LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[J.OT13]

From my perspective, it seemed like RVL won partly on the basis of their business case. The arena was to have been funded by Melnyk with his 50% share of the development profits. Melnyk changed the rules part way through the process when he fired Leeder and hired that Toronto Big Wig Anselmi who had no concept of how Ottawa works.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

From my perspective, it seemed like RVL won partly on the basis of their business case. The arena was to have been funded by Melnyk with his 50% share of the development profits. Melnyk changed the rules part way through the process when he fired Leeder and hired that Toronto Big Wig Anselmi who had no concept of how Ottawa works.

A lot of the reporting seems to indicate that Leeder made that commitment without checking with Melnyk, while he was in the hospital which is why he was fired. Regardless, it seems Melnyk does not have that kind of money. Perhaps at an early stage those involved thought 50% of the development profits would be a bigger number.

[J.OT13]

I can understand how 900 Albert might have been a major obstacle, cutting into Melnyk's share while Ruddy is raking in the cash across the street. Putting that aside, I think Leeder got a pretty good deal for Melnyk. Considering he had the respect of the NCC and Trinity, Melnyk should have kept him on as a mediator to negotiate better terms around 900 Albert.

In any case, there was a business plan initially and the NCC either had no way of knowing it would blow up. We could argue that they decided to ignore the elephant in the room that was a. 900 Albert and/or b. Melnyk is unstable and/or broke.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I can understand how 900 Albert might have been a major obstacle, cutting into Melnyk's share while Ruddy is raking in the cash across the street. Putting that aside, I think Leeder got a pretty good deal for Melnyk. Considering he had the respect of the NCC and Trinity, Melnyk should have kept him on as a mediator to negotiate better terms around 900 Albert.

In any case, there was a business plan initially and the NCC either had no way of knowing it would blow up. We could argue that they decided to ignore the elephant in the room that was a. 900 Albert and/or b. Melnyk is unstable and/or broke.

I tend to think the whole premise was flawed. The idea that profits from condos or apartments (probably built at the rate of about one building per year) would be sufficient to fund major amenities, particularly when no other developer in the city is expected to fund significant public amenities, including 900 Albert.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I tend to think the whole premise was flawed. The idea that profits from condos or apartments (probably built at the rate of about one building per year) would be sufficient to fund major amenities, particularly when no other developer in the city is expected to fund significant public amenities, including 900 Albert.

I'm as libertarian as they come with regards to City taxes and services, however (I can't believe I'm saying this) I'm actually quite open to the discussion of *some form* of public money going into this... as a large scale arena downtown would certainly enhance and benefit the city as a whole. The vast majority of other cities have gone this route.

I know this has been brought up at different points in this thread... but the discussion should be at least brought out into the open... time's a wastin' fast.

[daud]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I'm as libertarian as they come with regards to City taxes and services, however (I can't believe I'm saying this) I'm actually quite open to the discussion of *some form* of public money going into this... as a large scale arena downtown would certainly enhance and benefit the city as a whole. The vast majority of other cities have gone this route.

I know this has been brought up at different points in this thread... but the discussion should be at least brought out into the open... time's a wastin' fast.

its a very tough justification to make. Player salaries per team are in the 50-75 million dollar range, team revenues are in the hundreds of millions. Thousands of kids in this city are malnourished due to poverty and that is not an exaggeration. Go to manor park or any number of schools and look at the breakfast program they are running. There are thousands of poor broken homes in this city. Check out the food banks. If anyone should get public money, its the weakest links in our community, not the professional sports team that prices itself out of the market by paying astronomical salaries.

I'm not saying I'm 100% against it, I want an arena downtown really badly, but you need to be able to fully justify the expense in light of the challenges this city faces and be fully cognizant of the existing poverty in this city, which many of us are oblivious to.

[J.OT13]

The conversation is a moot point because Jimmy refuses to even consider this and the RVL proposal is all but dead at this point. But for arguments sake.

I think a proposal such as the one Calgary made to the Flames was fair. Split the cost in three; 1/3 the City, 1/3 the team and 1/3 ticket surcharge.

We have to weight the benefits of an arena downtown, and indeed the entire proposal, in order to justify public investment. Here are some of the direct benefits of the arena;

1. The arena itself will bring hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of new riders to the O-Train each year;
2. A downtown arena would be a much more robust economic driver than the current situation in Kanata, both in additional events and a tourism standpoint;
3. The arena will bring much higher property taxes to the City than the one we have in Kanata;

Indirectly, helping the team helps the community. By building up their fan-base and coffers, this gives the team more opportunities for philanthropy and public engagement. It gives them more funds to invest back into the community. It also helps attract more players and better players (with higher salaries) investing back in our economy and paying taxes.

The RVL proposals brings even more. Property taxes and higher transit ridership aside, the Sensplex gives the City the option to sell off Tom Brown. The Abilities Centre helps some of our vulnerable citizens a chance to thrive. Covering the Line 1 stitches the Flats back to the city. It also included 25% affordable housing, something the City has been struggling with for years.

I'm very disappointed the City did not have this conversation when we had the chance.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

its a very tough justification to make. Player salaries per team are in the 50-75 million dollar range, team revenues are in the hundreds of millions. Thousands of kids in this city are malnourished due to poverty and that is not an exaggeration. Go to manor park or any number of schools and look at the breakfast program they are running. There are thousands of poor broken homes in this city. Check out the food banks. If anyone should get public money, its the weakest links in our community, not the professional sports team that prices itself out of the market by paying astronomical salaries.

I'm not saying I'm 100% against it, I want an arena downtown really badly, but you need to be able to fully justify the expense in light of the challenges this city faces and be fully cognizant of the existing poverty in this city, which many of us are oblivious to.

That’s a good point, but isn’t that true of almost all recreational spending, including projects such Landsdowne, the new art gallery, the new performing arts centre in Orleans, various festivals, etc.?

[daud]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That’s a good point, but isn’t that true of almost all recreational spending, including projects such Landsdowne, the new art gallery, the new performing arts centre in Orleans, various festivals, etc.?

yes and no. the NHL player salaries are the big variable that stands out with this possible ask. Big salaries exist to a certain degree with some of the examples you provide but to a lesser extent or with more degrees of separation. The correlation between public money enabling the wealthy cannot be made as easily in the other examples.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by daud

yes and no. the NHL player salaries are the big variable that stands out with this possible ask. Big salaries exist to a certain degree with some of the examples you provide but to a lesser extent or with more degrees of separation. The correlation between public money enabling the wealthy cannot be made as easily in the other examples.

I don’t know, a lot of the paintings sitting in art galleries are worth a lot more than a player salary. The same with a lot of the performers that perform at Landsdowne, various festivals and performing arts facilities.

Besides, the players get payed whether it is in Ottawa or somewhere else. The jobs actually tied to Ottawa benefit people of modest income.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I'm as libertarian as they come with regards to City taxes and services, however (I can't believe I'm saying this) I'm actually quite open to the discussion of *some form* of public money going into this... as a large scale arena downtown would certainly enhance and benefit the city as a whole. The vast majority of other cities have gone this route.

I know this has been brought up at different points in this thread... but the discussion should be at least brought out into the open... time's a wastin' fast.

Our middle class is shrinking. Many people have barely enough to survive. The cost of goods and services have gone up. For some people, there are incredible amounts of medical expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, that are not covered by private or public health insurance. Foreigners take every chance they can get to mooch off of us taxpayers. And many other things that are sad and wrong in our society....

And you are still comfortable with the thought of our taxes being used for a private entity's sports arena to profit off of?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Our middle class is shrinking. Many people have barely enough to survive. The cost of goods and services have gone up. For some people, there are incredible amounts of medical expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, that are not covered by private or public health insurance. Foreigners take every chance they can get to mooch off of us taxpayers. And many other things that are sad and wrong in our society....

And you are still comfortable with the thought of our taxes being used for a private entity's sports arena to profit off of?

I won’t even touch the ridiculous comment about foreigners.

This kind of argument is basically a non-sequitor, but it is made all the time.. List a random societal problem or problems, and then make a logical leap to a conclusion that we shouldn’t invest in the amenity in question. Obviously public spending decisions are far more complex than that. If we waited to solve all of those problems before investing in lower priorities like galleries or arenas or theatres, we would be waiting forever to build those things. In the meantime, this would not be a very attractive place to live. If we want a livable city, a balanced approach is required.

The fact that a private entity will benefit from an arena or that players make big salaries is not problematic in an of itself. Taxes on those salaries is actually a meaningful amount of revenue that can go to social programs. If the team leaves, that tax revenue would move to another jurisdiction, which hurts our city. And no, that revenue would not be replaced by other spending decisions. The high salaries are supported by revenue from outside of the city - tv contracts, revenue sharing and out-of town fans to name a few.

An arena is not just a revenue centre for the team. It is a mixture of private facility and public amenity, as it allows the city to host all sorts of public events and attract shows that it couldn’t otherwise. Those who support some public contribution to an arena are recognizing the public amenity aspect and the value that it brings to the city. There is a legitimate argument for some public investment.

[daud]

Originally Posted by phil235

I won’t even touch the ridiculous comment about foreigners.

This kind of argument is basically a non-sequitor, but it is made all the time.. List a random societal problem or problems, and then make a logical leap to a conclusion that we shouldn’t invest in the amenity in question. Obviously public spending decisions are far more complex than that. If we waited to solve all of those problems before investing in lower priorities like galleries or arenas or theatres, we would be waiting forever to build those things. In the meantime, this would not be a very attractive place to live. If we want a livable city, a balanced approach is required.

The fact that a private entity will benefit from an arena or that players make big salaries is not problematic in an of itself. Taxes on those salaries is actually a meaningful amount of revenue that can go to social programs. If the team leaves, that tax revenue would move to another jurisdiction, which hurts our city. And no, that revenue would not be replaced by other spending decisions. The high salaries are supported by revenue from outside of the city - tv contracts, revenue sharing and out-of town fans to name a few.

An arena is not just a revenue centre for the team. It is a mixture of private facility and public amenity, as it allows the city to host all sorts of public events and attract shows that it couldn’t otherwise. Those who support some public contribution to an arena are recognizing the public amenity aspect and the value that it brings to the city. There is a legitimate argument for some public investment.

Theoretically-City of Ottawa has 50 million to invest:

a) invest in an arena that provides services and other related jobs
b) invest in technology and innovation-providing resources to startups who in turn hire graduates and increase employment
c)invest in a jobs and training program for needy families
c) invest in recreation or other facilities available to all citizens-revenue neutral
d) invest in social services-programs to assist working poor
e) invest in transportation infrastucture

The list is actually endless and they all have some merit including the arena. The thrust of the argument for the arena is that they have to demonstrate they are the best or at least a better option than the others. Perception is 99% reality.

If the arena was to succeed at getting public funds, they really need to demonstrate that it is a worthy investment and that other needs are not being neglected in the process-not easy. The underlying problem for the arena argument is the sheer volume of money that goes to player salaries. The optics are horrible and the other examples cited above do not have as much of a direct correlation though I agree, there is a discussion to be had.

The rumour from Elliott Freidman is that there was some sort of city ownership in the proposed arena and that we'll find out what that may have been after the NCC meetings and termination of the agreement with Rendez-Vous. It will be interesting to see and it would make more sense why Jim Watson wanted to muzzle Eugene Melnyk during the election if the city had some financial involvement-direct or indirect.

[J.OT13]

Of that scenario, the arena could be considered the best "investment". The City would gets its money back within a few years with increased property tax revenue, increased transit ridership and other spin-offs.

We could use the same argument with the arena as we did with the Zibi cleanup (which Watson also refused to consider for LeBreton, forcing the NCC to step-up) or the deferred payments on the Amazon construction permits; we put money in and we get it back within a few years. After that, it's pure profit. That argument could be made fairly easily with $50 million, but as the the contribution increases, it gets harder. So how much would we need to invest to get the best deal for taxpayers?

It's not a public subsidy, it's a business deal.

[daud]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Of that scenario, the arena could be considered the best "investment". The City would gets its money back within a few years with increased property tax revenue, increased transit ridership and other spin-offs.

We could use the same argument with the arena as we did with the Zibi cleanup (which Watson also refused to consider for LeBreton, forcing the NCC to step-up) or the deferred payments on the Amazon construction permits; we put money in and we get it back within a few years. After that, it's pure profit. That argument could be made fairly easily with $50 million, but as the the contribution increases, it gets harder. So how much would we need to invest to get the best deal for taxpayers?

It's not a public subsidy, it's a business deal.

I work in tech and fully believe investment in tech jobs-through programs like invest Ottawa, IRAP (federal) etc... yield far better results for a city. I've seen it first hand and the city and governments involved always win in the long term through tax revenue etc..

But..like I said, I'm not personally against some public support for an arena in theory (though I am with the current owner with whom I have zero faith). The reasoning just needs to be accepted by the city at large which is a monumental task.

[J.OT13]

Tibit from the Ottawa Citizen/Sun today. One that we already knew, but might not have made the connection with our situation. The Seattle group bringing NHL hockey back to the city is investing US $1.5 billion for the expansion team, renovations to KeyArena and the practice facility. If Melnyk were to have sold the team, a new owner would have to invest maybe US $1.1 billion ($500 million arena, $500 million team and $100 million Sesnplex).

Sounds like a bargain to me.

Seattle’s ownership group has put up over US$1.5 billion in expansion fees, upgrades to the building formerly known as KeyArena, and a state-of-the-art practice facility that is expected to open in time to host the first training camp.

https://ottawasun.com/sports/hockey/...0-486ee722f21f

[phil235]

Originally Posted by daud

I work in tech and fully believe investment in tech jobs-through programs like invest Ottawa, IRAP (federal) etc... yield far better results for a city. I've seen it first hand and the city and governments involved always win in the long term through tax revenue etc..

But..like I said, I'm not personally against some public support for an arena in theory (though I am with the current owner with whom I have zero faith). The reasoning just needs to be accepted by the city at large which is a monumental task.

It's really hard to measure those things, but I do think that the benefits are probably spread out better with a tech investment, and the jobs created tend to be better paying on average. That said, it is somewhat like the NHL situation in that the management group of a tech company will be profiting handsomely from the public investment if the company takes off. Their salaries/stock options just don't tend to be public.

And on the flipside, if the technology doesn't work or doesn't sell, or the company is poorly managed, a tech investment can be riskier than an investment in an arena. There is a long and storied history of government loans that have been written off. If the hockey team leaves, at least the city still has the arena to show for its investment.


In any event, think that public investment on both fronts can be justified.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by phil235

I won’t even touch the ridiculous comment about foreigners.
.

I know some don't want to feed this type of stuff, but I OTOH don't like to let falsehoods stand.

Aren't more than half of the players on the Senators' roster Canadians? And pretty much all of their coaching and front office staff and anyone else who works for them is Canadian too.

[YOWflier]

I'm pretty sure his comment had nothing to do with the Sens players/staff.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

I'm pretty sure his comment had nothing to do with the Sens players/staff.

OK then