Quote:
Originally Posted by boborider
I agree with Stormer - an outdoor stadium presents a huge under-utilization of prime land. If we are not going to have a faciity that is useful year round or capable of providing anything more than a basic sports field then do not build it downtown. There are much more suitable and economically prudent uses for that land than a sports field. Getting back to an all weather facility - if we are looking at something that will be in use for the next 50 or 60 years, then lets look at spreading the capital cost over that period in assessing affordability. That would work out to about 12 million per year plus interest. Hardly an unreachable sum considering the leakage and spillage we see in provincial spending. Shared between various levels of gov't and some private sector committments i.e. naming rights etc. we would have a facility like no other in the prairie provinces. I attended the Grey Cup in Vancouver this year and believe me, it would have been unpleasant to say the least to have sat through the game if it was open air and we had a typical rain soaked Vancouver fall day. That facility will be a grand place for concerts, sports and tradeshows and will allow one to be comfortable in lousy weather and also enjoy the good weather when the roof opens. I am not saying we build something that extravagant but certainly negating weather as a factor makes the facility dramaticlly more attractive to potential users. Bottom line is we are not going to increase usage at all by building something that we already have with a few new bells and whistles. If any project ever required some long term vision this is it.
|
Minus the Olympics and already having the intact hard structure of a stadium intact I don't think Vancouver would have such extravagant plans for a Stadium if they we're faced with the same issue as we are today.
And the payments of these large facilities have to be taking into account as bonded debt rather then loose long term payments. It isn't simply just a number that is rolled out over 50 years. It is a debt like any other which is subject to interest fluctuations, etc. If interest rates are dirt cheap now you can't expect that base number to say the same over time. This is what has burned a lot of American Cities. bond rate fluctuations mean the difference of 5-15 million or so a year. And for a City or County that is already stressed enough for cash that causes a real headache on funds. Hamilton County in Ohio is having to close down and sell of hospitals to maintain there 1.2 Billion Stadium Debt (in the hole 15-20 million this year). The fund to maintain the debt payments went broke in little less than 5 years.
We in Regina with a rainy day fund of roughly 25 million would get eaten up by such large debt commitments in on a few years (just like Hamilton County)
How about the immediate costs for infrastructure and land prep that the City will have to take on?
Does Regina have a long term tax or funding strategy to maintain the debt?
These are all hard questions that Fiacco the Fiasco won't answer as they take away from the sexiness of a shiny new facility.
I am sure the Province is reluctant to shoulder a nagging bill from Regina for decades to come, and would rather dump it on us until we are on our knees in ruins.
An outdoor facility at least would be more in line with more realistic costs. You aren't selling the sizzle with a outdoor facility its built for its main purpose as a professional football facility and nothing more.
Prev
Tell the Province to invite (force) the UofR to play along and we could see a facility built in 3-4 years. If the UofR is seriously considering building a small scale facility for the Rams it would make sense for the City to weasel its self into the plans and take it over with help from the Province. 
Linear Mode
