T: Flames no longer Pursuing new Arena

[Asiaoil]

Creating thousands of jobs for local economies makes one a 'corporate welfare bum'. Huh, who knew?

No being a highly profitable business and still expecting hundreds of millions of public dollars to expand your business (and profitability) makes you a corporate welfare bum.

 

[Worraps]

I think they just fall down the pecking order. Cities have built arenas and wait hoping to be gifted one. Calgary would have to sort out arena funding, build it and then wait while maybe Seattle or Quebec City get one in the interim. Eventually with an arena built(which isn't going to happen in the present economy if they don't even have a team), they will likely get one of the failing teams. So enjoy your decade without hockey, Calgary, I guess. Don't know why people think a city doesn't lose by not having a sports franchise and I'm sorry but the CFL isn't going to fill that hole. Sure,
Providing for ourselves and our family are what primarily fills our time but if you're taking care of that, life needs to be filled until we kick the bucket and as much as some hate it, tribalism and sport has always been a gigantic part of human history. A joint venture between owner and city seem to be a very reasonable arrangement to me. Perhaps I'm very ignorant of the stats that show a different truth but I have the opinion that sports franchises do benefit the quality of life and even the economics of a city, so why wouldn't we be a part of the investment of it?

If you ask me, your intuition here is a lot more valid than the inferences being drawn from econometrics that people bandy around here like gospel.

To quote a sign Einstein kept in his office:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

 

[Fourier]

There is no business case to be made for a privately funded arena in a City the size of Calgary. This would be even more true if it was not the present ownership of the Flames building the arena. Similarly, a city the size of Calgary was to build an NHL sized arena with no anchor tenant it would almost surely cost the city much more than investment that they would have to make in the partnership with the Flames.

The only privately funded arena in Canada that I know of the did not go bankrupt or end up losing the original owners massive amounts of money is the ACC. The ACC has two prime tenants and is the most attractive venue in Canada for large scale events by far.

 

[Fourier]

No being a highly profitable business and still expecting hundreds of millions of public dollars to expand your business (and profitability) makes you a corporate welfare bum.

If you are building a factory to build widgets I might agree. But an arena is a very different sort of investment. In my mind it is very much a piece of infrastructure that for a city the size of Calgary is actually
cheaper to build in a public/private partnership.

 

[harpoon]

But an arena is a very different sort of investment. In my mind it is very much a piece of infrastructure that for a city

Its amazing how this fact seems to consistently fly over the heads of some folks.

 

[Asiaoil]

If you are building a factory to build widgets I might agree. But an arena is a very different sort of investment. In my mind it is very much a piece of infrastructure that for a city the size of Calgary is actually
cheaper to build in a public/private partnership.

Of course it's different - and they will get their money - but it would be nice if the ***** who run the flames didn't think it was their god given right to stick their overly large snouts into the public purse and have the taxpayers fall down on their knees in gratitude. The already ridiculously rich will get their profits guaranteed by the the public - it's seen as 'normal" now - but it should not be viewed as honorable or civic minded. They are just greedy little wankers who have zero allegiance to anything but themselves as King and Bettman very clearly displayed with their little show in a town reeling from the latest oil bust.

 

[Fourier]

Of course it's different - and they will get their money - but it would be nice if the ***** who run the flames didn't think it was their god given right to stick their overly large snouts into the public purse and have the taxpayers fall down on their knees in gratitude. The already ridiculously rich will get their profits guaranteed by the the public - it's seen as 'normal" now - but it should not be viewed as honorable or civic minded. They are just greedy little wankers who have zero allegiance to anything but themselves as King and Bettman very clearly displayed with their little show in a town reeling from the latest oil bust.

Just as was the case in Edmonton while I support the concept of the public/private partnership, I think the execution has been deplorable. Not many NHL owners seem to understand diplomacy.

 

[nabob]

Just as was the case in Edmonton while I support the concept of the public/private partnership, I think the execution has been deplorable. Not many NHL owners seem to understand diplomacy.

Can say the same for politicians as well.

 

[Fourier]

Can say the same for politicians as well.

Of course!!

 

[Asiaoil]

Just as was the case in Edmonton while I support the concept of the public/private partnership, I think the execution has been deplorable. Not many NHL owners seem to understand diplomacy.

So do I except when the term "partnership" is defined as grovelling and opening the public purse without any regard for public benefit. From the rhetoric in the media and the flame mgmt - tough negotiating in the public interest is seen as outrageous behavior when anything the mayor did/said was mild in comparison the the tactics, threats and language used by King and Bettman. That is not acting like a "partner" nor is it recognizing in the slightest existing fiscal realities of the Alberta economy.

 

[Fourier]

So do I except when the term "partnership" is defined as grovelling and opening the public purse without any regard for public benefit. From the rhetoric in the media and the flame mgmt - tough negotiating in the public interest is seen as outrageous behavior when anything the mayor did/said was mild in comparison the the tactics, threats and language used by King and Bettman. That is not acting like a "partner" nor is it recognizing in the slightest existing fiscal realities of the Alberta economy.

You're not going to get an argument from me on this since I agree with you in terms of the approach, at least in terms of how it plays out in public. But I tend to think that there is generally a lot that goes on that we never see. Some of it is actually productive, some of it is destructive. In most cases I don't trust either party.

The bottom line though is that the two sides have little choice in who they work with. The Flames need the City of Calgary and the City of Calgary needs the Flames to make this work.

As far as the fiscal realities of Alberta this has always been an issue with me. In the past there was a tendency when things are good to go grand but when things are tight to freeze all activities. From the public's perspective this tends to mean that they pay premium prices for everything and fail to take advantage of opportunities to save money when they can.

While it may seem like a big expenditure this project is not really that big an investment relative to the cost of running a city the size of Calgary (the annual operating budget is $3.5B) . In the worst case scenario the City of Calgary's share of this deal would be less than the cost of the 4 new divergent diamond exchanges which were not necessities but were deemed to be in the public's interests. And there is even a private/public partnership in place to the tune of $1.4B for the ring road on the south end so it's not like public private partnerships on infrastructure cannot happen in Ablerta.

 

[shoop]

As far as the fiscal realities of Alberta this has always been an issue with me. In the past there was a tendency when things are good to go grand but when things are tight to freeze all activities. From the public's perspective this tends to mean that they pay premium prices for everything and fail to take advantage of opportunities to save money when they can.

The problem with this fiscal downturn is the government in power still continues to add provincial civil servants.

In 2016 Edmonton lost 15,000 private sector jobs but added 14,000 public sector jobs.

The huge deficit is due to adding jobs instead of just letting the provincial workforce shrink due to attrition.

If the provincial government here were more prudent on the labour front it would be much easier to find public money for a rink in Calgary.

 

[gordonhught]

So what if the Flames move? Calgarians can cheer for the Oilers. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Asiaoil]

You're not going to get an argument from me on this since I agree with you in terms of the approach, at least in terms of how it plays out in public. But I tend to think that there is generally a lot that goes on that we never see. Some of it is actually productive, some of it is destructive. In most cases I don't trust either party.

The bottom line though is that the two sides have little choice in who they work with. The Flames need the City of Calgary and the City of Calgary needs the Flames to make this work.

As far as the fiscal realities of Alberta this has always been an issue with me. In the past there was a tendency when things are good to go grand but when things are tight to freeze all activities. From the public's perspective this tends to mean that they pay premium prices for everything and fail to take advantage of opportunities to save money when they can.

While it may seem like a big expenditure this project is not really that big an investment relative to the cost of running a city the size of Calgary (the annual operating budget is $3.5B) . In the worst case scenario the City of Calgary's share of this deal would be less than the cost of the 4 new divergent diamond exchanges which were not necessities but were deemed to be in the public's interests. And there is even a private/public partnership in place to the tune of $1.4B for the ring road on the south end so it's not like public private partnerships on infrastructure cannot happen in Ablerta.

Yes of course they need to work together but our politicians, economists and business leaders have forgotten that Keynesian economics does not imply deficits when times are good and gigantic deficits when times are bad. It's supposed to work like you mentioned with prudence and payback happening in the good years so we can afford deficit spending during recessions. The Chretien/Martin liberals were the only ones to actually practice that in several generations. But as far as I'm concerned we have, and will continue to be, in a serious depression that has been papered over massive government spending globally and bailouts of private sector finance. Fun by-products of that include zero growth and massive inflation of real assets like property, stocks and food. I'd expect your bank is similar to mine. They pay essentially zero when I lend them money (in my savings account) but charge me 10%+ on my line of credit when they lend me money. Nice racket and a desperate attempt to keep what little real money still in the economy moving. Every serious elected official in charge of any economic portfolio knows we are sitting on extraordinarily fragile ground supported by unimaginable piles of debt and associated derivatives. These arena deals are like planning vacations to the Caribbean when you are two weeks away from declaring bankruptcy. It's incredibly extravagant given what's going on and what will likely happen when the shtf. So people should be applauding the prudence of the mayor in times like these, not whining about delays in getting their new toy, because the post WW2 economic past is unlikely to be any guide to the coming future.

 

[Hockey Nightmare]

Why should the province put a cent into Calgary's arena? The only help they provided for Roger's Place was approving the CRL for downtown Edmonton. Literally, that's it. In fact, the city even tried obtaining $25 million through a provincial program created for such purposes, but even that was rejected.

 

[frag2]

Why should the province put a cent into Calgary's arena? The only help they provided for Roger's Place was approving the CRL for downtown Edmonton. Literally, that's it. In fact, the city even tried obtaining $25 million through a provincial program created for such purposes, but even that was rejected.

This is why if the Flames move, then whatever haha Their owners want almost everything funded by other people's dollars instead of their own. Not sure how much bias NDP has for the Flames but we all know if late Klein was still in office, Flames would get whatever they wanted from the province.

 

[shoop]

Why should the province put a cent into Calgary's arena? The only help they provided for Roger's Place was approving the CRL for downtown Edmonton. Literally, that's it. In fact, the city even tried obtaining $25 million through a provincial program created for such purposes, but even that was rejected.

I don't even know if the province had to approve the CRL. Does the provincial government approve any new taxes levied by a municipal government?

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

I don't even know if the province had to approve the CRL. Does the provincial government approve any new taxes levied by a municipal government?

They might have that authority to do so that less "forward thinking" municipalities don't put themselves in a stupid position with CRL and other things.

 

[Senor Catface]

So what if the Flames move? Calgarians can cheer for the Oilers. Nothing wrong with that.

Ehnnn, they can go cheer for the Canucks.

 

[Oildrum]

wrong thread

 

[MoneyGuy]

I don't even know if the province had to approve the CRL. Does the provincial government approve any new taxes levied by a municipal government?

The province has to approve a CRL, but not tax increases.

 

[shoop]

The province has to approve a CRL, but not tax increases.

They might have that authority to do so that less "forward thinking" municipalities don't put themselves in a stupid position with CRL and other things.

Thanks to both of you.

The rules around CRLs are interesting.

Essentially it takes the incremental portion of school taxes related to higher property values that go up because of the rink and other projects in the CRL area.

That horrible Imagine Jasper is funded through the CRL as well. In isolation that is probably lowering property values in the area.

 

[MoneyGuy]

Thanks to both of you.

The rules around CRLs are interesting.

Essentially it takes the incremental portion of school taxes related to higher property values that go up because of the rink and other projects in the CRL area.

That horrible Imagine Jasper is funded through the CRL as well. In isolation that is probably lowering property values in the area.

The community I'm involved in is applying for a CRL grant. I disagree with these.

 

[rboomercat90]

That horrible Imagine Jasper is funded through the CRL as well. In isolation that is probably lowering property values in the area.

Are you talking about the project that shutdown a couple lanes on one of the busiest streets in the city in favour of park benches?

 

[shoop]

Are you talking about the project that shutdown a couple lanes on one of the busiest streets in the city in favour of park benches?

That's the one. Note sure why more people don't want to eat at a park bench right beside one of the busiest streets in the city. Car exhaust and food are always a great mix.