New Downtown Calgary Arena

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

They want 100% of all revenue generated by the building, that includes concerts and other events and that includes all parking all the time.

Is that in any of the articles? I just want to tell someone that but be able to point to something.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The city is fronting the money, but wants it paid back via property taxes and ticket surcharge, so in essence, they aren't actually paying anything.

That's an absurd argument. On that basis, I could say "the Flames are willing to front $XYZ, but they want it paid back via increased ticket prices and other revenue, so in essence, they aren't actually paying anything."

If the Flames believe they ought to be exempt from property tax, they should come out with a straight-up argument about why. If they say "X out of Y NHL teams don't directly or indirectly pay property taxes, so we shouldn't have to either", I'm still not convinced, but it's at least an honest argument.

Edit: even if the city contributed ZERO dollars to any private building, whether arena or otherwise, I would still expect them to collect property taxes on it. The same way they collect property tax on my home, my employers' office space, etc.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

That's what I want to know. It dumbfounds me how many 'fiscal conservatives' are in favour of this.

It's because most self proclaimed conservatives don't truly believe in the policies, they are just selfish. The same people that will complain about government money going to healthcare, affordable housing, subsidies for Bombardier, the SWBRT etc will be the first to expect upgrades to their local roads and money for their favourite team's building.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The Library, while not a gallery was $245 million. The music centre was $100 million.
Also the city isn't paying a third. Their fronting 2/3rds but want that paid back via property tax and ticket surcharge.

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The city is fronting the money, but wants it paid back via property taxes and ticket surcharge, so in essence, they aren't actually paying anything.

As has been pointed out, this is complete nonsense. If this were any other business, the Flames would be paying 100% of the building cost plus property tax. That the City is donating hundreds of millions is more than fair.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Also the city isn't paying a third. Their fronting 2/3rds but want that paid back via property tax and ticket surcharge.

This Global News coverage clearly articulates why what you are saying about "payback" is complete BS. Municipal taxes cover a completely different area of costs, and are not "payback" on the tax payers contribution.

Listen to this video very closely:
http://www.nenshi.ca/arenabackground

You can also re-tweet it here:
https://twitter.com/GlobalCalgary/status/911301602375458817

Originally Posted by milomilo

As has been pointed out, this is complete nonsense. If this were any other business, the Flames would be paying 100% of the building cost plus property tax. That the City is donating hundreds of millions is more than fair.

100% true.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Is that in any of the articles? I just want to tell someone that but be able to point to something.

Not sure, but it's pretty well known that's what they want. Lots of articles allude to the fact that the Flames keep all revenue, but none have broken it down that I see.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's because most self proclaimed conservatives don't truly believe in the policies, they are just selfish. The same people that will complain about government money going to healthcare, affordable housing, subsidies for Bombardier, the SWBRT etc will be the first to expect upgrades to their local roads and money for their favourite team's building.

Sounds about right. It seems lately that conservatism has literally just become a cover for blatant self interest. There really is no ideology outside of "me first". Therefore they can be complete hypocrites all they like. Look no further than Donald Trump and what's going on south of the border. He got elected chanting "Lock Her Up!" about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and now it turns out Jared Kushner has been using his private e-mail this whole time. Not to mention when Mike Pence did the same thing as governor of Indiana.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's because most self proclaimed conservatives don't truly believe in the policies, they are just selfish. The same people that will complain about government money going to healthcare, affordable housing, subsidies for Bombardier, the SWBRT etc will be the first to expect upgrades to their local roads and money for their favourite team's building.

Agreed, I think most people's ideals fall in the middle of the political spectrum, but they subscribe to the conservative ideology. People want to keep as much of their paycheck as possible, and conservative pundits spin it as if the big evil government is stealing their money through evil taxes (despite the fact that those taxes pay for services we all take for granted). That's why it's so ironic that they are now the ones pining for Nenshi to pay up (as if it's his decision alone... lol) as this will obviously require an increase to property taxes (which they will vilify him for after the fact) so as not to affect or defer services. People don't take time to find out what they really want by weighing the pros and cons and really thinking about issues, theye have their opinion given to them by talking heads and smooth talking politicians (this applies to both conservatives and liberals BTW).

[jc_yyc_ca]

They don't pay property tax now, so naturally they aren't going to want to pay going forward. I don't know that they need to come out and say it, it's obvious.

Again, not to pick on the Library, but they don't pay property tax either. Yeah, I know....the library is no profit, and that's different right? But is it different? You and I have no more steak or ownership in a non-profit library, then we do in an arena owned by private enterprise. Either way, both facilities are costing me the same amount of money as a tax payer and both would pay no property tax (if the Flames get their wish).

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

That's an absurd argument. On that basis, I could say "the Flames are willing to front $XYZ, but they want it paid back via increased ticket prices and other revenue, so in essence, they aren't actually paying anything."

If the Flames believe they ought to be exempt from property tax, they should come out with a straight-up argument about why. If they say "X out of Y NHL teams don't directly or indirectly pay property taxes, so we shouldn't have to either", I'm still not convinced, but it's at least an honest argument.

Edit: even if the city contributed ZERO dollars to any private building, whether arena or otherwise, I would still expect them to collect property taxes on it. The same way they collect property tax on my home, my employers' office space, etc.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

They don't pay property tax now, so naturally they aren't going to want to pay going forward. I don't know that they need to come out and say it, it's obvious.

Again, not to pick on the Library, but they don't pay property tax either. Yeah, I know....the library is no profit, and that's different right? But is it different? You and I have no more steak or ownership in a non-profit library, then we do in an arena owned by private enterprise. Either way, both facilities are costing me the same amount of money as a tax payer and both would pay no property tax (if the Flames get their wish).

Library is for the public good. Flames are for their owners' good. Full-stop.

Further, we really should be correctly identifying them as Calgary Sports and Entertainment. The Flames are a smaller portion of their business. To keep pointing to just the Flames is akin to just pointing to their producing entertainment portion. Garth Brooks concert producer demands $500,000,000 from city and waiving of municipal taxes. Sounds silly, right? It is as accurate as keeping on saying Flames.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Not sure, but it's pretty well known that's what they want. Lots of articles allude to the fact that the Flames keep all revenue, but none have broken it down that I see.

The city summary slides highlight this. The Calgary Sports and Entertainment charts misrepresent (by exclusion) what they were offered or have been demanding.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

They don't pay property tax now, so naturally they aren't going to want to pay going forward.

Fair enough. The Flames need to accept that the city needs to generate some revenue from this to pay for infrastructure and all that moving forward. The Flames demands will just cost the city money and that isn't fair to the taxpayer.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Fair enough. The Flames need to accept that the city needs to generate some revenue from this to pay for infrastructure and all that moving forward. The Flames demands will just cost the city money and that isn't fair to the taxpayer.

I'm okay with the city chipping in money, and the Flames not paying property tax as long as it's somewhat reasonable. I voted for the up to $200 million option, and I'm fine with it.
The bottom line is I want a new arena for two reasons.

1) so I can go see a decent concert without having to drive to Edmonton. That alone is enough to want me to see an new arena.

2) to guarantee the Flames won't leave. Many say the Flames won't leave, and probably they won't, but it has happened before, and there's no guarantee it can't happen again. Those who lost their teams never saw it coming, and regretted it later. If it costs me $2 buck a month on my taxes for ten years, that's fine. I already paid that helping building a library I'll never use.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Fair enough. The Flames need to accept that the city needs to generate some revenue from this to pay for infrastructure and all that moving forward. The Flames demands will just cost the city money and that isn't fair to the taxpayer.

Agreed. If CSEC wants to look at a new facility because their current one is out dated then they need to consider that we are no longer the same city of half a million people from 34 years ago. If they expect the city to contribute they need to include the city's figures with their calculations. They can't act like their business operates in a vacuum independent of reality.

[craner]

Here is the City offer stating the Flames get "Full control of arena" and "100% of all revenues".

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

Haven't seen this posted here yet:



The city's offer seems very fair. KK and company continue to look like asshats.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I'm okay with the city chipping in money, and the Flames not paying property tax as long as it's somewhat reasonable. I voted for the up to $200 million option, and I'm fine with it.
The bottom line is I want a new arena for two reasons.

1) so I can go see a decent concert without having to drive to Edmonton. That alone is enough to want me to see an new arena.

2) to guarantee the Flames won't leave. Many say the Flames won't leave, and probably they won't, but it has happened before, and there's no guarantee it can't happen again. Those who lost their teams never saw it coming, and regretted it later. If it costs me $2 buck a month on my taxes for ten years, that's fine. I already paid that helping building a library I'll never use.

So really you're not actually far off what the city has offered? Why present it as if the city has completely blocked progress when they have offered a reasonable compromise? It's CSEC that have thrown their toys out the pram and I bet if the city had offered more CSEC still would not be happy.

[Calgarian]

CSEC want exactly what Edmonton got, and aren't going to accept anything else.

[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".

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

They don't pay property tax now, so naturally they aren't going to want to pay going forward. I don't know that they need to come out and say it, it's obvious.

If they want to convince me, they don't merely have to say that's what they want, they need to justify it.

As far as I can tell from the CSEC offer, the only benefit that flows to the city is the alleged economic case of the how CSEC's operations increase Calgary's economy. "We bring $xxx to the local economy!" Which is the kind of argument that any serious economic analysis has debunked.

[O-tacular]

Great first post bigtown smallcity. Welcome to the forum! We could use more insightful posters like you.