For or against public money for a new arena?

[Tobyoby]

I think we need a poll on this question. Lots of discussion, but I'm curious as to how many people actually would consider public money toward a new arena.

[wave46]

Presuming that you mean a venue intended for pro sports and not a community rink or something of the like?

[ST1]

Originally Posted by wave46

Presuming that you mean a venue intended for pro sports and not a community rink or something of the like?

Do you really think this poll might be about money towards a new community rink?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by ST1

Do you really think this poll might be about money towards a new community rink?

Just making sure.

[patm]

Some money, yes without a doubt.

Completely funded? Only if Calgary then charges the Flames rent in order to get some of the costs back but this would not ideal as they would lose a lot of money (same as if someone built it privately too).

Should be a partnership.

[Calgarian]

$200 mil plus the land, I'm OK with. Any more defers needed infrastructure spending.

[Northern]

I'm good up to 200M. Maybe even a bit more.

[ST1]

I'm okay with up to $200 Million. To me that's very fair for both sides.

[Habanero]

Voted yes, but less than $400 Million. I know I know lol.. I shamelessly want a new arena.

[dg66]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

$200 mil plus the land, I'm OK with. Any more defers needed infrastructure spending.

Same here.

[McMurph]

I'm in with yes but less than 200. FWIW you might want to add the all-in / get it done option for those who think the city should bend over.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I'm in with yes but less than 200. FWIW you might want to add the all-in / get it done option for those who think the city should bend over.

I think the $400 million mark kinda covers that.

I chose the $200 million option. It seems fair to me.

[suburbia]

I've answered yes but below $200M, however, need to add the caviate that this would be cumulative over the course of 35 years, so I'm including the need for municipal taxes in addition to the construction costs, and out of that grand total a max contribution of $200M.

Aside: I'm unclear if most of the public commentators understand the concept of municipal taxes, and the Flames are leveraging this misunderstanding in the public domain. I noted that most respondents to this thread also do not explicitly comment on this piece, which is a big piece. When we talk costs, it really should be the $555M + municipal taxes (in current year dollars I suppose) over the agreed to period, which is 35 years.

[jc_yyc_ca]

I answered yes, $200 million or less, and that includes not paying property taxes. They don't pay tax now, so I okay with none going forward.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I've answered yes but below $200M, however, need to add the caviate that this would be cumulative over the course of 35 years, so I'm including the need for municipal taxes in addition to the construction costs, and out of that grand total a max contribution of $200M.

Aside: I'm unclear if most of the public commentators understand the concept of municipal taxes, and the Flames are leveraging this misunderstanding in the public domain. I noted that most respondents to this thread also do not explicitly comment on this piece, which is a big piece. When we talk costs, it really should be the $555M + municipal taxes (in current year dollars I suppose) over the agreed to period, which is 35 years.

[DoubleK]

I answered not more than $200M.

I still feel the split should be 25 City, 25 ticket tax and Flames pay the rest.

[Socguy]

I answered Yes but less than 200M. I was seriously considering none at all, however, there are certain circumstances that I would begrudgingly accept some public money. Basically for the sole fact that so many of the citizens seem desperate for a new arena. The non-negotiable for me is that the city must treat any tax money they put in as an investment with a firm (and realistic) plan for repayment and eventual profit. The simple principal that public money must be used for public benefit is critical. A new arena is first and foremost a money making endeavor whereby billionaires provide entertainment to the wealthiest of the population. Without a plan for total repayment, any public money contributed has been used to generate profit for billionaires at the expense of current projects that actually stand to benefit the majority of the citizens.

In terms of bringing hockey to the people, a new arena actually makes it MORE difficult for the casual fan to enjoy NHL hockey by both charging more per ticket and hospitality services and by reducing the seating capacity to force the sale of more expensive tickets and to make room for more lavish (profitable) options.

There are also so many other confounding issues: CRL abuse, the mostly discredited idea of new arenas spurring development, dishonest attempts to compare the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, emotional manipulations and so on.

[SteveP]

I voted yes up to $200 million. If it didn't include re-payment via property tax I could live with that. We gave $245 million to a library that doesn't pay property tax. Yes, I know that this arena would be owned by billionaires, but I don't care. Either way, it's costing me the same whether owned by a non-profit or a for profit organization.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I answered yes, $200 million or less, and that includes not paying property taxes. They don't pay tax now, so I okay with none going forward.

If you are saying $200M up front PLUS forgoing municipal taxes (so as to overburden small businesses and Calgarians the city over), that is actually support for $400M. The project including taxes that would need paying, would be about $750M in present dollars I'd fathom. I'm saying $200M city contribution against a full cost of $750M, which would include land, building, Saddledome demo, and municipal taxes). The owners (plus users for a portion) need to come up with the balance, and further, the city should not finance that user levy portion either. We need to see the cost as inclusive of all of these things: land + demo + construction + municipal taxes for the life of the building.

and just to clarify, the reason the Saddledome demo is part of this is that the Flames are demanding removal of the Saddledome else they'll walk. I actually think that is not fair and we should start a save the saddledome movement. It is not really competition anyway, as the flames have said no one will play there, so why are they worried?

[topdog]

$200 million up front plus forgoing taxes....sounds a lot like the library deal. I would prefer the city pay no money up front, and can offer up no property taxes, which is the situation today, but if it comes to money up front, and there's a standoff over that, I'll go with the money up front. As a taxpayer I've already done this with other things around the city, Library, Science Centre, Music Centre, a sculpture made of rebar to name a few. I can do it for an arena.

Originally Posted by suburbia

If you are saying $200M up front PLUS forgoing municipal taxes (so as to overburden small businesses and Calgarians the city over), that is actually support for $400M. The project including taxes that would need paying, would be about $750M in present dollars I'd fathom. I'm saying $200M city contribution against a full cost of $750M, which would include land, building, Saddledome demo, and municipal taxes). The owners (plus users for a portion) need to come up with the balance, and further, the city should not finance that user levy portion either. We need to see the cost as inclusive of all of these things: land + demo + construction + municipal taxes for the life of the building.

and just to clarify, the reason the Saddledome demo is part of this is that the Flames are demanding removal of the Saddledome else they'll walk. I actually think that is not fair and we should start a save the saddledome movement. It is not really competition anyway, as the flames have said no one will play there, so why are they worried?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

If you are saying $200M up front PLUS forgoing municipal taxes (so as to overburden small businesses and Calgarians the city over), that is actually support for $400M. The project including taxes that would need paying, would be about $750M in present dollars I'd fathom. I'm saying $200M city contribution against a full cost of $750M, which would include land, building, Saddledome demo, and municipal taxes). The owners (plus users for a portion) need to come up with the balance, and further, the city should not finance that user levy portion either. We need to see the cost as inclusive of all of these things: land + demo + construction + municipal taxes for the life of the building.

and just to clarify, the reason the Saddledome demo is part of this is that the Flames are demanding removal of the Saddledome else they'll walk. I actually think that is not fair and we should start a save the saddledome movement. It is not really competition anyway, as the flames have said no one will play there, so why are they worried?

The Flames aren't worried about competition from the Saddledome. If you read between the lines they want to develop the area and benefit from those revenues. Even though it hasn't been publicly stated I believe they want to do something similar to what Kroenke is doing in L.A. but with more public investment. Stuff like the city covering policing, transit, etc. on game days is exactly what Kroenke is getting. One of the big differences is that he bought the old Hollywood Park race track and owns something like 300 acres of land now. He's also paying the $2.6 billion to build the stadium minus a bunch of complicated tax relief, $200 million in NFL funding, and seat licensing fees from the Chargers. Unless the Flames get an amazing deal from the city they will not agree to invest in Victoria Park. They want to control all of the development because that's where the real money is.