Regina | New Mosaic Stadium

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by wacko

I do hope they get most of the site preparation done this year. This stadium seems like it will be somewhat more complex than Winnipeg's, and goodness knows they had delays. Is three years sufficient time to build the stadium and complete all interior work? Perhaps the city should get ahead of the ball and announce the stadium for 2018, and consider it a bonus if it opens earlier.

Also, yes, parking was my main concern with having Rider games in conjunction with other events. Perhaps Rider fans will have to get used to not driving directly to games, but instead taking the bus from park-and-ride locations. A bit of a hassle if you're hauling coats, blankets, seat cushions, etc.

It shouldn't be an issue. NFL stadiums are built in less than three years. We're talking about 70,000 seat domes in some cases, twice the size of what Regina will be building. Three years is plenty of time.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by osmo

You wouldn't actually think the Riders would leave Sask?

It would never happen......

The rest of your quote has been hashed out ad nauseam over the course of this thread and others I've participated in/read so I don't care to put in the effort of a reply. I think it's a good use of my tax dollars (and a heck of a lot better use tha some wasted projects), so you won't be convincing me otherwise.

As for the start of your post, I was mostly referring to the fact that if nothing is done, there won't be a stadium, and if there is no stadium, there is no team. It's not that the Riders could/would move, it's that they'd have no choice but to either move or fold.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by Nathan

The rest of your quote has been hashed out ad nauseam over the course of this thread and others I've participated in/read so I don't care to put in the effort of a reply. I think it's a good use of my tax dollars (and a heck of a lot better use tha some wasted projects), so you won't be convincing me otherwise.

As for the start of your post, I was mostly referring to the fact that if nothing is done, there won't be a stadium, and if there is no stadium, there is no team. It's not that the Riders could/would move, it's that they'd have no choice but to either move or fold.

Or build a simpler, cheaper option.....

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Or build a simpler, cheaper option.....

That's also been gone through repeatedly and as we know very well by now, I won't be able to convince you that something more middle ground is better in the long right, and you won't be able to convince me that a skeleton stadium is better.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Nathan

The rest of your quote has been hashed out ad nauseam over the course of this thread and others I've participated in/read so I don't care to put in the effort of a reply. I think it's a good use of my tax dollars (and a heck of a lot better use tha some wasted projects), so you won't be convincing me otherwise.

As for the start of your post, I was mostly referring to the fact that if nothing is done, there won't be a stadium, and if there is no stadium, there is no team. It's not that the Riders could/would move, it's that they'd have no choice but to either move or fold.

I still don't buy it. The Riders will never be in jeopardy like in the bleek years of the early 90's, even then it was a systemic issue league wide which wasn't just a local issue here in Sask with the Riders. The whole league was in the dumps and hemorrhaging money left and right.

The Yankees mused at leaving the Bronx and New York when they hit a snag temporally in the development of the now new Yankee Stadium. Think about that for a second of how crazy that sounds. That is the same precedent the Riders hold here in Saskatchewan in the CFL.

The Riders now are simply crying poor as they are still raking in a ton of money at the shack of Mosiac. I agree that a new facility was needed but even a modest cheaper option still would of provided them a increase in revenue, its no different then the host of NFL cities which dangle the Los Angeles card to officials when they want a new facility - its all a bluff.

As far as tax dollars go, its your sole view which you are entitled too no question. But you are not the only tax payer with a penny in the project, and its still an 'investment' all City residents will be forking over cash for. The City should only be providing services or perusing lucrative opportunities to get a net benefit for its residents/taxpayers.

Right now the only viable (I use that loosely) Stadium project in a process of being built or about to be built is in Edmonton. Even in that deal the City got raped but they at least will 'own' the building and will be able to suck off rent from a substantial amount of events so they should break even on it each year....

But oops... they will not because the Oilers ownership group gets all of the revenues:

Under the new framework, the City will own the arena and land, and the Katz Group will pay all operating costs and receive all revenues.

Edmonton ran into a trap with its tax scheme to get cash for the facility but at least with an Arena they will see cash roll in from spurred development. Edmonton is hoping they can squeeze $125Million from this plan but still have to cough up another $100million in other costs for things such as land to transit, This would of been the same tactic used in out old proposal for the Dome but would of been less realistic here to accomplish.

The Riders will never leave but dollars from your wallet will for this facility. Look at the story behind The Mets and Yankees and their new Stadiums to see how Professional Sports teams try to exploit the public. Bloomberg broke a financing agreement with the two teams and essentially told them to go suck an egg. Both teams then prior to crying poor built Billion dollar facilities for their teams. Prior to this the Yankees had planned a cathedral of excess and waste with a $250 Million dollar retractable roof already tacked on to a Billion dollar plus facility. after the City told them to foot the bill the made "cut backs" and built one of the most expensive facilities on earth with all their own money. The dollars are larger but the parallels are exactly the same, these pro sports teams are blood suckers and rely on subsidies to balloon their profit margins.

If the Riders cry that they will move.. call their bluff and tell them to pack their bags... They won't go anywhere.

[GlassCity]

But why does this country always have to settle on "just good enough"? The Roughriders are arguably the most iconic and best supported team in the CFL, and have an aging, ugly stadium right now. Why shouldn't they deserve a state of the art facility? There is always lots of discussion on these forums on whether Canada's cities are "world-class" or not, but if we always do just good enough, it'll never happen.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But why does this country always have to settle on "just good enough"? The Roughriders are arguably the most iconic and best supported team in the CFL, and have an aging, ugly stadium right now. Why shouldn't they deserve a state of the art facility? There is always lots of discussion on these forums on whether Canada's cities are "world-class" or not, but if we always do just good enough, it'll never happen.

No need to build a tin shed, but their is no need to build a Vatican like what you see with the Dallas Cowboys and "Jerryworld". What happened in Arlington is that the fronted a lot of cash to a wealthy man for him to build Football Vatican on a grasspatch. There was no need to build the Stadium as it was but a desperate City and Ego driven owner colluded with each other to balloon costs from a 700 million to over $1 Billion. I like the design of the new facility and feel its an iconic element as I am sure many others do. This new facility IMO trumps the old dome by a 1000%. I don't think that is a issue and any reason to say we can't have nice things, to me the design is one thing but the costs and how its paid for is another.

You can have sound approaches to building Sports facilities that don't burden the tax-payers. User-Fees for the facility. If the Riders want a new pitch let their costumers pay for it, Tax schemes such as hotel taxes and such, The Province using its powers to get better deals on debt and space out over a longer period of time, etc. There are a ton of options but officials don't like to go for them due to the politics of it. People get to emotionally invested in it on both sides, in Sask we feel that stuff like this puts us on the map because we see other bigger more established places that have the same things (toys) but you have to look behind the exterior/face value to see if those Cities are actually gaining much from those investments over the long term to the point to even see if those investments hinder the Cities ability to grow and prosper going forward.

In Dallas IMO you've had one of the better situations in which Dallas fronted its contribution via a hotel tax, the team paying the rest and design taking into account to build a modern shell in which the team can perform upgrades over time as needed. I believe the Mavericks and Stars ownership groups have invested new re-modellings to the Arena three times now in its 13 year history. The City then was able to partner with the private sector to develop a spin off development around the Arena called Victory Park, and though not perfect its tossed around $3 Billion worth of activity with a ton of new property tax revenue for the City to feast on.

The Dallas arena is one of the most state of the art and modern facilities in America if not the world and it is 12/13 years old now.



That is the an example of a City being a sound investor looking at a opportunities and approaching it in a situation that benefits the taxpayers. This is the exact opposite of what The City is doing with our situation and is simply taking on a bill it has no realistic idea of knowing how to pay for long term.

If I was dictator for a day I would go the The Riders and basically force them into a partnership where we would source favourable debt from the Province, build the current facility with strategic user-fees in place for tickets and parking, revenue sharing and long term development strategy for old and new lands that would ensure a stable and viable source of property revenues long term. The Riders get their Stadium and lucrative cuts in profits outside of simply selling tickets and Jerseys. This is what smart teams do. MLSE builds Condos with the City, Dallas builds shops and restaurants there is a smart way to this so that taxpayers are not just simply paying interest on a inflated bill. The Library example (if its still alive) was a smaller scale example of a sort of quasi Private-Public combo in which the Taxpayers are not left for road kill.

[Festivus]

Honestly if I had a choice between a new state of the art hospital for Regina and losing the riders, or a new stadium and keeping the riders, I would choose the hospital.

Studies show that professional sports franchises never make money for their host city. The only argument is city pride or the 30,000 people out of 210,000 who attend the games. There is no solid economic argument to be made for having a sports team in a city.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Festivus

Honestly if I had a choice between a new state of the art hospital for Regina and losing the riders, or a new stadium and keeping the riders, I would choose the hospital.

Studies show that professional sports franchises never make money for their host city. The only argument is city pride or the 30,000 people out of 210,000 who attend the games. There is no solid economic argument to be made for having a sports team in a city.

*sigh*...

This choice can't and will never exist on so many levels...

For starters, the province is kicking in 80 mill for the stadium; were a new state of the art hospital built, it would have to kick in upwards of 500 mill on its own.

Second, Regina is already getting a surgical centre... Oddly enough, right across the road from the old Plains Hospital that was previously shut down. Part of our problem is that people use the emergency room as their family physician. Building another hospital won't solve this misuse problem, and overall health costs would skyrocket only exacerbating the health care costs issues we currently have.

Third, every other city/town in Saskatchewan is now constrained by the same set of rules, the province will find 30% of sports facilities to a max of 80 mill. It's a fair model I think. It gives all places a chance to build something, but at the same time ensures the province that Saskatoon and Regina can't milk the program for huge amounts of money.

And fourth, enjoyment of life is a VERY important measure. If you want to live in a purely utilitarian society where all that is provided is roads and concrete bunker buildings, you're welcome to it, but let me know where such a place is, and I'll be sure not to visit.

[Le-TanK-]

It was a good idea, till they announced how much we have to pay for it. I'm happy everyone is so ok with raising taxes.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Le-TanK-

It was a good idea, till they announced how much we have to pay for it. I'm happy everyone is so ok with raising taxes.

0.45% more each hear for 10 years... It equates to an average property tax increase of $6 per year for 10 years, so 10 years from now, the stadium will be costing you $60 more in taxes than you paid 10 years previously. If that tax burden is stretching you, you must be going absolutely out of your mind about the road projects and such that are causing a 4%+ tax increase in this one year alone.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by Festivus

Honestly if I had a choice between a new state of the art hospital for Regina and losing the riders, or a new stadium and keeping the riders, I would choose the hospital.

Studies show that professional sports franchises never make money for their host city. The only argument is city pride or the 30,000 people out of 210,000 who attend the games. There is no solid economic argument to be made for having a sports team in a city.

This argument is usually true but Regina is a special case. The Riders, unlike virtually all other professional sports teams, draw probably about 1/3 of their fans from outside Regina's CMA. Most of these people (those from Saskatoon, Medicine Hat and possibly even places like Estevan) wouldn't normally come to Regina 10 times from June to November. I'll bet even many of those do a bit of shopping, eat at a restaurant and purchase gas in town.

If you come from a place like Moosomin, Estevan, Swift Current or North Battleford, that's money that would likely have been spent out of province or even out of country.

Yes, this is usually not the case for franchises like the Calgary Flames, BC Lions, Pittsburg Penguins, Denver Broncos, etc who draw probably 90-95% of their fan base locally. A Rider home game is like hosting a major summer festival or event twice a month. 10 times a year.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by UPP

This argument is usually true but Regina is a special case. The Riders, unlike virtually all other professional sports teams, draw probably about 1/3 of their fans from outside Regina's CMA. Most of these people (those from Saskatoon, Medicine Hat and possibly even places like Estevan) wouldn't normally come to Regina 10 times from June to November. I'll bet even many of those do a bit of shopping, eat at a restaurant and purchase gas in town.

If you come from a place like Moosomin, Estevan, Swift Current or North Battleford, that's money that would likely have been spent out of province or even out of country.

Yes, this is usually not the case for franchises like the Calgary Flames, BC Lions, Pittsburg Penguins, Denver Broncos, etc who draw probably 90-95% of their fan base locally. A Rider home game is like hosting a major summer festival or event twice a month. 10 times a year.

This isn't unique as it's the norm with NFL Franchises and the respected counties they play in, but the perceived economic uptick it brings is quite marginal. You get a noticeable bounce in money in the other leagues due to the amount of games more they play versus Football. You do indeed get a greater reach with Football but it's a stretch to say its a great revenue spark for the City at large. Labour Day Classic.. For sure. But a regular game is not so much.

Football has always been a travel sport. Many times the Colleges or the Fairgrounds where these teams played at where in the far flung fringes of towns. Travel, spectacle, designation type atmosphere is part of the games history.

[Goldenant]

Originally Posted by Nathan

0.45% more each hear for 10 years... It equates to an average property tax increase of $6 per year for 10 years, so 10 years from now, the stadium will be costing you $60 more in taxes than you paid 10 years previously. If that tax burden is stretching you, you must be going absolutely out of your mind about the road projects and such that are causing a 4%+ tax increase in this one year alone.

Not true, go to the RRI calculator. I pay 2200 in municipal taxes alone (not including education or library). Plug that in with a 3% average tax hike over thirty years it equals over 100$ per year (averaged over 30 years) just to the stadium. Thats 1/20th of my municipal taxes designated to a 2-4 square block area. As well as another 95$ increase for recycling per year,and we haven't even started into the wastewater treatment plant increase we will soon see on our water bills. And yes there are a whole lot of people out there that pinch every penny down to the last dime that this matters too. I can afford this but not everyone is in the same position.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by osmo

This isn't unique as it's the norm with NFL Franchises and the respected counties they play in, but the perceived economic uptick it brings is quite marginal. You get a noticeable bounce in money in the other leagues due to the amount of games more they play versus Football. You do indeed get a greater reach with Football but it's a stretch to say its a great revenue spark for the City at large. Labour Day Classic.. For sure. But a regular game is not so much.

Football has always been a travel sport. Many times the Colleges or the Fairgrounds where these teams played at where in the far flung fringes of towns. Travel, spectacle, designation type atmosphere is part of the games history.

Labour Day is marginally different from any other home game. Hotels are full, restaurants are packed, you can't get a parking spot at Costco on any weekend the Riders are playing a home game.

And yes, if the Riders weren't there, people would spend their entertainment money elsewhere... and by that, many would spend it out-of-province at Jets, Flames, Oilers, Vikings games, etc.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Goldenant

Not true, go to the RRI calculator. I pay 2200 in municipal taxes alone (not including education or library). Plug that in with a 3% average tax hike over thirty years it equals over 100$ per year (averaged over 30 years) just to the stadium. Thats 1/20th of my municipal taxes designated to a 2-4 square block area. As well as another 95$ increase for recycling per year,and we haven't even started into the wastewater treatment plant increase we will soon see on our water bills. And yes there are a whole lot of people out there that pinch every penny down to the last dime that this matters too. I can afford this but not everyone is in the same position.

Plotting out personal finances that far is basically useless. And you also can't compare real money like that. 3% might be a bit on the high side to use every year for 30 years, plus you're not discounting back to today's monetary value for the effect of inflation. For example, if we conservatively estimate inflation to be 2% per year (using the middle of the BoC's target zone), using your assumptions of $2200 at 3% when discounted back to today's money would yield an average cost of $73. It peaks in year 10 when the increases stop, and then the real value of the tax impact going down with the effect of inflation.

Also, you know the $2200 isn't supposed to be your total tax bill right? It's just the city's portion; it shouldn't include the education system taxes. That's why they have ~$1400 as the default, the average total taxes might be in the low $2000s, but a good $600-800 is for the school boards.

Also, your 1/20th comment is flawed as you are comparing the increased stadium tax values against your current city tax level. If you compared the average stadium tax against your average city portion of the tax (not making any adjustment for inflation), it would be about $101/$3734=0.02713 or ~1/37 of your city tax bill; if we include the education portion on top, it would be closer to 1/50th of the total tax bill you send to the city each year.

[Goldenant]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Plotting out personal finances that far is basically useless. And you also can't compare real money like that. 3% might be a bit on the high side to use every year for 30 years, plus you're not discounting back to today's monetary value for the effect of inflation. For example, if we conservatively estimate inflation to be 2% per year (using the middle of the BoC's target zone), using your assumptions of $2200 at 3% when discounted back to today's money would yield an average cost of $73. It peaks in year 10 when the increases stop, and then the real value of the tax impact going down with the effect of inflation.

Also, you know the $2200 isn't supposed to be your total tax bill right? It's just the city's portion; it shouldn't include the education system taxes. That's why they have ~$1400 as the default, the average total taxes might be in the low $2000s, but a good $600-800 is for the school boards.

Also, your 1/20th comment is flawed as you are comparing the increased stadium tax values against your current city tax level. If you compared the average stadium tax against your average city portion of the tax (not making any adjustment for inflation), it would be about $101/$3734=0.02713 or ~1/37 of your city tax bill; if we include the education portion on top, it would be closer to 1/50th of the total tax bill you send to the city each year.

Wow you shure can fudge the numbers. Bottom line is even if there is no tax increase for the next 30 years the stadium will still cost me 2600 and change. That is still close to 100 dollars per year on average. And if you read my initial response I did not include my education and library taxes in this. My total tax bill is over 4200 per year. Even if my 1/20 th comment is " flawed" it still remains almost 100 per year towards a four square block area. I really feel the city is trying to sell this as everyone's best interest when it truly is not. I love the riders but they need to pay their share which is a lot more than they are currently contributing.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Goldenant

Wow you shure can fudge the numbers. Bottom line is even if there is no tax increase for the next 30 years the stadium will still cost me 2600 and change. That is still close to 100 dollars per year on average. And if you read my initial response I did not include my education and library taxes in this. My total tax bill is over 4200 per year. Even if my 1/20 th comment is " flawed" it still remains almost 100 per year towards a four square block area. I really feel the city is trying to sell this as everyone's best interest when it truly is not. I love the riders but they need to pay their share which is a lot more than they are currently contributing.

Applying interest rate factors to account for the effects of inflation isn't really fudging numbers... It's giving real present value to monetary calculations. It's done all the time in business (inflating past numbers by inflation and discounting future numbers), it gives an even point for comparison.

Tell me if 30 years from now $100 seems like a bit deal. My guess is it likely won't. For a comparison, 30 years ago the average cost for a new car was a little over $7,000.

And yes, fair enough, I overlooked your library and education comment, my apologies.

[Goldenant]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Applying interest rate factors to account for the effects of inflation isn't really fudging numbers... It's giving real present value to monetary calculations. It's done all the time in business (inflating past numbers by inflation and discounting future numbers), it gives an even point for comparison.

Tell me if 30 years from now $100 seems like a bit deal. My guess is it likely won't. For a comparison, 30 years ago the average cost for a new car was a little over $7,000.

And yes, fair enough, I overlooked your library and education comment, my apologies.

Any way you look at it it averages out to about 100 a year tax increase for me for the next 30 years for a 4 square city block area.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Goldenant

Any way you look at it it averages out to about 100 a year tax increase for me for the next 30 years for a 4 square city block area.

As long as we agree that the perceived value of $100 - 10 years from now (not to even mention 30) is going to be a fair bit less than today.