I don't know about you, but $3.57 million dollars per year seems pretty reasonable to rent out a hockey rink (especially if they paid for most of the cost to build the facility). And when you said an arena is not public infrastructure because it's not free like the library? Last I checked you still had to buy a library card. The C-train is public infrastructure too, but you still need to pay for a bus pass. There are many cases of publicly owned operations that you still need to pay to use. Nothing is free, even when the government provides it.
The Saddledome is enjoyed by more than just hockey fans, it's a multi-use building. A new arena would be the same. Also with the enormous tax revenue that the Flames raise for the city, I don't think anyone should have a problem with the city investing in them. The bottom line is, the Flames multitude of tax dollars have helped build schools and pave roads for decades now. They've contributed enormously to the city, so it's fair that the city contributes back in some capacity, especially when the facility is enjoyed by the public at large.
You might be okay with the Flames walking, so you can pat yourself on the back and say "Well, at least we didn't let those greedy sports teams owners walk all over us", but I'd much prefer to keep the Flames in town. There are still markets they could move to; Houston and Quebec City are the 2 names that come up the most. If the city doesn't want to help build the arena, there will be some other city that will gladly help build a facility if it meant a pro hockey team will be moving into it. In some cases there are already cities with arenas built that are just waiting to jump on the opportunity.
I don't see the owners as caricatures of greedy fat billionaires with their feet up on their desk smoking cigars and stroking their stomachs, I see them as parts of our communities who contribute and provide us with entertainment that millions enjoy. I want to see them stay in the city, and all they want is a fair deal. I hope that deal can be made so we can all continue to enjoy NHL hockey for many more years to come.
Okay, I have a bit of a lengthy response here. I'll try to address a bunch of your points one at a time.
1. $3.57 million a year seems like a lot of money, but not relative to the total cost of the arena. If the new arena is $500 million and a user fee covers $150 million, $350 million still needs to be covered. $125 million would be an upfront rent payment from the Flames, which only covers
36% of that $350 million. So the Flames pay 36% of the cost and get 100% of all revenue. How exactly is that a partnership?
2. With the exception of the free LRT zone, indeed you need to pay to use the C-Train. However, the city also gets revenue from C-train ticket sales. With this new arena, they get absolutely nothing. And yes, nothing is free. But I would rather pay property tax so that I can get a free library card, as opposed to paying property tax for an arena that is not accessible to the public without paying a fortune to get in. The least the Flames could provide would be a citizen's luxury suite, where there is a random draw per event for a few citizens to get in for free. Instead there will be an owner's luxury suite for Murray Edwards to use, despite the fact he won't be the owner of the facility.
3. How has the city made any money at all from the Flames from taxes? The Flames don't pay any property tax on the Saddledome because the city owns it. In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, the Flames pay
$1 in rent per year to the city in rent to use the Saddledome. And as
Signature pointed out, the Flames won't be paying any property tax on the new arena (because they insist on not owning the facility for this very reason). The Flames will of course argue that the surrounding area will become revitalized because of the new arena, and the city will collect property tax from anyone who builds there. I'm not convinced a new arena will revitalize the surrounding area (ie. see current area surrounding Saddledome), and even if it did, that collected property tax would have to be used to
pay off the new arena. So again, the city is getting absolutely nothing out of this.
4. I don't want the Flames to move. But I also cannot accept the Flames getting the same deal Katz got with the Oilers. Part of me is also starting to wonder what the future of professional sports is going to look like. More and more, it seems as though people would rather just watch sports from the comfort of their homes, as opposed to the annoyance of getting down to an arena and paying a fortune to watch a game. I just don't see future generations of kids interested in this.
5. Yes, Quebec City and Houston keep getting brought up, but they are just being used by owners to threaten sports fans into handing over more tax dollars to stay put. The Panthers, Canes and Coyotes are all in significantly worse positions than the Flames. Perhaps if the Panthers moved to Quebec City and the Coyotes to Houston then maybe I start to take these threats more seriously. But the Flames pay $1 in rent per year. You think the owners of those facilities in Quebec City and Houston are going to allow that? Not a chance.
6. I don't feel as though I am unreasonable with my perception of sports owners. I'm not of the mindset that "Murray Edwards is a multi-billionaire, therefore he should should just pay for the whole thing", because that would be a terrible financial decision. But if you are asking for the city to help pay for the cost of arena, they need to share in the financial benefits. Again, the city needs to be
made whole, otherwise they are going to have to cut services to pay for the new arena (read about this on the Field of Schemes website. Some US cities have had to shut down hospitals because of some of the ridiculous arena/stadium deals they agreed to).
7. The Flames provide entertainment to us, but at an outrageous cost. The only thing a new arena is going to do is make it even more impossible for low to middle income earners to afford due to (a) a ticket tax (b) less upper bowl seating and more lower bowl seating (c) increased ticket prices that accompany new arenas and (d) an increase in their property tax bills
You say that Flames want a fair deal. Why is the 1/3 Flames, 1/3 City, 1/3 Users model unfair?