Halifax Stadium Discussion

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Colin May

That a stadium can be built by a sports franchise without trying to fool taxpayers into footing the bill for the next 3 decades.

Bit of a stretch comparing the 136 year old, highest attended franchise in one of the richest leagues, in one of the world's largest cities vs a potential Halifax CFL franchise. But stretching credulity is what ol' Colin's all about.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by elly63

Bit of a stretch comparing the 136 year old, highest attended franchise in one of the richest leagues, in one of the world's largest cities vs a potential Halifax CFL franchise. But stretching credulity is what ol' Colin's all about.

Mr LeBlanc and his acolytes are stretching credulity.
Here is the situation,the fiscal reality,the facts that the Mayor,Mr Dube and certain councillors don't want to lay before you and others who want a stadium.
- It’s dead.
HRM will not increase its liabilities by $170 million. LeBlanc and his fellow ‘investors’ won’t be able to borrow $170,000,000 because a stadium is not security for a $170,000,000 loan.
A bank will want HRM or the province to guarantee a loan because the investors won’t guarantee a loan. Any loan guarantee ends up on the balance sheet as a liability.
Here is Dube as quoted in the Herald : ” Dube said Tuesday that the financing arrangement proposed would not leave the municipality at risk.

“We are not looking to take construction risks, we are not looking to take financial risks on the project,” Dube said. “We are not looking to own the stadium.”
Dube said the municipality does not intend to maintain the stadium, either. “

Here is what I posted at the halifaxexaminer :

Consider the financial context of the stadium. HRM has $180,000,000 of long term debt and another $58,200,000 liability for future Long Service Awards to employees.
The council will not vote for any deal that requires HRM to backstop/guarantee the repayment of the cost of construction of a stadium.
And the provincial accounting regulations would require disclosure of any such guarantee. And the province through the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have to approve any such agreement.
Not going to happen.
There will be no deal.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by elly63

Really?
...

Yes, really...











And given the budget we'd likely be working with here, I wouldn't expect anything built to higher standards... I would want better for our waterfront.

[MonctonRad]

I was listening to Maritime Noon on CBC Radio on the way back into work at noontime, and they were talking about public funding for a CFL stadium in Halifax (yes or no).

There were no friends of the CFL on the phone in show. I was surprised at how little support there was for the concept of a football stadium. Most callers were worried about their tax rate, or, if monies were to be spent, they should be spent on social justice action projects or low income housing.

One of the callers was a "Keith", who, by his comments, could have been "our" Keith. What about it Keith? Do you have a British accent????

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I was listening to Maritime Noon on CBC Radio on the way back into work at noontime, and they were talking about public funding for a CFL stadium in Halifax (yes or no).

There were no friends of the CFL on the phone in show. I was surprised at how little support there was for the concept of a football stadium. Most callers were worried about their tax rate, or, if monies were to be spent, they should be spent on social justice action projects or low income housing.

One of the callers was a "Keith", who, by his comments, could have been "our" Keith. What about it Keith? Do you have a British accent????

CBC Radio-listening types aren't going to be in favour of this type of stuff anyway. When there were plans to renovate Lansdowne Park in Ottawa for the return of the CFL there was staunch opposition from that crowd as well.

BTW I am technically a CBC Radio-listening type, though it's mostly Radio-Canada I listen to.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I was listening to Maritime Noon on CBC Radio....

One of the callers was a "Keith", who, by his comments, could have been "our" Keith. What about it Keith? Do you have a British accent????

Why is his accent relevant ?
I'm more interested in his money and the money of the LeBlanc group.
I'm waiting for the details of who will put up the money, so far there is no sniff of the money.
Here is how I feel : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Why is his accent relevant ?

Not relevant at all. It was just an identifying feature of the voice. I was just wondering if this particular caller was "our" Keith.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

CBC Radio-listening types aren't going to be in favour of this type of stuff anyway. When there were plans to renovate Lansdowne Park in Ottawa for the return of the CFL there was staunch opposition from that crowd as well.

BTW I am technically a CBC Radio-listening type, though it's mostly Radio-Canada I listen to.

It's the same deal with the Herald when they run those articles about how people don't like the stadium.

Their example of an anti-stadium letter in that article was from a guy who started out by saying that the stadium was a waste of money but then continued to argue that the city should build an amusement part or aquarium at Shannon Park.

When the new central library was planned in Halifax a bunch of people wrote in and there were articles about how nobody uses libraries anymore.

When the convention centre was planned there were experts interviewed in articles talking about how convention centres are overbuilt and the industry is dying. Now that the one in Halifax is complete it's fully booked well into the future, with lots of events that could not have been hosted in the old facilities. Once this became clear the naysayers switched gears and attacked the office space component of the convention centre complex, but it's privately funded so who cares? It also has a marquee tenant now and a bunch of others, and the hotel has a chain too. I doubt anybody is going to come forward and say that they were wrong with their doom and gloom predictions from 2014.

You can never please the peanut gallery, and people can find "experts" to tell the anything. Radio call-in shows and the like are not useful signals to consider if you are really concerned whether or not a given project is well-supported or will be successful.

[NB_ExistsToo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

CBC Radio-listening types aren't going to be in favour of this type of stuff anyway. When there were plans to renovate Lansdowne Park in Ottawa for the return of the CFL there was staunch opposition from that crowd as well.

BTW I am technically a CBC Radio-listening type, though it's mostly Radio-Canada I listen to.

I did enjoy the woman on the show that recommended the stadium should be built in Yarmouth to attract Americans.

I would love for them to find a space in downtown Halifax.. and based on some of the Metro Centre 2 designs, there are locations that could work.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I was listening to Maritime Noon on CBC Radio on the way back into work at noontime, and they were talking about public funding for a CFL stadium in Halifax (yes or no).

There were no friends of the CFL on the phone in show. I was surprised at how little support there was for the concept of a football stadium. Most callers were worried about their tax rate, or, if monies were to be spent, they should be spent on social justice action projects or low income housing.

One of the callers was a "Keith", who, by his comments, could have been "our" Keith. What about it Keith? Do you have a British accent????

I can neither conform nor deny this report.

However I rarely listen to CBC Radio as their audience is not me. Too much social justice/victim/"progressive"/artsy content. Very little about real-world issues.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

You can never please the peanut gallery, and people can find "experts" to tell the anything. Radio call-in shows and the like are not useful signals to consider if you are really concerned whether or not a given project is well-supported or will be successful.

HRM staff claim a TIF on all the Shannon Park lands along with the increase in the hotel tax and a new car rental tax can raise enough money to pay the circa $10 million a year debt cost of the stadium.
Shannon Park is 96 acres and 10 acres will go to Millbrook First Nation. Assume the stadium and parking area is 15 acres. That leaves 71 acres if Millbrook retains ownership of any development.
Dartmouth Crossing is 511 acres including roads and parking and a section of park abutting Burnside. The boundaries of Dartmouth Crossing are marked on the web page of North American Development Group, see here : https://www.nadg.com/property/dartmouth-crossing/
Dartmouth Crossing has a total commercial assessment of $340,000,000 and generates $11.2 million in commercial taxes for HRM.
HRM CAO Dube is touting the idea that a TIF on all of Shannon park would generate up to $10 million in taxes for HRM, but he doesn't explain the math.
A $170,000,000 stadium would generate $5.5 million in taxes if taxed as a commercial business. How does he fit another $170,000,000 commercial real estate into 71 acres ? Any residential development in Shannon park would generate much less tax revenue.
The hotel tax aka Marketing levy of 2% generates approx. $3.9 million and of that amount $2.3 million goes directly to Discover Halifax for promoting tourism to HRM. An increase to 3% would provide $2 million solely to subsidize the owners of the CFL franchise.
The amount generated by a 1% tax on car rentals cannot be determined other than by HRM obtaining commercial information from the rental companies.
I am not an 'expert', but I can add,subtract,multiply and divide - on paper and in my head.
This ain't calculus.
If you have the time watch the archived video feed from the council meeting here, starting at Item 14.1.5 at time mark 2:32:30
http://archive.isiglobal.ca/vod/halifax/archive_2018-10-30.mp4.html
Coun. Outhit is at 3:44:00 and he gets to the nub of the issue.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by NB_ExistsToo

I would love for them to find a space in downtown Halifax.. and based on some of the Metro Centre 2 designs, there are locations that could work.

I just plowed through the 2007 Metro Centre II WHW report. Fascinating stuff, I cannot understand how this flew under the radar at the time. It was delivered to HRM but I do not recall it being discussed at Council.

The work was done in 2006 when Fast Freddy MacGillivray was still at the helm of WTCC with his delusions of grandeur. So perhaps like any good consultant. WHW may have produced a document that was what he told them he wanted to see. Or maybe it got derailed by the Commonwealth Games excitement.

Whatever, it delivered a pretty damning indictment of the existing Metro Centre. I was shocked to read that the walls are made of something called "concrete-asbestos panels". Given it was built in the mid-70s I suppose asbestos was still in general use but I was amazed to learn this. Also the roof is equipped with 4" of styrofoam insulation except where it slopes, in which instance it only got 1.5". It must be hugely energy inefficient. The report also outlines the many other shortcomings including the unwelcoming exterior design, the poor washrooms and tiny concourses, unimpressive entrances, poor access for the disabled, bad sightlines from the upper bowl, inadequate locker rooms, etc. The list is long.

It tries to make the case for a 15.000 seat new arena. I am not convinced it succeeds in this, but with everything about the existing building taken together I can see the need for a new facility of some sort. The Cogswell site was preferred in their scenario because the city controlled the land, whereas they speculated that acquiring the Trade Mart site might be in the area of $30 million at the time.

So I got to thinking. What if HRM abandoned the planning dept's wet dream of a Cogswell site that included every de rigeur idea in the latest planning textbook, and went ahead with the proposal for a new MC on that site? You still get rid of the interchange, the streets become at-grade, and you end up with a much-simplified street grid.

Then you demolish the existing MC along with the WTCC and plunk whatever size stadium you can fit onto that lot with the field running east-west. The hole that already exists into the side of the hill would make the west end of the stadium fairly easy to construct and would be a logical place for end-zone seating. The other end would be open for views of the harbour and downtown. The one thing I do not know is if the sideline stands would have enough room to give 24000 total seats. And of course you would need to re-acquire the WTCC building from the current owner. Perhaps he would take only a modest profit as a public service (but don't hold your breath).

Has anyone tried to do a map with an overlay of a stadium on that site? Just imagine, a new arena AND a downtown stadium. Everybody wins! Well, except the taxpayer, but let's not go there just yet.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

HRM staff claim a TIF on all the Shannon Park lands along with the increase in the hotel tax and a new car rental tax can raise enough money to pay the circa $10 million a year debt cost of the stadium.
Shannon Park is 96 acres and 10 acres will go to Millbrook First Nation. Assume the stadium and parking area is 15 acres. That leaves 71 acres if Millbrook retains ownership of any development.
Dartmouth Crossing is 511 acres including roads and parking and a section of park abutting Burnside. The boundaries of Dartmouth Crossing are marked on the web page of North American Development Group, see here : https://www.nadg.com/property/dartmouth-crossing/
Dartmouth Crossing has a total commercial assessment of $340,000,000 and generates $11.2 million in commercial taxes for HRM.
HRM CAO Dube is touting the idea that a TIF on all of Shannon park would generate up to $10 million in taxes for HRM, but he doesn't explain the math.
A $170,000,000 stadium would generate $5.5 million in taxes if taxed as a commercial business. How does he fit another $170,000,000 commercial real estate into 71 acres ? Any residential development in Shannon park would generate much less tax revenue.
The hotel tax aka Marketing levy of 2% generates approx. $3.9 million and of that amount $2.3 million goes directly to Discover Halifax for promoting tourism to HRM. An increase to 3% would provide $2 million solely to subsidize the owners of the CFL franchise.
The amount generated by a 1% tax on car rentals cannot be determined other than by HRM obtaining commercial information from the rental companies.
I am not an 'expert', but I can add,subtract,multiply and divide - on paper and in my head.
This ain't calculus.
If you have the time watch the archived video feed from the council meeting here, starting at Item 14.1.5 at time mark 2:32:30
http://archive.isiglobal.ca/vod/halifax/archive_2018-10-30.mp4.html
Coun. Outhit is at 3:44:00 and he gets to the nub of the issue.

You tend to present jumbles of facts that don't come together into coherent arguments, and oblique remarks about interpretations that I assume are obvious to lots of people.

Everybody with any concrete decision-making authority related to this matter knows that the stadium is going to require public subsidy to happen, whether it comes in the form of TIF or a direct payment. Back in the CWG era the discussion was about whether or not to spend $700M+ of provincial, federal, and municipal dollars on sporting infrastructure and event hosting and this was not considered an immediate "showstopper". A stadium still might or might not be worth building depending on one's perspective, because that question depends on the subjective value placed on the stadium and the expanded entertainment options it will bring to the city.

Many people on the anti-stadium side of things are pretending that this debate is 100% about tax dollars and it is not, it's also about public value. There is no easy answer and you're not going to convince people of anything by pointing out that suburban big box complexes are bigger tax dollar generators for the city.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by someone123

You tend to present jumbles of facts that don't come together into coherent arguments, and oblique remarks about interpretations that I assume are obvious to lots of people.

Everybody with any concrete decision-making authority related to this matter knows that the stadium is going to require public subsidy to happen, whether it comes in the form of TIF or a direct payment. Back in the CWG era the discussion was about whether or not to spend $700M+ of provincial, federal, and municipal dollars on sporting infrastructure and event hosting and this was not considered an immediate "showstopper". A stadium still might or might not be worth building depending on one's perspective, because that question depends on the subjective value placed on the stadium and the expanded entertainment options it will bring to the city.

Many people on the anti-stadium side of things are pretending that this debate is 100% about tax dollars and it is not, it's also about public value. There is no easy answer and you're not going to convince people of anything by pointing out that suburban big box complexes are bigger tax dollar generators for the city.

Facts are just so awkward.
They are so hard to understand.
They just tend to illuminate an issue and help inform citizens, or prompt them to seek further information.
Data drives sensible decision making. The information presented to council contains almost no data.
Dartmouth Crossing costs HRM almost nothing, it costs HRM very little for policing, fire and road services. It is a cash cow, a cash cow that supports the projects that make day to day living better for everyone.
I don't lay out an 5,000 word essay because I assume, perhaps wrongly, that people understand basic accounting and can read and understand financial statements. There are other significant financial pressures on HRM that media don't understand and I have yet to meet any journalist in Halifax who can read and comprehend financial statements and budgets.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Dartmouth Crossing costs HRM almost nothing, it costs HRM very little for policing, fire and road services. It is a cash cow, a cash cow that supports the projects that make day to day living better for everyone.

All commercial development in the city is a cash cow. That's how the tax burden is set up. Suburban commercial development is less of a cash cow than urban development because it pays a lower tax rate and has higher servicing costs.

The question to ask about Dartmouth Crossing isn't whether it generates more revenue than it costs, it's if that development was better than the alternatives.

But that is all largely irrelevant to a stadium discussion anyway. Dartmouth Crossing will be about the same whether a stadium is built there or somewhere else.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

most CFL stadiums are extremely utilitarian

I think this statement was disproven, depending, I suppose, on how someone defines "most" or "utilitarian".

I know many love the views and iconic feel of Molson Stadium in Montreal, they would have to after being successful for so many years on old style bench seating.

Go to any soccer forum and see the reaction you get from Torontonians regarding BMO. They don't think it's "utilitarian"

And I would hardly call the Alaskan yellow cedar veil on Ottawa's TD Place "utilitarian". Usually "utilitarian" stuff doesn't win urban design awards.

If you want some comparisons IGF, was intended to come in at 190 million. I think they later spent an additional 10 million on ribbon lighting and so forth and there were some construction delays due to winds and the impressive roof. So for 210 million? they got a stadium with 10k more seats than proposed for Halifax and a roof that I believe cost 30 million. Subtract those costs for extra seating and roof and it gives some idea of what may be possible.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Facts are just so awkward. They are so hard to understand.

Yes they are hard to understand when there aren't any. You seem to want to conjure up opposition to this football stadium (we will let you play soccer there) just because you don't want it built. And at this point neither you nor I know any specifics.

Maybe you and the other people who don't want this project to go ahead are right and maybe the ownership group are flim flam artists. If so why are they staying with this, why would one of them risk the reputation of his business, how did these "flim flam" artists manage to pay a payroll ten times larger than what they would have to do here.

We all know you don't want a primarily football fronted stadium built but how about not presenting conjecture as "fact" until some actual concrete details come out.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by elly63

I think this statement was disproven, depending, I suppose, on how someone defines "most" or "utilitarian".

I know many love the views and iconic feel of Molson Stadium in Montreal, they would have to after being successful for so many years on old style bench seating.

Go to any soccer forum and see the reaction you get from Torontonians regarding BMO. They don't think it's "utilitarian"

And I would hardly call the Alaskan yellow cedar veil on Ottawa's TD Place "utilitarian". Usually "utilitarian" stuff doesn't win urban design awards.

If you want some comparisons IGF, was intended to come in at 190 million. I think they later spent an additional 10 million on ribbon lighting and so forth and there were some construction delays due to winds and the impressive roof. So for 210 million? they got a stadium with 10k more seats than proposed for Halifax and a roof that I believe cost 30 million. Subtract those costs for extra seating and roof and it gives some idea of what may be possible.

There are currently 8 active stadiums, 3 are good to okay on the exterior aesthetics. We're not talking about the seating or field or amenities, I'm talking purely about 360 degree exteror aesthetics (TD Place looks okay from one direction, the rest not so much), so yes 'most'.

Halifax, assuming it's awarded a franchise, will be the second smallest market (Regina is smaller, but lets face it, there are probably far more football fans per capita), and probably the most risk averse when it comes to budget. This usually does not lend itself to investing in things like aesthetics.

I get that you're a big fan and booster, but if you're going to be perfectly honest... design-wise CFL stadiums are rarely anything to write home about. They're functional, but that's it. I'm just worried that if Halifax builds a stadium, it's going to be no-frills. That's fine from a functional standpoint, but if that's the case, I don't want it on the waterfront where it'll be highly visible.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

That's fine from a functional standpoint, but if that's the case, I don't want it on the waterfront where it'll be highly visible.

It seems weird to have this standard for the North Dartmouth waterfront. The neighbours of the stadium site are the Tufts Cove smokestacks and the transmission towers and high voltage power lines. I don't think a bare bones stadium would look worse than those.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

There are currently 8 active stadiums

Am I missing something here?