Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Unless the new arena attracts new investment from outside the city that would not have occurred had it not been built, then the 'increase' in taxes from the surrounding land is just shifting the tax base around the city. Even according to the cities own real figures, the project will lose 47 million.
Subsidising sports facilities does not make economic sense, that is what all the research shows. But if we place value on having an arena for its own sake, then maybe it is worth. Spend money, get thing. |
Why does new investment have to come from outside of the city? That's not the way to look at this. It's the incremental increase in revenue to the city that matters. If Company X was going to build a hotel on the outskirts of Calgary and then decided to build it in the new entertainment district that would be a shift of the tax base but it would very likely also result in more tax revenue for the City. That's what matters. So does whether or not people are willing to spend more of their disposal income in this area.
They won't make money on it. If they instead put that $290m in an investment fund, they could make a greater return over 25 years. Not saying that means we shouldn't build it, just that the economic argument is a lie.[/QUOTE]