New Downtown Calgary Arena

[esquire]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Just curious if Calgary is still a young city, it's only 7 years younger than the confederation of Canada.

Yes and no, Calgary itself dates back to the 19th century, but the idea of Calgary-as-global-city is probably no more than 40 years old.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

When you say "we", who do you mean? Do you mean the provincial government about to post a record deficit? How about the federal one in a similar situation (unsure if it is record setting)? Or how about the municipal government with a very long list of unfunded infrastructure projects?

Or, do you mean the owners of the Flames?

Yes the tax evading Flames ownership.

[MalcolmTucker]

Doesn't change the taxation of any Canadian asset, or most international assets (any assets in countries where both Canada and the UK have tax treaties).

Not that that really matters. You could sell the Flames brand to an offshore company, then have to license it back, sort of like how Ikea operates, but there has to be some profit for there to be taxes. And the sale of the brand would be taxed.

The understanding of what has happened tax wise and the implications are so facile. There must be a massive asset that is being protected in a third country (no evidence of this), or just maybe he was living there enough that the law required him to change his official residence.

Back to the arena!

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Harper's top year of deficit was more or less double this year's federal government deficit.

Thanks for answering my (what I thought was a non-partisan math/history) question.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Government debt isn't like household debt. It is a problem when you have too little or too much!

The GreenLine LRT will be 100% borrowed. WestLRT was paid for out of savings. The LRT extension to 162nd Ave was paid for out of in year cash flow.

Does it make a difference which is used? Not really.

As long as you are avoiding borrowing for operating costs on a cycle basis you're in the clear as you can always stop capital spending, and if you built useful things you can then sell them if you are truly screwed.

So I think I get what you are saying. Government is always going to be there, so as long as they can comfortably service the debt, it is okay to carry it. Not utilizing this capacity, we miss out on a lot of our ability for capital works. Over utilizing it, and we spend too much of our operating revenue just servicing the debt.

In terms of selling useful things, can you maybe provide some examples of what these might be? I am thinking power plants, utilities, etc... Even other buildings. But, a stadium might be tough, especially since the mindset seems to be that the Saddledome now has little value at the end of its life.

I guess it all boils down to (and has always been this question) of what is a government's responsibility to provide to the people? Most won't argue against basic necessities of life like clean water, but when you get into subjective entertainment options (arenas for pro-sports, the arts, etc...) it is a lot harder to get a clear direction.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Thanks for answering my (what I thought was a non-partisan math/history) question.



So I think I get what you are saying. Government is always going to be there, so as long as they can comfortably service the debt, it is okay to carry it. Not utilizing this capacity, we miss out on a lot of our ability for capital works. Over utilizing it, and we spend too much of our operating revenue just servicing the debt.

In terms of selling useful things, can you maybe provide some examples of what these might be? I am thinking power plants, utilities, etc... Even other buildings. But, a stadium might be tough, especially since the mindset seems to be that the Saddledome now has little value at the end of its life.

I guess it all boils down to (and has always been this question) of what is a government's responsibility to provide to the people? Most won't argue against basic necessities of life like clean water, but when you get into subjective entertainment options (arenas for pro-sports, the arts, etc...) it is a lot harder to get a clear direction.

You make a good point that the market value of the asset is likely less than its construction cost. That doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to build, it is in fact a justification for government intervention. The city is only risking the CRL money and retains ownership (assuming the field house monies are contribution monies).

Is the welfare gain to the city worth the cost of bridging the gap? Within the next 20 years I think so. Whether we start planning now for opening day by 2025, or wait longer makes little difference to me. At some point it will need to be done, and we gain little by waiting (alternative spending), and could hurt ourselves a lot if interest rates jump even a little bit.

Strategically the Flames erred by not releasing the Saddledome renovation study costs. When Edmonton did that was when the rubber started to really hit the road. Then you frame the discussion as A or B, not A or status quo.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Doesn't change the taxation of any Canadian asset, or most international assets (any assets in countries where both Canada and the UK have tax treaties).

Not that that really matters. You could sell the Flames brand to an offshore company, then have to license it back, sort of like how Ikea operates, but there has to be some profit for there to be taxes. And the sale of the brand would be taxed.

The understanding of what has happened tax wise and the implications are so facile. There must be a massive asset that is being protected in a third country (no evidence of this), or just maybe he was living there enough that the law required him to change his official residence.

Back to the arena!

Lots of tap dancing around the fact that Murray Edwards moved his residence to London to avoid paying local provincial and municipal not to mention federal taxes while the Flames ownership simultaneously ask for regular Calgarians to put the tax dollars we pay into his project. Complete and utter hypocrisy.

[The Fisher Account]

I wonder if Murray Edwards or any other Flames owners were in the Panama Papers

[Fuzz]

I searched, didn't find Murray (at least, not his real name) in it. I didn't try any of the other owners. You can search for yourself here:
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

[evolv]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Lots of tap dancing around the fact that Murray Edwards moved his residence to London to avoid paying local provincial and municipal not to mention federal taxes while the Flames ownership simultaneously ask for regular Calgarians to put the tax dollars we pay into his project. Complete and utter hypocrisy.

I believe he still has his house here in Calgary, so just lessening his federal and provincial tax dollars.

[ZeDgE]

Originally Posted by Count Chocula

Please see bold below.

No offense, but you come off as a bit of a troll.

[Count Chocula]

Originally Posted by ZeDgE

No offense, but you come off as a bit of a troll.

To think eclectically is defying convention or status quo. Building infrastructure with a 100 year life span requires forward thinking and I believe the venues to be built will need to cater to all sports not just the two we care about in Calgary.

That being said the city should pay for a portion of the arena and subsequent remediation to reduce the ticket tax so ticket prices won't be restricted to certain income levels.

The field house should not be located in west village. Can we all atleast agree on that? If you build two world class sports facilities, you will attract investment to those areas from developers and the private sector. Banff Trail, Capitol Hill, Foothills Athletic Park, University Drive, are all in need of serious revitalization. The field house should be built in this area and act as a catalyst.

Secondly, if the field house were to move, that frees up potential area for mixed-use development in the west village, where developers along with Canadian Creosote and the city can focus their remedial efforts.

CalgaryNEXT as a combined fieldhouse/arena mega facility would be disastrous.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't see the West Village or McMahon as much better or worse for a field house.

I don't think the McMahon lands need a catalyst to be much more awesome. They need the stadium and parking to not be there anymore.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Count Chocula

To think eclectically is defying convention or status quo. Building infrastructure with a 100 year life span requires forward thinking and I believe the venues to be built will need to cater to all sports not just the two we care about in Calgary.

That being said the city should pay for a portion of the arena and subsequent remediation to reduce the ticket tax so ticket prices won't be restricted to certain income levels.

The field house should not be located in west village. Can we all atleast agree on that? If you build two world class sports facilities, you will attract investment to those areas from developers and the private sector. Banff Trail, Capitol Hill, Foothills Athletic Park, University Drive, are all in need of serious revitalization. The field house should be built in this area and act as a catalyst.

Secondly, if the field house were to move, that frees up potential area for mixed-use development in the west village, where developers along with Canadian Creosote and the city can focus their remedial efforts.

CalgaryNEXT as a combined fieldhouse/arena mega facility would be disastrous.

I'm on board with you. I also feel that occupying so much of the West Village with this proposal is a waste of what will become prime real estate.

Nor have I seen any arguments so far that would convince me that this city NEEDS to spend hundreds of millions to replace a functional arena, when the prime beneficiaries are billionaires.

[CalgaryArchitecture]

doug vaessen ‏@dougvaessen
https://twitter.com/dougvaessen/status/722806712831315970

#yyc #calgarynext City today releases report on new flames home. Rumour has it big $$$

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Socguy

I'm on board with you. I also feel that occupying so much of the West Village with this proposal is a waste of what will become prime real estate.

Nor have I seen any arguments so far that would convince me that this city NEEDS to spend hundreds of millions to replace a functional arena, when the prime beneficiaries are billionaires.

Fully agree. Firepark makes much more sense in this respect.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Fully agree. Firepark makes much more sense in this respect.

Absolutely. We should build everything at Firepark from now on. Why didn't they put the new library there again?

[DizzyEdge]

Suburbia is On Fire for Firepark

See I even have the branding ready.

Flames are HOT at FIREpark

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Suburbia is On Fire for Firepark

See I even have the branding ready.

Flames are HOT at FIREpark

"Flames' proposal looks to singe taxpayers; hopes extinguished by Nenshi early in the 1st period"

We could write for The Sun... the tag line is the only thing selling those papers. It's certainly not the content that counts.

[The Fisher Account]

Suburbia may get his wish.

City Council has rejected the West Village proposal and declared it "unfeasible in it's present form or location"

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by CalgaryArchitecture

doug vaessen ‏@dougvaessen
https://twitter.com/dougvaessen/status/722806712831315970

#yyc #calgarynext City today releases report on new flames home. Rumour has it big $$$

Pretty much dead now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgarynext-city-report-torpedoes-project-1.3545509