Question to Saskatoon folks....(re. Stadium)

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

That's not good for anyone, is it?

It's not like there's just one football team in this province. There's the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the University of Saskatchewan Huskies. Let Regina be the CFL city, and develop Saskatoon into Canada's premier college football city. Show Halifax and Quebec City how it's done. There's no reason why college football can't become as big a deal here as it is south of the border. You get the teams that you build!

Instead of infighting between two Saskatchewan cities, it's far more constructive for people in the province to support efforts made in each city. Get behind the construction of a 35,000-50,000 seater in Regina, and then it will be Saskatoon's turn for some sports infrastructure spending.

If people in Saskatoon love football, they should be pouring their energies into the Huskies rather than bitching about the Riders being based in Regina. Support the team that you have, build the fan base up, and then get your own 35,000-50,000 seat college football stadium built. There's no reason why U of S couldn't draw crowds as big as, or larger, than what the Riders draw. Saskatoon is a bigger city than Regina.

I hear complaining from some Saskatoon people about the Riders being based in Regina, but the truth is, they don't even support the team they do have. In football loving Saskatchewan, Griffiths Stadium should be drawing 35,000 to Huskies games. If you love football, it shouldn't matter if it's college. Americans support their football teams. I don't see why we should be any different. Our teams and leagues are only as good as the effort and support we shower on them. Why don't Canadians get that?

Do you think the good people of Lincoln, Nebraska built a Cornhuskers fan base of 81,067 over night? If Nebraska can build a team like that, surely a similar place like Saskatchewan should be able to build a fan base of 50,000 for the Huskies? The only difference between Nebraska and Saskatchewan is that they put the time, effort, and money into making the Cornhuskers what they are today. Saskatchewan and Saskatoon can have the same thing, but it will take the same degree of devotion.

Griffiths Stadium, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

http://facilities.usask.ca/images/ne.../griffiths.gif

TURN GRIFFITHS ABOVE INTO THIS BELOW BY 2025, but Huskies green. Saskatoon can have it, but it's up to them to build it.


http://www.huskerspot.com/images/wal...um1024x768.jpg

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by thegreattait

Aren't the roughriders a community owned team? It's not like profits generated will be going to some millionaire business person, if you have a problem with that.

I'm aware that the teamis publicly owned, but also that the league is all about profit. I have no problem with profit by the way (My username is intended to be humorous), but not with it being subsidized in the name of provincial pride.

Originally Posted by thegreattait

The government is providing taxpayer funding to augment the opportunities for its citizens to view something which a large number of the public desires.

Perhaps, but I am stating that not all of the citizens (me for instance) wish to subsidize it. The exact proportion of those who do and those who don't could only be determined by a referrendum (yes, I know "expensive, inneficient etc.")

Originally Posted by thegreattait

If you wanted equal access, then taxes could be raised and games could be free to view and tickets could be handed out at random to those who wish to attend. However there is no political will for this sort of thing, as we do not live in a communist country.

We don't live in a communist country. So why should government be involved in a bussiness venture? Would you suggest that the CFl or the roughriders are not a bussiness. It is not as cut and dried as "communist" or "capitalist". Those labels simply cloud the argument. My stand is neither communist nor capitalist. I am simply saying we need to consider what role government has in supporting various enterprises. I for one think the CFL has become too much of a bussiness, for government to be involved.

Originally Posted by thegreattait

Also because we do not have this type of system, those who do not enjoy that particular activity aren't forced to pay for 100% of something they will not use of enjoy. Instead they are only forced to pay for a small portion of that activity, just as I am forced to pay for a small portion of their activity that they may enjoy and that I may not.

And I would argue that you have every right to state your objections to funding any particular service if you have them and if the majority agree, that service should not be funded. I am not saying I will stage a tax revolt to avoid subsidizing the stadium, just that I do not feel it appropriate and if given a vote, would vote against it. Not because I dislike Regina (I like Regina), not because I dislike football (I like football) but because if football is a necessity (or even of high importance) to society in general, then is should be cheap enough that anyone can go. I think the current pricing is actually quite good in this regard ( I am not arguing it shoudl be free), but I, like all of you, know that the new stadium will increase seat prices dramatically. If it is not of high importance to society in general, then those who wish to go (I would be one of these) should pay the price.

Originally Posted by thegreattait

Lower income brackets do not pay enough to cover the services that they reap from the system, and I am fine with that. I am happy to have my tax dollars go towards helping others in society. However I also don't have a problem with those tax dollars going to support an event which I enjoy. (or other similar types of activities that I have the opportunity to enjoy eg. art)

There is equal opportunity and equal outcome. Most people in our society have had equal opportunity to succeed and thus have the ability to enjoy other aspects of life such as art and sports and their viewing. .

This is a complex political/economic issue, and I don't think there is space to debate it here, but I do not agree entirely.

Originally Posted by thegreattait

Unless society decides that things such as attending sporting events or art museums are essential to life in our society then we will not have 100% funding, while at the same time until society decides that things such as art or sports are completely irrelevant and should play no role in our society then we will have some level of funding.

I have not argued that sports has no place in society, I am just uncomfortable with the degree to which it has become bussiness and continues to seek public funding. I will conced that the CFL and Roughriders have some cultural value, but the league seems more than happy to subsume cultural values for profit if need be. I don't see this as either/or, but as a continuum and to me, the CFL has gone far enough down the bussiness route that it no longer deserves public funding. I would make the same argument with arts organizations. For example, while I applaud the business accumen and artistic merit of Cirque de Soleil, they have gone far enough down the comercial path, that I would not support publicly funding them (maybe int he early years). In sports, I fully support government funding of amatur sport and perhaps early stage professional sports, but not established and blatantly comercial professsional sports, unless that subsidy makes it possible for everyone (of any income level) to reasonably afford it.

Originally Posted by thegreattait

Until either of those days comes I am happy having my tax dollars go towards support both the arts and the sports, and if I as a tax paying citizen feel that one activity needs more funding then it is my responsibility to do all that is possible through our democratically elected system to make that happen.

I.e. I feel some votes on the way for Fiacco and Wall if they can make this happen.

Excellent, you state your arguments well and I applaud your resolve, but I don't agree

[Migs]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

Perhaps, but I am stating that not all of the citizens (me for instance) wish to subsidize it. The exact proportion of those who do and those who don't could only be determined by a referrendum (yes, I know "expensive, inneficient etc.")

Same could be said for most govt expenditures. Should we have a referendum for everything that the govt commits money towards?

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by Migs

Same could be said for most govt expenditures. Should we have a referendum for everything that the govt commits money towards?

Maybe, if it is going to be a large discretionary expenditure. It would certainly lead to significant delays and occassionally good projects not going ahead, which is bad. However, it might also forestall a lot of stupid projects motivated by hubris, emotional reasoning or short term political gain from proceeding and would require the proponents to provide a strong long-term rationale for such expenditures.

Referendums foster debate, and debate can bring out alternative thinking. For example, I am not arguing the point specifically here, but it seems strange to me that we are so gung ho on a children's hospital, when we are an aging population with a serious dearth of services for the elderly. Almost anyone in the health care system would recognize this, but kids are cuter than old people and so a childrens' hospital is an easier sell. It is politically expedient to propose a childrens hospital, and easy to get people on board based on emotion. Once the ship is sailing who is going to put the brakes on through reason. Referenda at least offer an opportunity for sober second thought.

BTW, I suspect the stadium idea would pass a referendum anyway.

[swilley]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

but it seems strange to me that we are so gung ho on a children's hospital, when we are an aging population with a serious dearth of services for the elderly. Almost anyone in the health care system would recognize this, but kids are cuter than old people and so a childrens' hospital is an easier sell. It is politically expedient to propose a childrens hospital, and easy to get people on board based on emotion.

I think you should be careful with this one here. I am not sure if you have spent any time in the NICU at RUH, I am sure if you have, you might take another position.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by swilley

I think you should be careful with this one here. I am not sure if you have spent any time in the NICU at RUH, I am sure if you have, you might take another position.

I genuinely apologize if my example touched on a sensitive area for you or anyone else reading. I know how important childhood health issues are and how much pain they can cause. I did not mean to cause anyone further pain or anger. I realized my example was loaded, but I chose it because of personal relevance (it is in Saskatoon, not Regina and I have experience with pediatric services including the PICU and NICU) and becasue it is so emotionally laden. I realize that pediatric services are lacking here, but I have also tried to find services in Saskatoon for the elderly and they are equally if not more lacking. Even if child health is prioritized over other age groups (which I probably agree with). a new childrens hospital may not have been the most effective or efficient way to address those needs, but it is an easy sell. With the example, I am saying that perhaps (just a possibility mind you-I'm not arguing for or against) even so popular an initiative as a separate children's hospital could have been more widely discussed - and the merits of a football stadium should be discussed.

[thegreattait]

The idea of an easy sell in politics at first sounds like its a bad thing, until you think of the alternative.

Lengthy and costly refferendums which have split votes and divide the populus.

So instead you would have money allocated to a variety of items giving a variety of things done poorly and nothing done well. Assuming anything can even get done at all. As much as refferendums are equal they create areas where the masses can neglect the few.

I think smalls wins much like the first past the post electoral system creates a stronger government that can be more effective, governments move slow enough as it is and anything to add to this would most likely result in a system which wastes even more money.

Ya I don't always agree with what the government in power is doing, but at least they get to a point where they can create action. In canada most of a political parties are all pretty mainstream middle of the road despite how much they like to play off one another and show their differences.

Now if that government does a bad enough job, then there will be a tipping point where they will win at a first past the post system and then this will give them enough power to make corrections and implement changes. Without it I think we would get stuck somewhere in the middle hashing it out not really going anywhere.


So if the government can take these small wins and do a few projects well like a childrens hospital or a first class football and multi use facilty then all the power too them. Then we move on to the next most pressing issues, and on and on it goes. This way positive changes continue to happen, maybe not in the order or priority we like but it gets things done, and makes for a stronger community.