to the arena could cause accessibility problems for the fieldhouse whenever a game or concert is being held in the other half of the building.

For those reasons, I believe that this will ultimately play out with the new arena being built as the anchor of an entertainment district on the north side of the Stampede grounds; and a fieldhouse/stadium will be built as part of the redevelopment of the Foothills Athletic Park.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 09:08 AM   #1303
Travis Munroe
Realtor®
 
Travis Munroe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Then provide said facts?

I will start by saying that outside of the 1 member who tried to make one of my posts out to be racial yesterday, this thread has been a very healthy argument that has stayed within opinions and facts and not crossed over into attacks or calling people out which is the reason I continue to partake.

As for providing said facts, I am out showing properties all day but do I really need to provide any facts as to how your statement (below) is not completely accurate?

"OK people coming to Calgary to spend money DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY money."
__________________

OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300

Residential Buying & Selling
info@tmunroe.com
www.tmunroe.com

Property Management
travis@mpmCalgary.com
www.mpmCalgary.com
Travis Munroe is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Travis Munroe For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 09:13 AM   #1304
Moneyhands23
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realtor 1 View Post
I will start by saying that outside of the 1 member who tried to make one of my posts out to be racial yesterday, this thread has been a very healthy argument that has stayed within opinions and facts and not crossed over into attacks or calling people out which is the reason I continue to partake.

As for providing said facts, I am out showing properties all day but do I really need to provide any facts as to how your statement (below) is not completely accurate?

"OK people coming to Calgary to spend money DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY money."
Not at all. At this point you should realize that the person commenting is out of their depth and move on.
Moneyhands23 is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:03 AM   #1305
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realtor 1 View Post
I will start by saying that outside of the 1 member who tried to make one of my posts out to be racial yesterday, this thread has been a very healthy argument that has stayed within opinions and facts and not crossed over into attacks or calling people out which is the reason I continue to partake.

As for providing said facts, I am out showing properties all day but do I really need to provide any facts as to how your statement (below) is not completely accurate?

"OK people coming to Calgary to spend money DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY money."
Taken out of context, but sure, I'll bite. Here's what you will need to prove otherwise:

1) Sales taxes of goods and services go directly to the Federal government, not the city

2) Liquor and Tobacco taxes go to the provincial government, not the city

3) Fuel taxes go to the provincial government, not the city

4) Income taxes from jobs go to the Federal government, not the city

5) Property taxes going to the city is tied to economic factors in the housing market, such as interest rates, employment rate, mortgage rules, household debt, etc, not tied to an arena

So based on these facts, people who drive to the game (3), spend money (1) on liquor at their local pubs (2), give the staff jobs and income (4), who then buy property that would otherwise be owned by someone else or developed (5), does not give money directly to the city. So unless these people are also racking up parking and speeding tickets and buying bus passes and building permits, where is the city directly benefiting from people migrating to the city and spending money at pubs before and after the games?

Last edited by MarkGio; 04-02-2017 at 10:42 AM.
MarkGio is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:06 AM   #1306
IamNotKenKing
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevman View Post
Both. Many articles reference the act of louring teams form other municipalities.

Besides, as was previously stated the Flames remain one of the more profitable NHL franchises despite their antiquated stadium. New stadium or not, the Flames franchise isn't going anywhere.
I believe they won't either.

But, my point is more money is spent locally with the Flames here than would be if they left.
IamNotKenKing is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:15 AM   #1307
IamNotKenKing
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Taken out of context, but sure, I'll bite. Here's what you will need to prove otherwise:

1) Sales taxes of goods and services go directly to the Federal government, not the city

2) Liquor and Tobacco taxes go to the provincial government, not the city

3) Fuel taxes go to the provincial government, not the city

4) Income taxes from jobs go to the Federal government, not the city

5) Property taxes going to the city is tied to economic factors in the housing market, such as interest rates, employment rate, mortgage rules, household debt, etc, not tied to an arena

So based on these facts, people who drive to the game (3), spend money (1) on liquor at their local pubs (2), give the staff jobs and income (4), who then buy property that would otherwise be owned by someone else or developed (5). So unless these people are also racking up parking and speeding tickets and buying bus passes and building permits, where is the city directly benefiting from people migrating to the city and spending money at pubs before and after the games?
I think you're skipping the portion where they spend money at pubs before and after the game.

Spending money locally is good for the locals where the money is spent. Neither Realtor1 nor I are stating the Municipality of the City of Calgary necessarily receives funds directly (although I do not know whether or not it does via parking or any other fees charged and worked in that I don't know about), but that it is better for local individuals and businesses to have money spent locally, at their locations and to them personally via salary and tips, as opposed to having the same money spent elsewhere.

That has to be indisputable.
IamNotKenKing is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:17 AM   #1308
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
Not at all. At this point you should realize that the person commenting is out of their depth and move on.
The only people out of their depth are those suggesting there are economic benefits to this arena proposal, when those who are ACTUAL experts in this field, have shown with sound reason and methods that there is in fact not. And despite all these sources posted in this thread that the value cannot be there, people continue to ignore them, refute them without even basic understanding of simple economics, and somehow keep repeating their unintelligent and false accusations without even a shred of evidence.

Let me ask anyone who sees any form of positive economic return on investment from this arena: can you prove it with a means outside of your own opinion? If you cannot -- I'm not even asking that you save yourself some dignity and restrain from suggesting otherwise -- but at the very least admit you believe such fairy tales out of a position of ignorance and because you're a homer Flames fan who simply wants new shiny things during your great experience of attending these sporting events.
MarkGio is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to MarkGio For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 10:24 AM   #1309
Roughneck
#1 Goaltender
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the middle
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing View Post
I believe they won't either.

But, my point is more money is spent locally with the Flames here than would be if they left.
It's such an insignificant amount relative to the funds requested to pay for the arena that it is pretty much irrelevant.
Roughneck is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:25 AM   #1310
heep223
Could Care Less
 
heep223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Exp:
Default

I'm a homer Flames fan who wants a shiny new thing. Get it done ffs
heep223 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to heep223 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 10:26 AM   #1311
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing View Post
I think you're skipping the portion where they spend money at pubs before and after the game.

Spending money locally is good for the locals where the money is spent. Neither Realtor1 nor I are stating the Municipality of the City of Calgary necessarily receives funds directly (although I do not know whether or not it does via parking or any other fees charged and worked in that I don't know about), but that it is better for local individuals and businesses to have money spent locally, at their locations and to them personally via salary and tips, as opposed to having the same money spent elsewhere.

That has to be indisputable.
Good for the local businesses, sure, I cannot refute that. But for the city? Also, keep in mind the city incurs costs too. Drunken vandals breaking bus stops. High traffic roads need to be swept and repaved. Maintenance of side walks & pedestrian crossings. Extra policing during these events. Maintenance and costs of the extra buses and train transit to support the flood of users during these events.

So again, if the city incurs costs, and the city directly yields little to no revenue from the actual influx of people spending money at pubs and games, then where's the economic benefit?

Last edited by MarkGio; 04-02-2017 at 10:43 AM.
MarkGio is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 10:42 AM   #1312
Thunderball
Franchise Player
 
Thunderball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Interestingly, if the Provincial Government put aside even 75% of the roughly $8m per year they make from the Flames players who pay Alberta Income Tax and put it aside in a 2% bearing investment, it would exceed $200m in 25 years (or roughly 1/3 of what a new Arena and McMahon reno would cost), which would make an effective contribution to proper arena and stadium facilities, and would be funded exclusively from an income stream that the province arguably would not have if those players lived and paid tax in another state/province.
Thunderball is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:15 AM   #1313
GordonBlue
Franchise Player
 
GordonBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
Interestingly, if the Provincial Government put aside even 75% of the roughly $8m per year they make from the Flames players who pay Alberta Income Tax and put it aside in a 2% bearing investment, it would exceed $200m in 25 years (or roughly 1/3 of what a new Arena and McMahon reno would cost), which would make an effective contribution to proper arena and stadium facilities, and would be funded exclusively from an income stream that the province arguably would not have if those players lived and paid tax in another state/province.
Except for the part where the provincial government should give nothing.

If they did implement your plan, make it for the public good
Field house s, rec centres, community ice rinks
Not to make billionates more money
GordonBlue is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:25 AM   #1314
tsquared1967
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden View Post
I'm glad there're still having a dialog about a new arena. The right new building is a good idea. The Flames will soon have the second oldest barn in the league. Constructing a new arena will help create jobs. A new "state of the art" building will help Calgary in terms of stampede tourism.

I'm all for a new arena. Still, its good that they are taking their time. I am just happy that there is still a conversation.
I don't know about helping with Stampede tourism. The Calgary Stampede would not like to have concerts at the new arena where they will lose out on ticket sales and concessions revenue during the stampede to the Flames. The two arena owners will compete for concerts and one building will sit empty for most of the year. Concerts will be limited as big names will still go to Edmonton.
tsquared1967 is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:34 AM   #1315
GreatWhiteEbola
First Line Centre
 
GreatWhiteEbola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsquared1967 View Post
I don't know about helping with Stampede tourism. The Calgary Stampede would not like to have concerts at the new arena where they will lose out on ticket sales and concessions revenue during the stampede to the Flames. The two arena owners will compete for concerts and one building will sit empty for most of the year. Concerts will be limited as big names will still go to Edmonton.
The plan is to keep the Saddledome if there's a successful Olympic bid, if not it will be demolished and potentially a hotel and more onsite parking for the Stampede.

The Saddledome will be replaced with a new arena, building an entertainment district in the Vic Park area makes so much more sense then the CalgaryNEXT/ West Village proposal.

I can imagine an entire street lined with bars and restaurants from the Stampede grounds to the new arena, and it will be great.
__________________


Last edited by GreatWhiteEbola; 04-02-2017 at 11:38 AM.
GreatWhiteEbola is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:35 AM   #1316
Red Slinger
First Line Centre
 
Red Slinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

-The Saddledome is the oldest arena in the NHL
-McMahon is the oldest stadium in the CFL
-The city of Calgary is one of the wealthiest in the country
-The city of Calgary is currently mired in a terrible economic downturn
-The Flames owners are some of the wealthiest in the NHL
-The Calgary Flames are making a healthy profit now
-New arenas/stadiums show little to no direct economic benefit to their communities at large
-Most of the economic benefit to new arenas/stadiums go to the owners of the facilities and/or teams
-There are often benefits to a community, other than economic, from a local sports team
-Both the team and the City have acknowledged that a new arena and/or stadium are probably required and are open to discussions

I haven't read this whole thread but scrolling through there seems to be a lot of arguments that aren't really arguments but rather rhetorical posturing for one side or the other. As far as I can tell, the Flames, the City and almost every poster here (except maybe the dimwit talking about refugees) agree on basically everything except:

-how much public funding should be included
-the form of the public funding (land, tax, etc.)
-where the arena and/or stadium should be located

Honestly, at this point it's just sorting out the details. They're big details but certainly not worthy of gnashing of teeth or Trump style declarations of "won't someone thing of the veterans".
Red Slinger is offline  
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 11:39 AM   #1317
Thunderball
Franchise Player
 
Thunderball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue View Post
Except for the part where the provincial government should give nothing.

If they did implement your plan, make it for the public good
Field house s, rec centres, community ice rinks
Not to make billionates more money
Public good is an exceedingly nebulous term that seems to be used to support someone's political views or agenda.

For example, Rec Centres are a public good, sure. But if they're built in Seton or Rocky Ridge rather than the Beltline or East Village or other areas the city is aggressively (spending tens or hundreds of millions) trying to densify, aren't they promoting things like sprawl and forcing infrastructure costs since they are encouraging unsustainable and expensive expansion? Then who's "public good" are they serving? There's an equally valid counter argument the other way, but it should be clear how easy it is to bend "public good".

Professional sports aren't a "public good" on their face, but if they give back millions to amateur sport, market the city, promote discretionary spending that supports thousands of jobs, and encourage development in trouble spots, they might be. We're all aware of John Oliver and the papers that denounce public funding on professional sport facilities, but yet, its something that most markets agree is a public-private partnership (though majority private since most direct economic benefits go there).

While CalgaryNext may or may not check those boxes... Plan B probably will and the city and province can't be expected to reap the rewards of a new Arena and Stadium without chipping in something, whether its direct cash, or cash in the form of land, upgrades, tax breaks, etc. Every reasonable argument acknowledges that to some point.

The suggestion I made showed how the Province can do that with essentially money that exists because of the Calgary Flames (or Edmonton Oilers in their case). Multimillionaire players would not be paying Alberta tax in a "Seattle Flames" scenario.

A cynical argument might be that rather than wasting billions on shuttering coal plants a few years early pushing an agenda that many would say is radical and not campaigned on, the Province may as well spend millions on something that enriches the culture, economy, and livability of its largest city.

Last edited by Thunderball; 04-02-2017 at 11:42 AM.
Thunderball is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Thunderball For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2017, 11:45 AM   #1318
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
For example, Rec Centres are a public good, sure. But if they're built in Seton or Rocky Ridge rather than the Beltline or East Village or other areas the city is aggressively (spending tens or hundreds of millions) trying to densify, aren't they promoting things like sprawl and forcing infrastructure costs since they are encouraging unsustainable and expensive expansion? Then who's "public good" are they serving? There's an equally valid counter argument the other way, but it should be clear how easy it is to bend "public good".
Promoting urban sprawl or catching up to it out of necessity? Building out in the first place is the problem, providing proper infrastructure to the citizens that already live there is a symptom.
jayswin is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:50 AM   #1319
Thunderball
Franchise Player
 
Thunderball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
Promoting urban sprawl or catching up to it out of necessity? Building out in the first place is the problem, providing proper infrastructure to the citizens that live there is a symptom.
Fair comment. But if you are trying to contain growth, why build these amenities on the absolute fringes of the city? The answer is probably more available cheap land with fewer NIMBYs, but its not exactly a benefit to people in the established areas of the city paying more tax as a result or to the greater goal of increasing density.
Thunderball is offline  
Old 04-02-2017, 12:42 PM   #1320
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
Public good is an exceedingly nebulous term that seems to be used to support someone's political views or agenda.

For example, Rec Centres are a public good, sure. But if they're built in Seton or Rocky Ridge rather than the Beltline or East Village or other areas the city is aggressively (spending tens or hundreds of millions) trying to densify, aren't they promoting things like sprawl and forcing infrastructure costs since they are encouraging unsustainable and expensive expansion? Then who's "public good" are they serving? There's an equally valid counter argument the other way, but it should be clear how easy it is to bend "public good".

Professional sports aren't a "public good" on their face, but if they give back millions to amateur sport, market the city, promote discretionary spending that supports thousands of jobs, and encourage development in trouble spots, they might be. We're all aware of John Oliver and the papers that denounce public funding on professional sport facilities, but yet, its something that most markets agree is a public-private partnership (though majority private since most direct economic benefits go there).

While CalgaryNext may or may not check those boxes... Plan B probably will and the city and province can't be expected to reap the rewards of a new Arena and Stadium without chipping in something, whether its direct cash, or cash in the form of land, upgrades, tax breaks, etc. Every reasonable argument acknowledges that to some point.

The suggestion I made showed how the Province can do that with essentially money that exists because of the Calgary Flames (or Edmonton Oilers in their case). Multimillionaire players would not be paying Alberta tax in a "Seattle Flames" scenario.

A cynical argument might be that rather than wasting billions on shuttering coal plants a few years early pushing an agenda that many would say is radical and not campaigned on, the Province may as well spend millions on something that enriches the culture, economy, and livability of its largest city.
You know most of that is part of their marketing operations and for tax purposes, right? I know a lot of small businesses who sponsor minor hockey teams and give back to charities for tax purposes, as well marketing themselves as philanthropic and community staples.

Edmonton just built their new arena near an old, povershed neighborhood, leaving behind the concrete wasteland that's now an empty Rexall place. Firstly, the new Rogers place didn't revitalize China Town and Boyle Street across 97th Street. It's still hideous. Secondly, Rexall place now needs "revitalization", so what, they just replaced one micro economy for another.

My biggest problem with these endeavours is the cycle. I get the NHL wants to promote its brand and wants new, fresh buildings for its customers, much like any business, but if theres public dollars going towards it, then this 3-4 decade cycle needs to be stretched. I think the Saddledome is good for at least another 10 years. Perhaps I'm just not of the spoiled breed and can have a good time without fresh paint and lazer shows, but it's also return on investment that needs to be considered.

Plus keep in mind there are other, large captial expenditures that are drivers of micro economies and revitalization of communities. An large Ikea cost hundreds of millions to build but you don't see them threatening cities for public dollars? And arguably an Ikea serves a broader spectrum of citizens than only the 25 thousand who attend 41 evenings of hockey.

So why are sports teams special? Because homer fans are extremely price inelastic and cannot rationalize the alternative perspective when they're literally fanatical and extremists about a given brand and product.
MarkGio is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021