New Downtown Calgary Arena

[count0]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Katz may have set the trend for Alberta but he's just following a trend that's been ongoing for a while in North American. Times are changing and the reality is that most new sports facilities will either be built with some level of public financing or not at all.

As for the idea that these facilities are never worth the investment, I'm on the fence. This to me can go either way with everything riding on how it's done. Edmonton has great plans for their new arena and how to integrate and leverage it within it's new location. With the way they're proceeding I believe that it will bring about massive positive change for that city and it's downtown. If I lived in Edmonton I would be 100% for spending public money on the thing because I think the benefits will be there.

As for Calgary, I would be against spending public money on a new arena because, unless someone can show me otherwise, I don't see the same benefit available to Calgary.

My understanding of what basically happened in Edmonton. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

-Katz buys a pile of property in downtown Edmonton to develop
-Katz proposes to build a new arena
-Edmonton not totally sold
-Katz throws a hissy fit, implies Edmonton could lose it's hockey team, hires consultants to invent numbers to justify value of new arena
-Edmonton is like "ok fine"
-Katz gets arena funded
-Katz sees the value of his development property increase significantly

Calgary should be very skeptical if the Flames are following this precedent.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

The hockey arena should be privately financed. Having said that I wouldn't mind public dollars going towards the stadium component and infrastructure upgrades.

That's the city's and the province's stand, but the owners, last I heard, were trying to get both levels of government to chip in something like 50%.

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Tills13

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

I don't have the study on hand, but it's not that they don't benefit the area economically, it is that they don't create new business overall. Arenas and stadiums can direct entertainment dollars being spent, but if the stadium/arena wasn't there the same money would be spent, just in different places.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Tills13

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

It really depends on how you define the scope of the "benefits". A lot of businesses provide benefits to the community, and they don't ask for, or get government funding. Yes, some low-wage jobs and the associated tax revenue are created by a stadium. Some other economic activity is created, the benefits of which flow to the team's owners. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the government can play a role in making it easier for a business of this size to operate. But, they already do that in other ways (low-tax environment, public infrastructure.) The situation is entirely different if the government has to borrow funds to build the arena. It's then a case of a business downloading business risk on to the taxpayer. This is every team owner's end goal with these proposals. If the team fails to gain the support of the community, at least the owner doesn't have the debt associated with the stadium. Many of the municipalities in the US that built new stadiums for new hockey teams in the early-mid 1990s are now stuck with a mountain of debt and little public interest in the team for which the facility was built. In those cases, the stadium wasn't beneficial to the community.

Indeed, the Flames have been "working on the arena" for years. The work consists of buying all of the other professional sports teams in Calgary so that they have maximum leverage over the politicians when the time comes to ask for a handout.

Let's face it: there's not exactly a lineup of cities in the US begging for NHL franchises, and Quebec doesn't have the money to fund a team. The Flames really can't try to get any leverage out of threatening to move the team. I saw on Global News the other day that Ken King was throwing the word "Olympic" around, trying to draw a connection between the taxpayer paying for a facility for his team and Calgary hosting the Olympics again. Clearly, there's a lot more that goes into a successful Olympic bid than that.

The Flames make a profit, and they deserve to. But, if they can afford to pay millions of dollars to a single player, they don't need the taxpayer to pay for the arena. If there's a business case to be made for it, they will have no problem finding private investors willing to take the risk. When no private investors are willing to take those risks, one needs to ask if there's any reason why the government should.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by count0

My understanding of what basically happened in Edmonton. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

-Katz buys a pile of property in downtown Edmonton to develop
-Katz proposes to build a new arena
-Edmonton not totally sold
-Katz throws a hissy fit, implies Edmonton could lose it's hockey team, hires consultants to invent numbers to justify value of new arena
-Edmonton is like "ok fine"
-Katz gets arena funded
-Katz sees the value of his development property increase significantly

Calgary should be very skeptical if the Flames are following this precedent.

If I can take a piss and buy a beer without having to miss 17 minutes each period, it's worth it.

[Fuzz]

If someone can show directing funding to an arena is more beneficial to the city that putting that money towards an LRT, I'd be very surprised. Sorry, the players, owners and league are rolling in cash. Just look at what broadcast rights just sold for. They can afford it, they would rather spend our money first.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If someone can show directing funding to an arena is more beneficial to the city that putting that money towards an LRT, I'd be very surprised. Sorry, the players, owners and league are rolling in cash. Just look at what broadcast rights just sold for. They can afford it, they would rather spend our money first.

I agree. The billionaire owners of these teams should be the ones building these stadiums since they can clearly afford to and are poised to benefit the most from the new venue. Hoarding their own money while asking the taxpayers to subsidize their dream seems very lopsided.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Tills13

Keep in mind Vancouver was considered wildly successful by, well most people. I think Canada could easily get another Olympics after Vancouver.

Oh I don't doubt that - but the IOC would likely wait at least 20 years between the same country getting the same olympics.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

I don't have the study on hand, but it's not that they don't benefit the area economically, it is that they don't create new business overall. Arenas and stadiums can direct entertainment dollars being spent, but if the stadium/arena wasn't there the same money would be spent, just in different places.

the thing about Calgary, though, is the Saddledome is the premier venue for the Stampede, which brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It's not that there wouldn't be a Stampede without it, but let's face it - the 'dome brings high profile names to Calgary during that time.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If someone can show directing funding to an arena is more beneficial to the city that putting that money towards an LRT, I'd be very surprised. Sorry, the players, owners and league are rolling in cash. Just look at what broadcast rights just sold for. They can afford it, they would rather spend our money first.

nevermind.


now hold on. A new leg of the LRT is going to cost $50 billion. A new arena $1 billion MAX.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Tills13

now hold on. A new leg of the LRT is going to cost $50 billion. A new arena $1 billion MAX.

$50 billion? Woah, where did you come up with that number?

Even the Eglington Crosstown LRT in Toronto, which is mostly underground, is going to cost less than $5 billion. We could build the NC Line from 20 Avenue underground down Centre and under downtown up 2nd Street (less than 4 km of tunnel total), the entire phase one SE section to Quarry Park, and the 8th Avenue Subway all for $5 billion.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

$50 billion? Woah, where did you come up with that number?

Even the Eglington Crosstown LRT in Toronto, which is mostly underground, is going to cost less than $5 billion. We could build the NC Line from 20 Avenue underground down Centre and under downtown up 2nd Street (less than 4 km of tunnel total), the entire phase one SE section to Quarry Park, and the 8th Avenue Subway all for $5 billion.

Wasn't the South leg of the LRT to cost something ridiculous like that?

edit: that's my bad, it's only $8 billion.

[count0]

Originally Posted by Tills13

Wasn't the South leg of the LRT to cost something ridiculous like that?

edit: that's my bad, it's only $8 billion.

You are still WAY off. The south end of green line LRT is $2b, and the entire green line (North and South) is $5b. I believe the $8b number you are referring to is for the entire route ahead transit plan, which includes the Stephan Ave Subway and the West LRT expansion. Those projects aren't expected to happen for >20years!

I'm actually for the government providing some level of funding for the arena, but it can't be a handout justified by "possible Olympic bid". Accepting government dollars means giving something up of value in return, IE the government gets to choose where to build it to maximize value to the city (rather than maximize value to the Flames) in addition to an equity stake in the project. However, I don't think the Flames would be so keen on seeking government funding of they had to give up a proportional amount of the profits associated with building the arena back to the government.

Just saying that companies seem to be all about "keeping the government out of business" until it comes time to ask for a handout!

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Tills13

That's the city's and the province's stand, but the owners, last I heard, were trying to get both levels of government to chip in something like 50%.

And I don't buy that arenas aren't economically beneficial to a community. Someone show me a study.

Maybe not a "study", but a well written and referenced blog post:
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/...ntertainment-districts.html#.UzmAK6hdXAk

Do you have a study that shows quantifiable cost/benefits for government investment? I feel if someone is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars, the onus should be on them to prove it is worth it, not on the provider to prove it is not worth it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Lots of things government spends money on shows little directly attributable cost/benefit.

If we had a winning team it may be easier to fund through personal seat licenses - anyone know how long the seasons ticket waiting list is?

[count0]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Lots of things government spends money on shows little directly attributable cost/benefit.

If we had a winning team it may be easier to fund through personal seat licenses - anyone know how long the seasons ticket waiting list is?

All the less reason for the government to be involved. Flames are profitable enough to do this without government support.

[artvandelay]

The only major sporting facilities in Canada that have successfully funded privately have been NHL arenas in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I think that is doable here as well, given the level of corporate support in the city. Every CFL or MLB stadium in Canada has been built with government support, so if we want a new stadium (which is needed more than a new arena) we are going to need some type of government contribution.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

The only major sporting facilities in Canada that have successfully funded privately have been NHL arenas in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I think that is doable here as well, given the level of corporate support in the city. Every CFL or MLB stadium in Canada has been built with government support, so if we want a new stadium (which is needed more than a new arena) we are going to need some type of government contribution.

Agreed.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the Saddledome is owned by Saddledome Foundation, which legally ultimately rolls up to City of Calgary with representatives from Winsport, Province of Alberta, Hockey Canada, Calgary Exchibition and Stampede. The Calgary flames operate and manage the arena on behalf of the Saddledome Foundation. The other purpose of the Saddledome Foundation is to dole out the proceeds from the naming rights.

So where am I going with all the Foundation stuff? Because the Saddledome Foundation is a not for profit entity of the city, they likely pay little to no business and property taxes. However if a private arena were built, the city would have a huge windfall in municipal taxation schemes. The Flames are likely to go to council asking for some form of tax relief.

The question is (and the question brought before Edmonton council) is what to do about the taxation relief. Edmonton brought about the Community Revitalization Levy to handle the taxation issue. The question to Calgary is should the city provide tax relief in perpetuity to Calgary Flames or should the city put up money for the arena but also require the new arena to pay civic taxes.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by count0

You are still WAY off. The south end of green line LRT is $2b, and the entire green line (North and South) is $5b. I believe the $8b number you are referring to is for the entire route ahead transit plan, which includes the Stephan Ave Subway and the West LRT expansion. Those projects aren't expected to happen for >20years!

I'm actually for the government providing some level of funding for the arena, but it can't be a handout justified by "possible Olympic bid". Accepting government dollars means giving something up of value in return, IE the government gets to choose where to build it to maximize value to the city (rather than maximize value to the Flames) in addition to an equity stake in the project. However, I don't think the Flames would be so keen on seeking government funding of they had to give up a proportional amount of the profits associated with building the arena back to the government.

Just saying that companies seem to be all about "keeping the government out of business" until it comes time to ask for a handout!

This.

[red_179]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

The only major sporting facilities in Canada that have successfully funded privately have been NHL arenas in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I think that is doable here as well, given the level of corporate support in the city. Every CFL or MLB stadium in Canada has been built with government support, so if we want a new stadium (which is needed more than a new arena) we are going to need some type of government contribution.

Calgary really does need a new stadium and another thing to keep in mind, in addition to the potential Olympic bid, is that Canada is planning on bidding for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, so perhaps there might be some federal money available.