muddywaters
GO FLAMES GO
A lot of people I've talked to are quietly for it ... the ones against a lot louder ...
Calgary city council approves arena deal (UPD: new deal upcoming?)
- Thread starter cbcwpg
- Start date
- Status
Usually the minority groups against any project tend to be the loudest. The question does that group have any political influence to get the city to say no to it.
zetajerk
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2015
- 738
- 589
This kind of stuff would be decried if it were happening in the US. If public monies are bad in places like Arizona or Florida, why should Calgary have to take a poison suppository to keep the Flames? Shouldn't a Canadian NHL team have $Infinity in the bank to afford a new building anyway? I'd say let them go if they're that greedy and take their fans and community for granted, no reason to mortgage your city's future because "they gotta have it" a-la Edmonton. If Calgary truly is a vital market for the NHL to be in, then someone else will come in to fill the void.
Most people are against this period. Funding stadiums has no return for the taxpayer.
Why should tax players foot the bill? As with any other business you look at the books and see where cut. Players have to take a 30% pay cut, which will never happen.
The only over option is to rise property taxes across the board for all Calgary citizens regardless of economic status(i.e lower, middle and upper class). This is a REGRESSIVE tax.
Also for those of you saying that you hear people for it; they are hockey fans AND are likely upper class(i.e top 30%). A lot of people are hurting right now it Calgary.
IMO the City should put the arena debate to a plebiscite.
The only over option is to rise property taxes across the board for all Calgary citizens regardless of economic status(i.e lower, middle and upper class). This is a REGRESSIVE tax.
Also for those of you saying that you hear people for it; they are hockey fans AND are likely upper class(i.e top 30%). A lot of people are hurting right now it Calgary.
IMO the City should put the arena debate to a plebiscite.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Maybe I missed it, but has Calgary offered an identical deal to what Edmonton received?
Oilers Propagandist
Relax junior, it’s just a post.
That's a simply not true, the revival is currently happening as you spew this fake news. The property tax went up within i think about a 1km radius from the arena to adjust for the increases of value in the properties around the arena to help pay back the money the city loaned from the revitalization levy. Nevermind just that, the 4 new towers, 1 being completed and 3 more under construction will pay back the city in property taxes, towers that would have never been there in the first place without the arena being built. Me as a tax payer has not been affected 1 bit since the arena got built.
The arena deal was tied in with over $2 billion in investments directly across the street from the arena that Katz has had a hand in developing.
How the Edmonton arena deal was done
The funding deal:
$130 million: Katz Group lease and cash
$125 million: ticket tax
$120 million: community revitalization levy (a city loan repaid by future property tax from new downtown development)
$80 million: parking revenue and other city sources
$25 million: Edmonton regional collaboration grant
Stantec Tower | 250.8 m, 823', 69 floors | under construction - Page 43
Credit to the poster B.ike for the photo of the buildings being built directly because of the arena.
A new downtown NHL arena: What Ottawa can learn from Edmonton | Ottawa Business Journal
"A spate of new condos and commercial office developments near the arena has Edmonton city hall projecting the building boom will generate up to a billion dollars in new property tax revenue over the next two decades."
Last edited:
What were the final numbers regarding cost? Those numbers in your post were from 8 months after construction started and almost 2 years before it officially opened. Were the Oilers responsible for any or all cost overruns? Who owns the arena and who manages it?That's a simply not true, the revival is currently happening as you spew this fake news. The property tax went up within i think about a 1km radius from the arena to adjust for the increases of value in the properties around the arena to help pay back the money the city loaned from the revitalization levy. Nevermind just that, the 4 new towers, 1 being completed and 3 more under construction will pay back the city in property taxes, towers that would have never been there in the first place without the arena being built. Me as a tax payer has not been affected 1 bit since the arena got built.
The arena deal was tied in with over $2 billion in investments directly across the street from the arena that Katz has had a hand in developing.
How the Edmonton arena deal was done
The funding deal:
$130 million: Katz Group lease and cash
$125 million: ticket tax
$120 million: community revitalization levy (a city loan repaid by future property tax from new downtown development)
$80 million: parking revenue and other city sources
$25 million: Edmonton regional collaboration grant
Stantec Tower | 250.8 m, 823', 69 floors | under construction - Page 43
Credit to the poster B.ike for the photo of the buildings being built directly because of the arena.
A new downtown NHL arena: What Ottawa can learn from Edmonton | Ottawa Business Journal
"A spate of new condos and commercial office developments near the arena has Edmonton city hall projecting the building boom will generate up to a billion dollars in new property tax revenue over the next two decades."
doesn't Katz own or paid for all of that when they replaced Northlands Coliseum/Rexall Place?
Oilers Propagandist
Relax junior, it’s just a post.
The city owns the arena and Katz pays all costs associated with keeping the operation running while keeping all revenue it generates, including naming rights $$.
Response above relates to your concerns as well.
https://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_events/rogers_place/the-agreement.aspx
- An on-budget Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract was effective in March 2014. A GMP is a cost-based contract where the contractor is paid a fixed fee subject to a ceiling price. The contractor is responsible for cost overruns.
- EAC (Edmonton Arena Corp) will operate Rogers Place and pay all operating and maintenance expenses, and will receive all operating revenues, including naming rights and parking revenue.
Intresting...Katz's arena contribution consisted of less than $20 million cash and the remainder to be paid as rent over 35 years. So who actually fronted the remaining $113 million of Katz's contribution for the arena to be built in the first place?
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
This is a narrow minded view. If you look at the Edmonton arena....when the lease is up the City will be made whole. They will have recouped their investment in the building. So yeah, they could have taken that money and bought BitCoin....or they could build a venue their residents want. They built the venue and by the end of the major tenant's lease....they will have been completely repaid for the money they put up for it.
This 'no return' stuff is bogus. We're seeing arenas built now where the major tenant is buying up land around the arena so they can generate even more revenue. That's all property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes. The fact the people wanting to build the arena are also wanting to buy up land surrounding the arena....tells you venues are good for business and property values in the surrounding area.
Remember.....we pay taxes to have things (services, buildings, etc.) provided. If NOBODY wanted a large venue in Calgary.....and NOBODY was benefiting from a large venue........it wouldn't happen. People want a venue that gets the big events......businesses and real estate benefit from a large venue, and that means higher property values and tax revenue.
You can do all the studies you want, most conclude that venues provide an increase in property value in the area and an increase in spending in the area. The issue is, if people didn't spend the money there....would they have spent it somewhere else and negated the value of the arena? Who knows?
Who cares?
People WANT these venues that attract the best entertainment. If I'm living in Calgary and the best bands start skipping Calgary because the venue sucks....and then they play two dates in Edmonton and one in Saskatoon. I'm pissed off. I want that damn show to be in Calgary!
That is why arenas/stadiums have and always will be important. People want them. Even if they lose money in the long run....people want them. And a democratic government is supposed to find ways to give people what they want.
Very true, but it is only right if the politicians and business men are honest about the costs. Which they never are. That's why this board exists - to cut through the smokescreen. The Flames want an arena on the city's dollar. The City wants their costs reimbursed to them during the course of the lease. The Flames are against that. That's the impasse here.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,245
- 8,380
1) The Flames were never offered such a deal. In fact the Flames Calgary Next pitch was the closest we've seen to the Edmonton deal.
2) In every Flames pitch, they have had the city owning the arena.
3) As building age, they cost more money to keep functional. So yes, the longer the Flames are in the Dome, the more it will impact finances. It's just common sense.
Nope, in fact the Calgary Next project was actually the closest to the Edmonton deal.
If this is all true, then why do all the polls show people being against this? Why should peoplr give tax money to private corporations? They shouldnt. Every study says there is little to no benefit for publically funded stadiums. Field of schemes has all the info. The flames owners need to pay for this.
Last edited:
True that in every Flames' pitch, the city has owned the arena. This is always true everywhere. If the team owns the arena, the team is responsible for upkeep, and, in the case of Canada, property taxes. Those are expenses that teams don't want.
The scheme is always the same:
1- You build it. We might contribute some, but as little as you let us get away with.
2- We operate it, and get the money, and hopefully, you pay us for that as well.
3- When our lease is up, we will try to fleece you again the same way.
The trick for the politicians is how to say 'no" often enough that the deal comes out close to fair, or for the politicians to be willing to let the team leave if it comes to that.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
The two I saw on line had the city owning and maintaining the arena but the Flames getting the money from all events
Owners pay the up keep
- Sep 27, 2017
- 3,614
- 2,895
Katz secured his own financing for his portion. Also the Katz group spent a lot of money buying up properties around the arena to facilitate the arena district
Yukon Joe
Registered User
It's difficult to compare the Edmonton situation to that in Calgary. As an Edmonton taxpayer I was not really in favour of the deal, but the way it was sold was that it was for downtown revitalization. As pointed out Katz also agreed to build several new office and condo towers (although even there another part of the deal was the City of Edmonton signing a long-term lease for most of one tower, giving Katz a guaranteed revenue stream).
But anyways - Calgary's downtown doesn't need revitalizing. It's already quite developed. In fact it's biggest problem right now is vacancy rates, so no sane person would suggest Calgary needs to build several new office towers. The issue then is what benefit does Calgary get for helping to build a new arena? Because it isn't "downtown revitalization".
But anyways - Calgary's downtown doesn't need revitalizing. It's already quite developed. In fact it's biggest problem right now is vacancy rates, so no sane person would suggest Calgary needs to build several new office towers. The issue then is what benefit does Calgary get for helping to build a new arena? Because it isn't "downtown revitalization".
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
So how do you see this playing out Joe?... not to put you on the spot or anything but where then is this headed ya figure?
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Hey if I could predict the future I wouldn't be hanging out here!
The one place this isn't heading is to the Flames leaving Calgary. Not only can't I imagine the team being more profitable after being relocated than it already is in Calgary, but Murray Edwards doesn't only own the Flames - he also owns the Hitmen, the Roughnecks, and the Stampeders. Taking the crown jewel the Flames out of the equation lowers the value of all remaining assets.
CalgaryNext was CSE's attempt to point to some value to the city by redeveloping some former industrial land west of downtown. And that is an area that could use redevelopment. The problem is that the remediation costs were so massive it became a non-starter.
Probably someone is going to cave at some point - either a new mayor is elected (although Nenshi was just re-elected in the fall), or CSE accepts they're going to have to put more money in to get a new building.
Yukon,
Can you answer a question? I saw something recently that made me think that, under Alberta or perhaps canadian law, offering property tax relief to private businesses is not possible for cities.
Is this true?
I ask because I really think that the property tax bill for the Flames under the city's proposal is the major complaint for the team. And, the one hurdle that needs negotiated around.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Usually when I answer legal-type questions I have to offer the warning that "although I am a lawyer, I am not licensed in this particular jurisdiction". However in this case I am in fact authorized to practice law in Alberta. But I do not practice in this area, so please do not rely on my words and seek your own legal advice.
No. I am unaware of any restriction on offering property tax relief. It is in fact distressingly common to offer tax breaks to get companies to relocate to your own jurisdiction.
Thank you.
Then I suggest that the deal that will be made will be similar to the deal offered by the city.
185 from City
185 user fees
185 Flames
Flames own arena, but pay a negotiated reduced amount is property tax
Then I suggest that the deal that will be made will be similar to the deal offered by the city.
185 from City
185 user fees
185 Flames
Flames own arena, but pay a negotiated reduced amount is property tax
Yukon Joe
Registered User
The last thing the Flames want to do is own the arena. They want the city to own it so after 30 years, when the arena is out-dated, they can threaten to leave again unless the city builds them a new one.
- Status
