Calgary city council approves arena deal (UPD: new deal upcoming?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
:shakehead

Awful deal for Calgarians. Announced the same day as $60M in cuts to the City's operating budget this year. Funding for police services, fire department, public transit, public libraries, low-income housing, Heritage Park, Fort Calgary, the science centre, the convention centre and the zoo will be cut, two public pools and a (previously announced) golf course will be closed, and 115 people will be fired. Christ even the streetlight maintenance program is being cut from seven-day to 30-day service, i.e. if a streetlight burns out don't expect it to be fixed for at least a month. "World-class city" indeed...

But we're gonna build a half-billion-dollar sports palace for Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation, hooray! </sarcasm>

The idea that a new arena will "revitalize the area" is complete bunk: it'll be built in parking lots across the street from the Saddledome. If the Saddledome was not able to "revitalize the area" since 1983, why would a new building do so? It won't.

And if there's proof positive that the Saddledome isn't the dilapidated dump the Flames claim it is, it's that they insisted the Saddledome be demolished. Why does it have to be demolished? Because they won't make money if there's a big arena next door competing for acts. But then, if the Saddledome is really as outmoded as they claim it is for all these big concert tours and other events we're missing out on, why would they need to worry about it? The Saddledome site will likely be "revitalized" into parking lot.


Our council are a bunch of rubes. "Easy marks", as someone else put earlier. The proverbial "suckers born every minute" P.T. Barnum was talking about.
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
This arena has been in the works for 14 years. 14 years of back and forth on building a new building. Entirely way too long. The Saddledome is effectively the oldest arena in the league by a decade with Nassau and MSG having undergone renovations. It's served it's purpose well but it's long past it's best before date. For a city that prides itself on it's pragmatic attitudes it's honestly embarrassing a deal could not have been agreed upon earlier.

The property taxes in Calgary are already out of control, tons of small businesses have had to shut their doors in the last couple years. While as a Flames fan I'm happy they seem to be on their way to getting a new arena, as a citizen of Calgary I can't help but be concerned over the implications of the cost of one. This is going to take some solid leadership and tight planning to come in on schedule and on budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
This arena has been in the works for 14 years. 14 years of back and forth on building a new building. Entirely way too long. The Saddledome is effectively the oldest arena in the league by a decade with Nassau and MSG having undergone renovations. It's served it's purpose well but it's long past it's best before date.

This is just part of a fallacy to sucker municipal governments into paying for these arenas. Somebody has to play in the "oldest arena in the league".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
This is just part of a fallacy to sucker municipal governments into paying for these arenas. Somebody has to play in the "oldest arena in the league".

The proposed BMO centre expansion is estimated to cost $500 million, exclusively being funded by the provincial, federal, and municipal governments. Is that all going to be recouped by the taxpayers and the city as well?

The game day entertainment at the Saddledome has barely changed in 20 years. A new arena still likely won't open until 2024. The city has been pouring money into the East Village for several years now, the proposed location for the new arena area is nothing but parking lots and crackhouses. This isn't a keeping up with the Jones lets build a new arena just because we can, this is spending worthwhile money by partnering with the private sector to make a substantial improvement to what is a institution for the City of Calgary. I don't begrudge CSEC for trying to get the best deal possible, they are not beholden to the taxpayers, only their shareholders.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
Okay, first of all let's acknowledge that you completely ignored and tried to dodge my point. I told you the "oldest arena in the league" is a fallacy, because contrary to this:

This isn't a keeping up with the Jones lets build a new arena just because we can, this is spending worthwhile money by partnering with the private sector to make a substantial improvement to what is a institution for the City of Calgary.

... it is absolutely, 100% "keeping up with the Joneses". The suggestion this is not "keeping up with the Joneses" not only flies in the face of reality, it smacks reality around and says crude things about reality's momma.

The proposed BMO centre expansion is estimated to cost $500 million, exclusively being funded by the provincial, federal, and municipal governments. Is that all going to be recouped by the taxpayers and the city as well?

Honestly no, the money going into the BMO expansion won't be recouped. The idea we'll turn Calgary into a haven for conferences is at best naïve. Calgary will never be able to compete with bigger American cities for the conference 'market': it's not a seat of government, it's cold in the winter, airfares and hotels are too expensive as compared to cities that already have this market in the bag (e.g. Las Vegas, Orlando).

That said this is just deflection, trying to equate all government spending as wasteful and trying to justify the new arena as just another capital expenditure on the pile.

The game day entertainment at the Saddledome has barely changed in 20 years.

And? So? It's a hockey arena; are you there to watch a miniature blimp floating around the rink, some bimbo "Ice Girl" firing a t-shirt cannon into the crowd, some hokey pyrotechnics show, or are you there to watch hockey?

I can almost 100% guarantee that sightlines, seat comfort, etc. will not appreciably improve in a new building whatsover.

A new arena still likely won't open until 2024. The city has been pouring money into the East Village for several years now, the proposed location for the new arena area is nothing but parking lots and crackhouses.

The purpose of the money in the East Village was to fix the streets, the underground services, the sidewalks, add trees, bike racks, etc. to make it more appealing for private developers to build new buildings there. More private developments --> higher property values ---> higher property tax revenues. There are other external savings, like not having to spend as much money policing the area after transforming the place back into a functioning neighbourhood.

Building an arena in a parking lot doesn't fix anything. The city gets no increased property taxes—they own the building. The neighbourhood doesn't change character: they'll build a new arena in what was once a parking lot, and simply tear down the Saddledome and replace it with... a parking lot. You say "the proposed location for the new arena area is nothing but parking lots and crackhouses" and yet you don't ask yourself why that is. How is the new arena supposed to "revitalize the area" if the old one located literally across the street from the site of the new one didn't "revitalize the area"? That area didn't become parking lots until AFTER the Saddledome was built; the Saddledome turned that area INTO parking lots and crack houses!

I don't begrudge CSEC for trying to get the best deal possible, they are not beholden to the taxpayers, only their shareholders.

When my tax money makes them richer, absolutely I will begrudge them. They're effectively stealing money out of my pocket, and they're probably going to get away with it. At least I could spit in the eye of a mugger trying to steal my wallet; these rich bastards will steal my money and people like you will give 'em a pat on the back for their ingenuity!
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
Okay, first of all let's acknowledge that you completely ignored and tried to dodge my point. I told you the "oldest arena in the league" is a fallacy, because contrary to this:



... it is absolutely, 100% "keeping up with the Joneses". The suggestion this is not "keeping up with the Joneses" not only flies in the face of reality, it smacks reality around and says crude things about reality's momma.

The Saddledome being functionally the oldest arena in the league is a statement of fact. Usually a statement of fact isn't considered a fallacy. CSEC and the city and the city's citizens want a new arena so they're going to build one.

Honestly no, the money going into the BMO expansion won't be recouped. The idea we'll turn Calgary into a haven for conferences is at best naïve. Calgary will never be able to compete with bigger American cities for the conference 'market': it's not a seat of government, it's cold in the winter, airfares and hotels are too expensive as compared to cities that already have this market in the bag (e.g. Las Vegas, Orlando).

That said this is just deflection, trying to equate all government spending as wasteful and trying to justify the new arena as just another capital expenditure on the pile.

So what you're saying is it's OK for public money to benefit private business in some cases, but professional sports is not one of them.

And? So? It's a hockey arena; are you there to watch a miniature blimp floating around the rink, some bimbo "Ice Girl" firing a t-shirt cannon into the crowd, some hokey pyrotechnics show, or are you there to watch hockey?

I can almost 100% guarantee that sightlines, seat comfort, etc. will not appreciably improve in a new building whatsover.

I've been lucky enough to visit an array of NHL team arenas for a hockey game. All of them I've been to blow the Saddledome game day entertainment out of the water experience wise. T Mobile in particular was fantastic, the atmosphere was incredible. As a fan you're paying for the experience, not just of the game, but of going to a game. A new arena promises to deliver a better one, 100% guaranteed.

The purpose of the money in the East Village was to fix the streets, the underground services, the sidewalks, add trees, bike racks, etc. to make it more appealing for private developers to build new buildings there. More private developments --> higher property values ---> higher property tax revenues. There are other external savings, like not having to spend as much money policing the area after transforming the place back into a functioning neighbourhood.

Well seeing as the new arena plan includes a lot of private developments this is the city reaping the benefits of that investment isn't it?

Building an arena in a parking lot doesn't fix anything. The city gets no increased property taxes—they own the building. The neighbourhood doesn't change character: they'll build a new arena in what was once a parking lot, and simply tear down the Saddledome and replace it with... a parking lot. You say "the proposed location for the new arena area is nothing but parking lots and crackhouses" and yet you don't ask yourself why that is. How is the new arena supposed to "revitalize the area" if the old one located literally across the street from the site of the new one didn't "revitalize the area"? That area didn't become parking lots until AFTER the Saddledome was built; the Saddledome turned that area INTO parking lots and crack houses!

When my tax money makes them richer, absolutely I will begrudge them. They're effectively stealing money out of my pocket, and they're probably going to get away with it. At least I could spit in the eye of a mugger trying to steal my wallet; these rich bastards will steal my money and people like you will give 'em a pat on the back for their ingenuity!

Albertans getting their backs up about public money that benefits private enterprise is absolutely hilarious to me considering the last ~40 years in this province :laugh: Endless tax breaks, infrastructure agreements, and a mile long list of other incentives to get foreign Oil & Gas companies to come here and exploit our resources. Can 100% guarantee you that number is a lot bigger than $250 million. But now a Calgary based sports and entertainment company, whose ownership have almost all been pillars of philanthropy in their community, want to build a brand new facility by paving over 8 blocks of eyesore; so shame on them for asking for a handout. Except this handout actually directly benefits the city and it's citizens and doesn't end up in the pockets of Shell or BP or some other multinational conglomerate. I'm not cheering anybody here, I have actually been highly critical of both sides during this negotiation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GuelphStormer

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
The Saddledome being functionally the oldest arena in the league is a statement of fact. Usually a statement of fact isn't considered a fallacy. CSEC and the city and the city's citizens want a new arena so they're going to build one.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "THE OLDEST ARENA IN THE LEAGUE", and somebody has to play in it. The fallacy is "we play in the oldest arena, therefore you have to build us a new one". It is undeniably just keeping-up-with-the-Jones.

So what you're saying is it's OK for public money to benefit private business in some cases, but professional sports is not one of them.

This hamfisted attempt at poking holes in my argument is laughable. First of all your reading comprehension is obviously lacking, because I said the BMO expansion is a stupid idea. Secondly, the BMO Centre is not a private business. And even then I still think it's a stupid idea.

I've been lucky enough to visit an array of NHL team arenas for a hockey game. All of them I've been to blow the Saddledome game day entertainment out of the water experience wise. T Mobile in particular was fantastic, the atmosphere was incredible. As a fan you're paying for the experience, not just of the game, but of going to a game. A new arena promises to deliver a better one, 100% guaranteed.

I've been to about half a dozen; they were just hockey arenas. Overpriced beer, junk food, merchandise-peddlers in the concourses, some poor sap in a mascot suit, "Go <team> Go!/Let's go <team>!" chants. It's all the same.

Well seeing as the new arena plan includes a lot of private developments this is the city reaping the benefits of that investment isn't it?

The "plan" is that the new arena will magically spur private development. The likelihood of that happening is essentially nil, especially given the Saddledome has been across the street for 36 years and private development never happened. "Parking lots and crack houses": that's all the Saddledome ever had around it, remember?

Albertans getting their backs up about public money that benefits private enterprise is absolutely hilarious to me considering the last ~40 years in this province :laugh: Endless tax breaks, infrastructure agreements, and a mile long list of other incentives to get foreign Oil & Gas companies to come here and exploit our resources. Can 100% guarantee you that number is a lot bigger than $250 million. But now a Calgary based sports and entertainment company, whose ownership have almost all been pillars of philanthropy in their community, want to build a brand new facility by paving over 8 blocks of eyesore; so shame on them for asking for a handout. Except this handout actually directly benefits the city and it's citizens and doesn't end up in the pockets of Shell or BP or some other multinational conglomerate.

I'm not happy about that, either. But we didn't go around giving Shell or BP half -a-billion-dollar office buildings, did we? I contribute to the economy, how come the City of Calgary won't build me a mansion and rent it to me on the cheap?
 

McDLT

I'm a style boy for life
Mar 1, 2016
1,253
894
Calgary
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "THE OLDEST ARENA IN THE LEAGUE", and somebody has to play in it. The fallacy is "we play in the oldest arena, therefore you have to build us a new one". It is undeniably just keeping-up-with-the-Jones.



This hamfisted attempt at poking holes in my argument is laughable. First of all your reading comprehension is obviously lacking, because I said the BMO expansion is a stupid idea. Secondly, the BMO Centre is not a private business. And even then I still think it's a stupid idea.



I've been to about half a dozen; they were just hockey arenas. Overpriced beer, junk food, merchandise-peddlers in the concourses, some poor sap in a mascot suit, "Go <team> Go!/Let's go <team>!" chants. It's all the same.



The "plan" is that the new arena will magically spur private development. The likelihood of that happening is essentially nil, especially given the Saddledome has been across the street for 36 years and private development never happened. "Parking lots and crack houses": that's all the Saddledome ever had around it, remember?



I'm not happy about that, either. But we didn't go around giving Shell or BP half -a-billion-dollar office buildings, did we? I contribute to the economy, how come the City of Calgary won't build me a mansion and rent it to me on the cheap?
You’re totally right
 

Roughneck II

Registered User
Oct 6, 2018
5
2
Most would count a ticket tax as proceeds coming out of Edmonton Oiler's pocket. Because if the market supports a $100 ticket+a 10% tax, then the Oilers could in fact be charging $110 with zero impact. However the market might not support $110+10% tax.

If you go with this thinking (which is effectively what Ken King pushed the first go around of negotiations), then the city of Calgary is paying only 22% of the arena, and the Flames 78% because the ticket tax is going to the city.

That's the main difference between the two deals in the cities. The COC is getting reimbursed for part of it's 50% contribution ($275M-$155M ticket tax) while the COE isn't. The ticket tax is going to the funding of the arena directly on top of the city's 50% contribution.
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE "THE OLDEST ARENA IN THE LEAGUE", and somebody has to play in it. The fallacy is "we play in the oldest arena, therefore you have to build us a new one". It is undeniably just keeping-up-with-the-Jones.



This hamfisted attempt at poking holes in my argument is laughable. First of all your reading comprehension is obviously lacking, because I said the BMO expansion is a stupid idea. Secondly, the BMO Centre is not a private business. And even then I still think it's a stupid idea.



I've been to about half a dozen; they were just hockey arenas. Overpriced beer, junk food, merchandise-peddlers in the concourses, some poor sap in a mascot suit, "Go <team> Go!/Let's go <team>!" chants. It's all the same.



The "plan" is that the new arena will magically spur private development. The likelihood of that happening is essentially nil, especially given the Saddledome has been across the street for 36 years and private development never happened. "Parking lots and crack houses": that's all the Saddledome ever had around it, remember?



I'm not happy about that, either. But we didn't go around giving Shell or BP half -a-billion-dollar office buildings, did we? I contribute to the economy, how come the City of Calgary won't build me a mansion and rent it to me on the cheap?

I don't understand your logic. Because there will always be an "oldest arena in the league" that means nobody should ever build anything new? Hate progress if you want, it's inevitable. The BMO centre is rented by private business, the expansion is absolutely for their benefit.

Private development never happened around the Saddledome? I guess the two casinos, new condominiums, new commercial space along 12th ave, and the 2000 and 2009 expansions to the convention centre don't count. LOL Maybe if you had contributed to the local economy at the same scale CSEC has the city would build you a house, where you can entertain thousands of it's residents every week. What a ridiculous comparison.

I didn't even say I thought it was a good deal, I really don't think a good deal was at all possible in this case. I've said in the post above I have concerns over the property tax implications. I'm happy they have come to a tentative agreement after what has been a long contentious and largely pointless negotiation. I'm satisfied with CSEC paying their half and the city recouping much of theirs from the ticket tax and I'm happy the Flames will be playing in Calgary for the next 35 years.
 

blueandgoldguy

Registered User
Oct 8, 2010
5,240
2,470
Greg's River Heights
That's because you've counted entirely incorrectly.

Firstly, the cost of Edmonton's Arena Project totaled $614M. The city paid 313M for their portion, much through paid via the CRL.

Then the citizens of Edmonton were then hit with a $125M ticket tax, you can debate whose column this belongs in, but it isn't coming out of the Oilers pockets.

Katz group provided just $166M in funding. This accounts for just 27% of the total cost. In contrast Edmonton provided 51% directly, and if you choose to factor in the ticket tax that's a whopping 73% of the cost.

The Flames Arena project is projected at $550M. With $275M from both the City and CSEC. 50% each.

So not only will the City of Calgary pay less in total dollars than the city of Edmonton, they also will pay less as a ratio of the total cost of the project.

The fact that Katz got his arena for just 27% of the cost means that yes, the Fans in Edmonton: Bent. Over. A. Barrel.

It's actually an amazing case study in why cities shouldn't finance these projects. All of this is without even factoring the real-estate that the city essentially gifted Katz.

Calgary taxpayers also got bent over the barrel. They are essentially paying over half the costs once you factor in free land and demolition of the Saddledome. THe city also owns the arena which ultimately means they cannot collect any tax revenue.

I'm not sure why you are trying to steer the conversation towards Edmonton's awful arena deal when it is quite clear Calgary's is nearly as bad...perhaps a tiny bit better. Exaggerating the generosity of the Flames ownership vs. Katz is something best left to the Eric Francis of the world.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,746
So the Flames got Calgary to pay for the arena eh?

Wish Calgary would have called their bluff knowing they have nowhere to go, billionaire owners can build their own arena.

And watch the team pack up and head out leaving the city with nothing but a empty very very old arena? They been at this for over a decade and yet it should be pushed back even further? At some point the city needed to decide if they feel this is the best they are going to get. And by the looks of it they have. Trying to delay it further just so its all 100% private funded does not help. The league is lucky enough someone showed up to build Seattle's arena all private. I don't think in this case Calgary should be gambling like this cause there is a risk that the Flames end up pulling out the relocation card. And there are options for the flames, Portland Houston etc are possibilities. I don't see it coming to that to where the relocation threat has to be used.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
And watch the team pack up and head out leaving the city with nothing but a empty very very old arena? They been at this for over a decade and yet it should be pushed back even further? At some point the city needed to decide if they feel this is the best they are going to get. And by the looks of it they have. Trying to delay it further just so its all 100% private funded does not help. The league is lucky enough someone showed up to build Seattle's arena all private. I don't think in this case Calgary should be gambling like this cause there is a risk that the Flames end up pulling out the relocation card. And there are options for the flames, Portland Houston etc are possibilities. I don't see it coming to that to where the relocation threat has to be used.
Where were they moving to Tommy? Both Houston and Portland have owners of the area or someone controls the lease. Seattle's arena is private.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
:shakehead

Awful deal for Calgarians. Announced the same day as $60M in cuts to the City's operating budget this year. Funding for police services, fire department, public transit, public libraries, low-income housing, Heritage Park, Fort Calgary, the science centre, the convention centre and the zoo will be cut, two public pools and a (previously announced) golf course will be closed, and 115 people will be fired. Christ even the streetlight maintenance program is being cut from seven-day to 30-day service, i.e. if a streetlight burns out don't expect it to be fixed for at least a month. "World-class city" indeed...

But we're gonna build a half-billion-dollar sports palace for Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation, hooray! </sarcasm>

The idea that a new arena will "revitalize the area" is complete bunk: it'll be built in parking lots across the street from the Saddledome. If the Saddledome was not able to "revitalize the area" since 1983, why would a new building do so? It won't.

And if there's proof positive that the Saddledome isn't the dilapidated dump the Flames claim it is, it's that they insisted the Saddledome be demolished. Why does it have to be demolished? Because they won't make money if there's a big arena next door competing for acts. But then, if the Saddledome is really as outmoded as they claim it is for all these big concert tours and other events we're missing out on, why would they need to worry about it? The Saddledome site will likely be "revitalized" into parking lot.


Our council are a bunch of rubes. "Easy marks", as someone else put earlier. The proverbial "suckers born every minute" P.T. Barnum was talking about.
Drag them, Hoser. Agree 100%.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
I don't understand your logic. Because there will always be an "oldest arena in the league" that means nobody should ever build anything new? Hate progress if you want, it's inevitable. The BMO centre is rented by private business, the expansion is absolutely for their benefit.

Obviously you don't understand. The point is "oldest arena in the league" is an excuse to build a building, purely for the sake of "keeping up with the Joneses", and when a municipality succumbs to this pressure they get themselves stuck on a hedonistic treadmill wherein the demand for a new arena is made every 25-35 years.

We already built the Saddledome for the Flames; they didn't put a single penny into its original construction. Now they want a new one, because the current one is "oldest in the league". What happens 40 years from now, when the new one is "oldest in the league"? Do they demand another new arena? I bet they will. So where does it stop?

Private development never happened around the Saddledome? I guess the two casinos, new condominiums, new commercial space along 12th ave, and the 2000 and 2009 expansions to the convention centre don't count.

*sigh*

The "Cowboys Casino" and BMO (née Roundup) Centre expansion were built with PUBLIC money!

Here's what the area looked like in 1979, before the Saddledome and convention centre were built (siteworks for the Roundup Centre had already started):

AH5UfM4.png


Here's what it looked like by 1995:

BfxZ78q.png


Here's what it looks like today (well, 2018):

kbaSRSx.png


Notice how much of Victoria Park went from houses and other small buildings to NOTHING? The Saddledome and Roundup Centre didn't "revitalize the area", they hollowed it out!

Here's a touched-up photo showing the new public buildings (in blue), new private buildings (in green), and all the parts of the neighbourhood that were razed (in red). Notice there's a lot more red on that photo than green...

VsIwEHa.png


I didn't even say I thought it was a good deal, I really don't think a good deal was at all possible in this case. I've said in the post above I have concerns over the property tax implications. I'm happy they have come to a tentative agreement after what has been a long contentious and largely pointless negotiation. I'm satisfied with CSEC paying their half and the city recouping much of theirs from the ticket tax and I'm happy the Flames will be playing in Calgary for the next 35 years.

And I'm not satisfied because I can smell the BS and know this is a bad deal.
 
Last edited:

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,746
Obviously you don't understand. The point is "oldest arena in the league" is an excuse to build a building, purely for the sake of "keeping up with the Joneses", and when a municipality succumbs to this pressure they get themselves stuck on a hedonistic treadmill wherein the demand for a new arena is made every 25-35 years.

We already built the Saddledome for the Flames; they didn't put a single penny into its original construction. Now they want a new one, because the current one is "oldest in the league". What happens 40 years from now, when the new one is "oldest in the league"? Do they demand another new arena? I bet they will. So where does it stop?



*sigh*

The "Cowboys Casino" and BMO (née Roundup) Centre expansion were built with PUBLIC money!

Here's what the area looked like in 1979, before the Saddledome and convention centre were built (siteworks for the Roundup Centre had already started):

AH5UfM4.png


Here's what it looked like by 1995:

BfxZ78q.png


Here's what it looks like today (well, 2018):

kbaSRSx.png


Notice how much of Victoria Park went from houses and other small buildings to NOTHING? The Saddledome and Roundup Centre didn't "revitalize the area", they hollowed it out!

Here's a touched-up photo showing the new public buildings (in blue), new private buildings (in green), and all the parts of the neighbourhood that were razed (in red). Notice there's a lot more red on that photo than green...

VsIwEHa.png




And I'm not satisfied because I can smell the BS and know this is a bad deal.

So are only gonna be satisfied until the deal is all private which is exactly not going to happen? again like i said if the city felt they can do better than 50/50 and the flames was willing to provide more, it would have happened. It didn't and the city is fine with it being 50/50.
 

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,592
609
Martinaise, Revachol
People seem to always go wild when public money is committed to stadiums. And I don't really get it. Sure, there are some abhorrent examples like the Miami Marlins stadium, where the taxpayers were completely hosed to enrich ownership. This is not the case here, and it's not the case in the vast majority of sports venue financing. Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that says sports venues don't financially benefit a city. However, the point isn't about directly enriching the municipalities coffers. An arena, or a stadium for that matter, confers so many other benefits. From aiding local businesses, to giving you a long and stable source of tax revenue (that will eventually pay for your initial investment), sports venues are not the financial black hole people make them out to be especially if you have a good deal—like this one—where the city is not paying maintenance and is not footing more than half of the bill.

Expecting a deal with limited or no public support is a pipe dream. If you want that you are by extension supporting eventual relocation of the franchise. Almost every venue is built as part of a joint effort between the public sector and private interests. That's because sports venues are both private and public institutions. This isn't a condo tower that the city is paying for, this is an entertainment venue for it's citizens, something that keeps your city as a top destination for skilled workers and conveys a degree of prestige.

Calgary was going to lose the Flames if they did not fund a new stadium and they got a pretty fair deal in the process.
 

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
So are only gonna be satisfied until the deal is all private which is exactly not going to happen? again like i said if the city felt they can do better than 50/50 and the flames was willing to provide more, it would have happened. It didn't and the city is fine with it being 50/50.

Why shouldn't it be "all private"? They get all the profits; why shouldn't they front all the costs?

People seem to always go wild when public money is committed to stadiums. And I don't really get it. Sure, there are some abhorrent examples like the Miami Marlins stadium, where the taxpayers were completely hosed to enrich ownership. This is not the case here, and it's not the case in the vast majority of sports venue financing.

How is it not the case of the taxpayers being "completely hosed to enrich ownership"?

Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that says sports venues don't financially benefit a city. However, the point isn't about directly enriching the municipalities coffers. An arena, or a stadium for that matter, confers so many other benefits. From aiding local businesses,

Like what? How? Are you going to trot out the old adage that it "keeps the bars busy on game nights"? As you can plainly see on the marked-up satellite photo in my previous post, the area around the Saddledome is a desert of parking lots; it didn't aid any businesses in the area.

to giving you a long and stable source of tax revenue (that will eventually pay for your initial investment),

There is no tax revenue! The tax revenues they're purporting will be generated are pixie dust and unicorn farts.

sports venues are not the financial black hole people make them out to be especially if you have a good deal—like this one—where the city is not paying maintenance and is not footing more than half of the bill.

You've capitulated and accepted that it's "a good deal" only because, relative to other debacles like the Marlins' stadium in Miami, it's "not as bad as it could be". It's like saying "well, you got screwed, but at least they told you you were pretty".

Expecting a deal with limited or no public support is a pipe dream. If you want that you are by extension supporting eventual relocation of the franchise.

Then so be it. Let 'em leave! Let 'em screw over some other schmuck municipality who're willing to foot the bill for a stadium.

Almost every venue is built as part of a joint effort between the public sector and private interests. That's because sports venues are both private and public institutions.

No, it's because gullible people have been conned into believing it must be so. There are lots of privately-built stadia the world over. In the NHL alone: Vegas, Denver, Toronto, Columbus, LA, DC, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Manhattan...

This isn't a condo tower that the city is paying for, this is an entertainment venue for it's citizens, something that keeps your city as a top destination for skilled workers and conveys a degree of prestige.

Oh puh-lease, this is right out of the team owners' playbook. Atlanta is no less "prestigious" and a "destination for skilled workers" because it doesn't have a hockey team anymore. Houston, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego... the list of cities without pro hockey teams is riddled with "prestigious" ones in which no one gives a flying fig about it.

Pro sports teams do not generate wealth, pro sports teams go to cities where wealth already exists.
 

Boris Zubov

No relation to Sergei, Joe
May 6, 2016
17,286
23,222
Back on the east coast
People seem to always go wild when public money is committed to stadiums. And I don't really get it. Sure, there are some abhorrent examples like the Miami Marlins stadium, where the taxpayers were completely hosed to enrich ownership. This is not the case here, and it's not the case in the vast majority of sports venue financing. Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that says sports venues don't financially benefit a city. However, the point isn't about directly enriching the municipalities coffers. An arena, or a stadium for that matter, confers so many other benefits. From aiding local businesses, to giving you a long and stable source of tax revenue (that will eventually pay for your initial investment), sports venues are not the financial black hole people make them out to be especially if you have a good deal—like this one—where the city is not paying maintenance and is not footing more than half of the bill.

Expecting a deal with limited or no public support is a pipe dream. If you want that you are by extension supporting eventual relocation of the franchise. Almost every venue is built as part of a joint effort between the public sector and private interests. That's because sports venues are both private and public institutions. This isn't a condo tower that the city is paying for, this is an entertainment venue for it's citizens, something that keeps your city as a top destination for skilled workers and conveys a degree of prestige.

Calgary was going to lose the Flames if they did not fund a new stadium and they got a pretty fair deal in the process.

When other municipal services are being cut by 60 million dollars so tax payer money can be shifted to construction of a sports arena, there is a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
As unfortunate as the budget cuts are the money is being cut from the operational budget, which is different from the capital budget which is where the funds are coming to pay for the city’s share of the arena.

No money can be shifted from one to the other. Even if the arena funds could be shifted to the operation budget it would be short-term relief, the city will be in a same position in a year or two and they would have no funds for building.

As bad as the optics look, even if an event centre/arena deal wasn’t reach none of the jobs lost would have been saved or service cuts remained intact.
 
Last edited:

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
Where were they moving to Tommy? Both Houston and Portland have owners of the area or someone controls the lease. Seattle's arena is private.

I don't think the Flames ownership would move the team themselves. They would sell to parties with no intention of keeping the team in Calgary....with the league's blessing.

It's what happened in Seattle with the Sonics when ownership came to the end of the road for a new building there.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,746
Why shouldn't it be "all private"? They get all the profits; why shouldn't they front all the costs?
I'm speaking realistically. 100% private was not going to happen from the start and this has been going on for over 10 years. Its been going on for way too long. If the city wants the team to 100% pay for it all might as well say good bye to the franchise. Seattle lost their NBA team cause they didn't want to pay for a new building when they already are paying for one that was badly done.

Again like i said if the city felt they can get more from the flame in terms of the arena deal funding and the flames were okay with it, it would have happened. This whole project goes beyond the arena itself. The area around the arena will get developed to where the city gets even more tax revenue.

Flames current arena has to be replaced and delaying the new arena even longer until by some slim chance the flames are gonna decide to pay for it all. Can the flames even have the $$$ to even do it themselves all privately?

Its either get the best deal the city can get or good bye flames. I'm sure Houston or perhaps other western cities like Portland would be more than glad to take them.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
Here's a touched-up photo showing the new public buildings (in blue), new private buildings (in green), and all the parts of the neighbourhood that were razed (in red). Notice there's a lot more red on that photo than green...

VsIwEHa.png


And I'm not satisfied because I can smell the BS and know this is a bad deal.

How much was destroyed removed after the 2013 flood?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->