MichaelS
Senior Member
"Need" is extremely subjective in this context.....
- Thread starter Meikkhaell
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
Indeed, but important to contextualize everything. We're flawed beings with brains that are good are managing sums more akin to a summer village than anything else. We have a hard time not equating assets and equity with cash flow and profit.
maestro
Senior Member
The electorate wouldn't put up with this deal for anything else than a premier professional sports league. It's hardly a subsidy. The team has sold all the losses to the city while they keep the profits.
darwink
Senior Member
This is true only if you think we wouldn't want a large capacity indoor arena scale venue if the the professional sports club didn't exist.
maestro
Senior Member
Want is one thing. Spending $800 million on an arena without the Flames would be an albino circus elephant. There's zero real estate value without the Flames. Naming rights with the Flames could top $100 million. Without the flames, its a million over the same length of contract
It's setting $800 million a flame for an annual Garth Brooks visit
It's setting $800 million a flame for an annual Garth Brooks visit
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
We would probably build something. Maybe more akin to what Saskatoon is thinking. But we wouldn't build nothing. The investment should be viewed in that light, not against zero, but against alternatives.
maestro
Senior Member
I'm not weighing it against nothing. I'm weighing a $800 000 0000 stadium that seats 18,000 of 1.4 million at a time against a $25 million designer pedestrian bridge that caused a huge uproar. A $350 million, 10,000 seat arena is more palatable than $800 million without the Flames. It's still a major investment in a money losing white elephant and for what benefit? Hosting global events that themselves cost tens of millions to put on? Stadiums are just stupid expensive. It's not coincidence arenas are sold to the pubic as centerpieces for entertainment districts when ownership of an unsellable asset is questioned.
So are the Flames going to offer under market value with the city contributing $400 million to its construction and a sweetheart $360 million loan?
So are the Flames going to offer under market value with the city contributing $400 million to its construction and a sweetheart $360 million loan?
maestro
Senior Member
My gut tells me the people would scuddle a $800 million or $400 million arena plan if the Flames didn't exist. It doesn't matter. The Flames do exist. They are an outlet for 100,000s to express their civic pride. They have tens of thousands of followers that have never seen a live game. The city building an arena if the Flames did not exist or the value added having the Flames play in Calgary are a distraction. This is an extreme case of corporate welfare. It's another billion dollar corporation taking advantage of the situation and elected representative making the easiest, popular choice.
darwink
Senior Member
I don't really understand the opposition to any subsidy when the convention centre seems to sail along without controversy. Seems like an arbitrary line.
lemongrab
Active Member
1. The convention centre doesn't really fund any private equity
2. In 35 years the Stampede won't threaten to leave if the city doesn't pay for another new convention centre
MichaelS
Senior Member
It is disingenuous to say it is entirely without controversy (I myself am not a big fan of it). The challenge with the BMO centre is there isn't an obvious "villain" in that there isn't an obvious benefactor of the corporate welfare.
DougB
Active Member
The local hospitality industry benefits from the convention center, but that is a large, diverse and nebulous group compared to CSEC. Presumably, most of the business created by the convention center will be from out of town (i.e. incremental) whereas most of the customers of the arena will be from the Calgary region who otherwise would have spent their money on some other form of local entertainment. Perhaps the convention center should have been funded by a hotel and restaurant tax.
I was against public funding of both facilities. I say this as someone who has zero interest in live events. I wouldn't pay $25 to attend a hockey game or concert, forget $250.
While I lived in Seattle I purposely avoided spending money within King Country as 0.5% of the sales tax on food and beverage went to fund baseball and football stadia. At least that was transparent. Government funding to upgrade the Key Center for NHL and renovate Safeco is straight out of general revenue, so those opposed can't avoid it.
maestro
Senior Member
I don't understand how they are remotely similar. The Stampede is a not for profit crown corporation owned by the City of Calgary. The arena is being paid by taxpayers for a billion dollar corporation to call home. Subsidizing oneself vs a corporation with the means to build its own facility but, why bother when you can get taxpayers to pay foir it.
darwink
Senior Member
The users of the convention centre are close to 100% for profit enterprises. The arena will be owned by the City of Calgary.
lemongrab
Active Member
Owning the building is not a good thing...no property tax. eventual demolition costs. Insurance while in a flood plain (sounds likely they'll self-insure)...
The clients of the convention centre are paying to use it...what's the relevance of their profitability? Booking a space at the centre doesn't immediately add $100M+ to a company's value like the new arena will for the Flames...