Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton
You could also add an opportunity cost for the land the new arena is built on, i.e. what the city could earn if it was sold and then generated development fees and property taxes. That is assuming it would be built on city owned land.
Also, that all operations and maintenance costs will be covered by a private operator over the next 25 years is a big assumption. Is that the case for Tim Hortons Field? Have the Bulldogs and/or Global Spectrum committed to cover these? $1.2 million doesn't sound egregious to maintain a facility hosting international touring acts as well as multiple sports. Would the cost of maintaining a new facility be that much closer to zero?
|
I dont think that is the case for THF. The economics for an outdoor stadium vs indoor arena in canada are night and day. Arenas can make money, not stadiums.
The subsidy is for the most part utility costs. The new arena would be smaller and energy efficient negating the need for the subsidized utility costs.
Also it appears some councillors are not on board with continuing to subsidize global spectrum, a billion dollar entertainment company when the city has so many other funding pressures. I think the original Council motion was to “divest” itself of the arena. So theyre looking for someone to essentially run the place on their own dime.