Arena negotiation discussion. UPD: Flames release their proposal

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

"Tax hikes? They must hate business!"

When political slogans replace critical thinking.

Do you ever add ANYTHING to ANY thread you post in?

[rage2]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You might be missing something, because business tax rates have been going down each year since 2012.

See here:

Business assessment values are market-based and fluctuate with the economy. If someone owns a small house on 17th Ave, which is being used as a cafe, for example, the value of that business is combined with the value of the property, which in turn produces a combined assessed value respective of that. One may disagree with the concept of market-based property valuations for taxation purposes, but that is a totally different and hypothetical discussion, which has nothing to do with this thread or Council leaning.

The previous and current Councils have been very pro-business, which statement is supported by pretty much every business association in Calgary.

This is what I hate about our tax system, it's designed to confuse, and most people don't understand it at all. They can lower that rate yearly, make it seem like they're lowering taxes, but in reality they're arbitrarily inflating assessments that in no way tie back to actual value to increase taxes while people think they're lowering taxes because of the rates.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You might be missing something, because business tax rates have been going down each year since 2012.

See here:

Business assessment values are market-based and fluctuate with the economy. If someone owns a small house on 17th Ave, which is being used as a cafe, for example, the value of that business is combined with the value of the property, which in turn produces a combined assessed value respective of that. One may disagree with the concept of market-based property valuations for taxation purposes, but that is a totally different and hypothetical discussion, which has nothing to do with this thread or Council leaning.

The previous and current Councils have been very pro-business, which statement is supported by pretty much every business association in Calgary.

Thanks for this.

I had read a while back on the Chamber of Commerce site something somewhat different in regards to how much small business was enjoying the policy changes that resulted in higher taxes for owners.

This part stuck out.

You, our members have told us that your biggest challenge, the one that keeps you up at night, is the increased cost of running a business. That getting hit by policy changes from all levels of government has made it extremely hard to run a successful business and provide jobs.

To support our members, we have engaged with governments at all levels, raising red flags on budgets and policies, calling for lower taxes and fiscal discipline, so that governments get out of your way, and don’t make it any harder to run a great business. We have called for good, prudent, business-friendly policy.

While that call has not always been heeded, we have secured some big wins for your business this past year. One I would like to highlight: we worked with the City to bring $45 million in business property tax relief to help support businesses in our city. For thousands of your businesses, this tangibly reduced your property tax.

To show the scope of the impact of combined government costs have on your business, we have launched what we call a Cumulative Cost Assessment – a report that will be used to demonstrate how policies from each level of government are imposing new costs on Calgary business in an already challenging time.

So it looks like it was a policy change that hurt them then was somewhat corrected, but the "feeling" was that it was still expensive to do business in Calgary.

I have no idea myself as i am not a business owner and haven't been for many years. Just talking to people who are gave me a very different perspective. Then again that is only on side of the story too.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

I think the next big item or non-item is when Bill Smith's donor list gets announced and we truly see if CSEC is on it and if, again, they are caught in a lie/half-truth/misinformation/however Ken King spins it.

I honestly doubt Edwards or King will be on the list (Is Edwards even allowed to donate? He doesn't "reside" here anymore). The 5K probably isn't worth the PR hit they'd take...

Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if some of their money found it's way into the coffers of "Random Numbered Alberta Corporation" who donated, or more likely into the coffers of "Ready to Engage", "Save Calgary", or other murky organizations. Also I would't be surprised one iota if we were to find out that all those "Bill Smith 4 Mayor" ads we saw in the 'Dome were sold at far below market value.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by transplant99

... the "feeling" was that it was still expensive to do business in Calgary...

It is. But it is all relative. I don't have time to look up the data from the Conference Board of Canada, but I am willing to guess Calgary offers one of the lowest business taxation regimes out of 5 biggest cities in Canada. Federal, provincial and municipal taxes are not going to go down, neither business nor personal. Governments want more tax revenue to support their political agendas, which are clearly shifting left on all levels with a lesser number of taxpayers to fund it. Again, this is a good topic to discuss but not at all relevant to the arena issue.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Thanks for this.

I had read a while back on the Chamber of Commerce site something somewhat different in regards to how much small business was enjoying the policy changes that resulted in higher taxes for owners.

This part stuck out.

So it looks like it was a policy change that hurt them then was somewhat corrected, but the "feeling" was that it was still expensive to do business in Calgary.

I have no idea myself as i am not a business owner and haven't been for many years. Just talking to people who are gave me a very different perspective. Then again that is only on side of the story too.

I can tell you that relief really did nothing in the grand scheme of things. Here's a good read on how the city essentially f'd small business owners outside of the core:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...cast-1.4320615

The problem lies in the "dark math" of property tax bills.
To make up for the fallout of downtown businesses, the tax burden has been shifted.#Again, because the math has#to work out. The city cannot run a deficit.

"If a building owner were to sell their building, obviously they're going to get a lot less money for it if it's empty versus if it's full of renters," says Zoe Addington, director of policy at the Calgary Chamber.

"Because they are empty with all the layoffs that we've seen, the value has dropped down in downtown. And because the city doesn't have other sources of revenue, what they did was go to businesses outside of the downtown core and basically just transferred that tax burden onto them."

Now council did end up passing a $45-million relief fund to soften the blow, but it's unclear if a similar reprieve will happen again in 2018.

Some business owners are also questioning changes to their assessments.
Bernard Druin,#owner of 17th Avenue Framing,#saw the assessed value of his store jump more than $1 million in 2017. As a result, his tax bill went up 95 per cent.

He appealed the assessment but lost. So he started planning for the following year.

"What I did was I contacted a professional assessor that assessed properties in the past and I explained to him the situation saying, 'I'm sure if you appraise it, you're going to come to a number totally different than what the city's coming, and I could use that next year in my challenge,'" says Druin. "He basically said, 'You know I'd like to take your $3,000 for your assessment but you're not going to win. The city — they don't care.'"

The tax bill for another former business farther east, Studio Revolution Fitness, jumped from around $19,000 to $61,000 this year.

These aren't one off cases either. This was happening at a pretty large scale.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^ I think that isn't necessarily a fair statement, Bunk. As there are more than two opinions on this. Generally speaking:

Some think the City's offer is more than fair, and the city should not budge.
Some think the Flames' offer is fair, and the Flames should not budge.
Some think there is room in the middle, and negotiation should continue.
Some think the Saddledome is fine; or that the cost of the new arena would not be worth the benefit.

I'm in that latter group, as I know in a new arena I will be priced out of being able to afford tickets. So the longer the Flames play at the Dome, the longer I can afford to attend live hockey played at the highest level.

This is where I'm at.

Calgarians, we're getting our asses kicked here. I love the Flames and I love Calgary, they've got to meet in the middle. The fact of the matter is though is that the atmosphere at the moment is toxic.

Meeting in the middle is usually the hallmark of a win-win, but thats not where we're at. Its going to be lose-lose any way you slice it. Its just a matter of 'how much.'

In the immortal words of 'Full Metal Jacket.'

NSFW!

[northcrunk]

Pretty hard to meet in the middle when you have a mayor who could care less about hockey or an arena.

MOD EDIT: Please just discuss the topic without derogatory comments/insults. Thanks.

[Coach]

Lol

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I honestly doubt Edwards or King will be on the list (Is Edwards even allowed to donate? He doesn't "reside" here anymore). The 5K probably isn't worth the PR hit they'd take...

Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if some of their money found it's way into the coffers of "Random Numbered Alberta Corporation" who donated, or more likely into the coffers of "Ready to Engage", "Save Calgary", or other murky organizations. Also I would't be surprised one iota if we were to find out that all those "Bill Smith 4 Mayor" ads we saw in the 'Dome were sold at far below market value.

Pretty much. If you look at Nenshi's legal fee donor list there are members of the Olympic study committee and a ton of numbered corporations.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Pretty hard to meet in the middle when you have a mayor who could care less about hockey or an arena.

Hes asked them to provide Public benefit for Public dollars. Now, I understand that quantifying the public benefit of a hockey team is difficult, but they've provided nothing. On the flipside hes shoehorned stuff into the City's proposal that he also knows is a load of horse-hockey.

Lots of blame to go around.

[Cappy]

http://www.660news.com/2017/12/14/as...t-games-costs/

Who knows how likely those politicians will want the Olympics after speaking with officials in RPK

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by rage2

I can tell you that relief really did nothing in the grand scheme of things. Here's a good read on how the city essentially f'd small business owners outside of the core:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...cast-1.4320615


These aren't one off cases either. This was happening at a pretty large scale.

Yeah this is more what i was hearing.

the tax hikes (non critical thing again here) truly did decimate more than a few businesses but were shielded under some other terms/wording.

Bottom line is that the city is not a particularly favorable place to conduct business right now many a small business owner. Which is sort of in contradiction to what was posted earlier.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is where I'm at.

Calgarians, we're getting our asses kicked here. I love the Flames and I love Calgary, they've got to meet in the middle. The fact of the matter is though is that the atmosphere at the moment is toxic.

Meeting in the middle is usually the hallmark of a win-win, but thats not where we're at. Its going to be lose-lose any way you slice it. Its just a matter of 'how much.'

In the immortal words of 'Full Metal Jacket.'

NSFW!

I am at the same place. I just wish people would get cooperatively creative. No more wasting time and money on proposals in silos on each side.

Maybe no news is good news as we all banter and the Francis's of the media spout drivel to keep the conversation going.

There is a way to make this work if there is a will. I know both sides have a will, and the discussions and negotiations are difficult, but they are supposed to be.

[Table 5]

While it's easy to put the focus/blame on the City or the owners, at some point it would sure be nice if the NHL started looking at the way it does business as well. The revenues in this league simply don't match the expenses. What other business pays so much money to its employees, but can't afford to pay rent?

Then again, if there's no incentive to pay for your own infrastructure, why bother changing it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^ I think that isn't necessarily a fair statement, Bunk. As there are more than two opinions on this. Generally speaking:

Some think the City's offer is more than fair, and the city should not budge.
Some think the Flames' offer is fair, and the Flames should not budge.
Some think there is room in the middle, and negotiation should continue.
Some think the Saddledome is fine; or that the cost of the new arena would not be worth the benefit.

I'm in that latter group, as I know in a new arena I will be priced out of being able to afford tickets. So the longer the Flames play at the Dome, the longer I can afford to attend live hockey played at the highest level.

I certainly understand why you would feel that way. The problem is that is a dead-end street. If the Flames remain in the Dome indefinitely, their ability to generate competitive revenue will slowly, steadily deteriorate until they aren't viable any more.

The choice, long term, for the average hockey fan is: do I want a local team that I can root for, but only afford to watch on TV and maybe see live once or twice a year, or do I want no team at all?

And the simple fact of the matter is that, right now, more than 90% of the fans are watching on TV every night already.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

While it's easy to put the focus/blame on the City or the owners, at some point it would sure be nice if the NHL started looking at the way it does business as well. The revenues in this league simply don't match the expenses. What other business pays so much money to its employees, but can't afford to pay rent?

Then again, if there's no incentive to pay for your own infrastructure, why bother changing it.

Oh man....you're talking about taking cash away from players to pay operating expenses, something the owners fought for tooth and nail.

The players are really the unneeded 3rd party in all of this. But they want their 50% but they dont want to share in expenses.

Maybe on off days the players can save the owners some cash and work as parking attendants and concessions staff?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is where I'm at.

Calgarians, we're getting our asses kicked here. I love the Flames and I love Calgary, they've got to meet in the middle. The fact of the matter is though is that the atmosphere at the moment is toxic.

Meeting in the middle is usually the hallmark of a win-win, but thats not where we're at. Its going to be lose-lose any way you slice it. Its just a matter of 'how much.'

When you have team owners like Katz and Foley getting basically free arena's how can we expect middle ground? the new model is to have the fans pay for the buildings over the long term in ticket taxes but the team owners don't want to do the loans.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

When you have team owners like Katz and Foley getting basically free arena's how can we expect middle ground? the new model is to have the fans pay for the buildings over the long term in ticket taxes but the team owners don't want to do the loans.

I know. And this is the problem. Its like theres only two ways, the Public way and the Private way and Co-Operation has been eliminated.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hes asked them to provide Public benefit for Public dollars. Now, I understand that quantifying the public benefit of a hockey team is difficult, but they've provided nothing.

No, it's not... it's zero. I'll explain...

I feel like the City hasn't done a good job defining "public" (which I think, annoyingly, is deliberate). When Nenshi and council talk about "Public benefit for Public dollars" I feel they're using the term "public benefit" to mean either a revenue stream that nets out to ≥ 0 for the city or that provides a public service (a service provided by a public body).

That's why CSEC tried to sell a new football stadium as a fieldhouse & why they keep on including CRL's in the funding formula. He's trying to give the politicians some way to claim a "public benefit" with a semi-straight face. Unfortunately for him council seems to want an actual public benefit not just the ability to fraudulently claim one. Ken King wants to define public benefit as something (anything) that doesn't cost CSEC money.