New Downtown Calgary Arena

[suburbia]

Dude - it is against forum rule (and copyright laws) to copy an entire article and put it in-line in your post.

Originally Posted by Doug

The following is a more articulate insight

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I've been a flames fan since they first arrived in Calgary but today I walked past some jerseys in a store and actually had a visceral reaction of hate similar to what I've always felt with the leafs. Way to go Ken.

Nenshi was surprisingly diplomatic in that video. The flames have been shamelessly manipulative in how they frame their argument. As for Bill Smith... any word yet on his position? I know he was refusing to release a donor list. Given the company he keeps I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the owners are amongst his donors.

Yup!

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Doug

The following is a more articulate insight into the the failures of the current City Council:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/nelson-its-time-for-the-real-calgary-to-rise-again


Nelson: It's time for the real Calgary to rise again

Chris Nelson, For The Calgary HeraldCHRIS NELSON, FOR THE CALGARY HERALD
More from Chris Nelson, For The Calgary Herald
Published on: September 18, 2017 | Last Updated: September 18, 2017 3:00 AM MDT

Cheer up, Calgary. Yes, we might lose our hockey team, but look on the bright side: we’ve got ourselves another cute-coloured garbage bin to admire.

Once we dubbed ourselves “Canada’s Energy Capital” and “Heart of the New West,” but now we could pick “Garbage Can Central” or soon enough, “Former Home of the Calgary Flames.”

Inertia is spreading. We still talk a lot, but the doing part has lost impetus, replaced with a creeping pessimism once alien to our make up.

Take the slow-motion debacle regarding a new sports arena that would host, among other things, the Flames.

With the owners declaring they were pulling out of talks, we had a wake-up call this impasse is reaching a critical juncture after years of endless blather, alongside the usual haughty lectures we get from our mayor on every issue he doesn’t support or propose.

Counn. Diane Colley-Urquhart is right in describing the process as poisoned and that we’re back to Square 1.

“We’ve wasted two years of navel-gazing and in-camera meetings. This is not about rich hockey players and billionaires, this is about what’s best for the city,” is how she put it.

It’s the same with the “will we or won’t we” Olympic bid – lots of chatter, but no binding decision: ring roads, flood projects, even secondary suites all get stalled in similar fashion. This city’s turned into one giant debating den, the type of place where our mayor excels, but outside of which little gets done, except social experiments such as green bins and bike lanes.

Who knows, maybe the lack of action on a new arena and the dawning realization of what this will lead to might give us a much-needed civic election issue, because here again, there’s a state of listless inevitability. Nenshi’s approval rating is certainly on the downslope, but his main rivals aren’t exactly going for the jugular.

In Coun. Andre Chabot’s case, that’s to be expected — it’s difficult enough battling a sitting incumbent in civic politics, but to criticize the mayor means you need to challenge many policies he oversaw and on which you voted in favour.

As for Bill Smith, who carries the business crowd hopes, someone should remind him the vote is in four weeks, not four months, seeing his campaign’s been so lacklustre. Maybe he’s banking on name recognition, figuring there are more Bill Smiths in the phone book than Naheed Nenshis? That would match today’s do-little mood down to a perfect T.

Why is this happening? Is it just the fault of city hall’s current crop, or the long, drawn-out drop in energy prices, or our NDP government’s debilitating mother-knows-best attitude, or the constant opposition from every other part of Canada to any proposal emanating out of Calgary?

We’re better than this, and if those representing us can’t bring some energy and action to the table, then we should kick them out and replace them with others who can.

For decades, this city has been the economic engine of Canada, the can-do place where people who wanted to make something of their lives looked for inspiration.

Articulate insight? Really? I thought it was nonsense.

[O-tacular]

Yeah Doug that article you posted was lazy and unspecific. It laments how Calgary lost it's "Can Do attitude" while pining for the 80's all in service of arguing that city council should just bend over for the Flames ownership. What kind of myopic conservatism demands cash handouts for businesses?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

What kind of myopic conservatism demands cash handouts for businesses?

This is the central question that these folks keep avoiding.

[Habanero]

One thing for sure, if we did actually lose the Flames it would be a blow to the city in many ways. For decades we'd have to drive up to Edmonton to watch a concert or catch an NHL game, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Yeah, Calgary might get some short lived limelight for standing up to the big bad billionaire owners, but after that quickly dies off the city would for decades look like a backwater city without the facilities to make it a world class city. I'm definitely not voting for Nenshi this time around, because I'm not willing to chance losing the team and the chance of a new arena. The taxpayer cost for me having a new arena is about the same monthly cost as my landscaping recycle bin which I rarely use, or about the same as was donated to the Library, which I will probably visit once.

i pray this comes down to a two person race in the election so we can get rid of Nenshi.

Originally Posted by Doug

The following is a more articulate insight into the the failures of the current City Council:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/nelson-its-time-for-the-real-calgary-to-rise-again


Nelson: It's time for the real Calgary to rise again

Chris Nelson, For The Calgary HeraldCHRIS NELSON, FOR THE CALGARY HERALD
More from Chris Nelson, For The Calgary Herald
Published on: September 18, 2017 | Last Updated: September 18, 2017 3:00 AM MDT

Cheer up, Calgary. Yes, we might lose our hockey team, but look on the bright side: we’ve got ourselves another cute-coloured garbage bin to admire.

Once we dubbed ourselves “Canada’s Energy Capital” and “Heart of the New West,” but now we could pick “Garbage Can Central” or soon enough, “Former Home of the Calgary Flames.”

Inertia is spreading. We still talk a lot, but the doing part has lost impetus, replaced with a creeping pessimism once alien to our make up.

Take the slow-motion debacle regarding a new sports arena that would host, among other things, the Flames.

With the owners declaring they were pulling out of talks, we had a wake-up call this impasse is reaching a critical juncture after years of endless blather, alongside the usual haughty lectures we get from our mayor on every issue he doesn’t support or propose.

Counn. Diane Colley-Urquhart is right in describing the process as poisoned and that we’re back to Square 1.

“We’ve wasted two years of navel-gazing and in-camera meetings. This is not about rich hockey players and billionaires, this is about what’s best for the city,” is how she put it.

It’s the same with the “will we or won’t we” Olympic bid – lots of chatter, but no binding decision: ring roads, flood projects, even secondary suites all get stalled in similar fashion. This city’s turned into one giant debating den, the type of place where our mayor excels, but outside of which little gets done, except social experiments such as green bins and bike lanes.

Who knows, maybe the lack of action on a new arena and the dawning realization of what this will lead to might give us a much-needed civic election issue, because here again, there’s a state of listless inevitability. Nenshi’s approval rating is certainly on the downslope, but his main rivals aren’t exactly going for the jugular.

In Coun. Andre Chabot’s case, that’s to be expected — it’s difficult enough battling a sitting incumbent in civic politics, but to criticize the mayor means you need to challenge many policies he oversaw and on which you voted in favour.

As for Bill Smith, who carries the business crowd hopes, someone should remind him the vote is in four weeks, not four months, seeing his campaign’s been so lacklustre. Maybe he’s banking on name recognition, figuring there are more Bill Smiths in the phone book than Naheed Nenshis? That would match today’s do-little mood down to a perfect T.

Why is this happening? Is it just the fault of city hall’s current crop, or the long, drawn-out drop in energy prices, or our NDP government’s debilitating mother-knows-best attitude, or the constant opposition from every other part of Canada to any proposal emanating out of Calgary?

We’re better than this, and if those representing us can’t bring some energy and action to the table, then we should kick them out and replace them with others who can.

For decades, this city has been the economic engine of Canada, the can-do place where people who wanted to make something of their lives looked for inspiration.

[wave46]

The disappointing thing is that the arena issue has hijacked the election.

So, all the other issues that Calgary faces and how Nenshi has dealt with them are now trivialized.

I'm wondering about Ken King's decisions - especially since there wasn't a super pro-arena candidate that was effectively his man in the election.

The smart thing would have been to keep his mouth shut and see how the chips fall. Maybe a new mayor or council may have been more sympathetic to his cause.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Habanero

One thing for sure, if we did actually lose the Flames it would be a blow to the city in many ways. For decades we'd have to drive up to Edmonton to watch a concert or catch an NHL game, and I'm not prepared to do that.

1. I'm sure many NHL team owners would be petitioning the NHL for a move to Calgary the instant the Flames decided to move.

2. The fear of 'losing' a pro sports team has driven all sorts of stadium spending by governments at the expense of the local taxpayers. I think there's a time when the population has to say 'no' to subsidizing what is essentially a for-profit business. Quebec City and Winnipeg are no better or worse for having NHL teams or not. Pride should not be a substitute for logical decision making.

[patm]

Originally Posted by wave46

1. I'm sure many NHL team owners would be petitioning the NHL for a move to Calgary the instant the Flames decided to move.

2. The fear of 'losing' a pro sports team has driven all sorts of stadium spending by governments at the expense of the local taxpayers. I think there's a time when the population has to say 'no' to subsidizing what is essentially a for-profit business. Quebec City and Winnipeg are no better or worse for having NHL teams or not. Pride should not be a substitute for logical decision making.

Not without an arena they won't.

And to your other point it's not pride, its desire. The Flames are important to a lot of people. The idea of not having a single team in a best-of league in this city is a major buzzkill and thus a lot of people think that to them, it's worth it to contribute tax dollars to it even though it's not the smart thing to do. For some people building the library was a waste of tax payer money because even though its free to use, a lot of people will never step foot into the building.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by patm

Not without an arena they won't.

And to your other point it's not pride, its desire. The Flames are important to a lot of people. The idea of not having a single team in a best-of league in this city is a major buzzkill and thus a lot of people think that to them, it's worth it to contribute tax dollars to it even though it's not the smart thing to do. For some people building the library was a waste of tax payer money because even though its free to use, a lot of people will never step foot into the building.

Is more than $185m of their tax dollars not enough, which is what the current administration has offered?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by patm

Not without an arena they won't.

I'd imagine that the owners of the Arizona Coyotes would happily use the Saddledome.

There's having a 'outdated venue' and then there is having a team that loses millions of dollars a year in a new arena. Most owners would choose the former.

[Northern]

Yeah, but not without a new arena which we would end up having to pay for. It's true that there is a fear in losing teams and it's cost taxpayers money, but actually losing the team has cost taxpayers money as they end up having to put up money to get a team back.

Not that I like Nenshi anyways, but even if I did, I'm with Habanero. I don't want to chance losing the team, and having no shot at a new facility for 20 years.

Originally Posted by wave46

1. I'm sure many NHL team owners would be petitioning the NHL for a move to Calgary the instant the Flames decided to move.

2. The fear of 'losing' a pro sports team has driven all sorts of stadium spending by governments at the expense of the local taxpayers. I think there's a time when the population has to say 'no' to subsidizing what is essentially a for-profit business. Quebec City and Winnipeg are no better or worse for having NHL teams or not. Pride should not be a substitute for logical decision making.

[McMurph]

The idea that Calgary would be teamless while places like Quebec, Seattle and Las Vegas queue up in front is ridiculous. Katz bullied Edmonton into a bad deal and that's Edmonton. King's "we're a small market" line is bullshit. We may be not Toronto or Montreal but we're sure as hell not Winnipeg or Carolina. Calgary is positioned to be one of the top 10 NHL franchises for eternity, making money hand over fist for everyone involved. The city owes them very close to nothing.

If this isn't true then open the books, CSEC.

[patm]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is more than $185m of their tax dollars not enough, which is what the current administration has offered?

Oh I don't disagree. I think CESC can go to hell with their current offer and I like how the city has reacted to this, although out of personal selfish reasons (I love the Flames) I'd be okay with with the city giving more (or not expecting the full amount to be repaid).

Just saying that there are a lot of people who are okay with giving more tax payer dollars and it's not cause of pride. It's cause it's something that they get actual enjoyment from.

[Northern]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd imagine that the owners of the Arizona Coyotes would happily use the Saddledome.

There's having a 'outdated venue' and then there is having a team that loses millions of dollars a year in a new arena. Most owners would choose the former.

But we'd be stuck in the same boat we are now, except that it would delay the whole process another 5-10 years. And we still wouldn't have any access to the concert acts that skip Calgary.
IMO the folks up in arms about money to an arena are no different than the folks up in arms about money to Peace Bridge, the blue ring or the Library. The only difference here is the aspect of private ownership. In the end it's the same cost to me the taxpayer whether it's private or public.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by patm

For some people building the library was a waste of tax payer money because even though its free to use, a lot of people will never step foot into the building.

The library isn't a for-profit enterprise. This is like city subsidizing the construction of a Chapters or Indigo downtown.

[patm]

There is zero chance the NHL lets anyone move to Calgary until an arena is built. Doesn't matter how much money Arizona is losing. If profit and loss were the only things that mattered, then Arizona would've moved a long time ago.

Originally Posted by wave46

The library isn't a for-profit enterprise. This is like city subsidizing the construction of a Chapters or Indigo downtown.

Yeah, I understand that. Hence why I said "even though its free".

If Chapters or Indigo were one of the most popular entertainment options within the city limits and something that hundreds of thousands of Calgarians have invested a lot of passion and interest into, you would be seeing people wanting the city to subsidize them too if they threatened to leave.

[Northern]

Originally Posted by patm

Oh I don't disagree. I think CESC can go to hell with their current offer and I like how the city has reacted to this, although out of personal selfish reasons (I love the Flames) I'd be okay with with the city giving more (or not expecting the full amount to be repaid).

Just saying that there are a lot of people who are okay with giving more tax payer dollars and it's not cause of pride. It's cause it's something that they get actual enjoyment from.

Well said. Me feeling exactly. I'm not overly happy with the way the Flames are trying to get every dollar they can, but at the same time if it's going to cost me the taxpayer a couple of bucks a month extra on my taxes I'm fine with it, because I would actually use it....unlike some of the venues the city gives money to.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Northern

But we'd be stuck in the same boat we are now, except that it would delay the whole process another 5-10 years.

IMO there has to be a line where we say 'no'. This election might be it.

Winnipeg and Quebec City did it. Montreal let the Expos go.

I don't want to go they way many cities in the US have - declaring bankruptcy and cutting municipal services because they're stuck paying for empty stadiums. The best ones are the ones that taxpayers are paying for but have been demolished for years (Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia).

[Northern]

Originally Posted by wave46

The library isn't a for-profit enterprise. This is like city subsidizing the construction of a Chapters or Indigo downtown.

It's true and that's one of the common refrains out there, but it's very misleading. You and I don't have any more ownership over the library or music centre than we do over the new arena. So what difference does it make?