I don't find the comparison specious at all, and the argument doesn't need to be stopped when people presenting an argument that isn't 100% accurate.
-First off. You
do not have any ownership involvement in the library. No more than I do in an new arena.
-secondly, I don't believe the arena supporters care if the studies show economic benefits of the arena pay off or not. Show me studies of the library paying off as an economic benefit. That's not what this is about.
- the pay off of the library via CRL is a dubious connection at best. The library being there did not entice those developers to build in EV. Furthermore part of CRL is covered by buildings as far as Centre street, including the Bow.
-as far as all of it being covered by ticket surcharge? That's great in theory, but that's a slippery slope, as it brings us back to anything that people use being paid for via surcharge. I'd hate to see the ticket surcharge to pay off the library....I wonder how many would visit the library if they had to pay a couple hundred $$ each time. Nobody would at all, which would cause the surcharge to spiral even higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtown_smallcity
I really think that the Central Library vs. New Arena is a completely specious comparison and I think we should stop it. Neverthelesss...
* Unlike some posters above, I do believe that I have a stake in a piece of public infrastructure. It belongs to me as much as anyone else in the city. This isn't true of a subsidized business.
* I actually don't mind governments subsidizing business -- directly or indirectly -- so long as the medium or long term benefit is there. Although there are edge cases, there is now a large body of research and analysis into the public subsidy of professional sport facilities, and it's pretty much unanimous in showing that these subsidies do not pay off.
* The library, though not a business, may actually pay off. Part (all?) of its cost is paid for by the CRL. The additional private investment in East Village that the library, the NMC, new parks, together with the rest of the upgrades and costs borne by the CMLC and the City will (and have) generate property taxes that will more than cover those investments.
* The library provides public services. It does not provide services (directly) to every individual in the city, but, regardless, services are provided. We can argue about how to value these services, that's ok. But public money for public services is pretty much how a functioning system should work, regardless of whether in every case, every taxpayer or citizen benefits. Hey, I don't ever benefit from the school system in Calgary, but I recognize that we need one, and am happy to pay for it. I don't begrudge the tax dollars that are spent paving streets I don't drive on.
* A new arena can absolutely provide public value (tangible or not) but probably not public services. It's construction is unlikely to have a large effect on spurring new property tax generating development in Vic park (given that the Stampede grounds and Saddledome are already there). A lot of the benefit is indirect and intangible -- a major venue that's would be a big part of Calgary's claim to being a large, dynamic city or whatever . To be honest, a lot of the descriptions of the public benefit are pretty hand-wavy.
Some people say that they would be happier with the extra few bucks a month of property taxes in order that they can have the opportunity to spend a few hundred dollars to check out a game or a show. If that's so, why not cover the entire city contribution with a ticket surcharge? Sure, it would be a bit more money (not as many contributors -- going to NHL hockey games or Garth Brooks concerts is solidly middle class or richer), but you could just directly pay for the facility.
And each time you did so, you could nod in satisfaction to yourself, thinking "this is mine, I paid for it".
|
Threaded Mode