MichaelS
Senior Member
"Need" is extremely subjective in this context.....
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."Need" is extremely subjective in this context.....
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.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.
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.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
1. The convention centre doesn't really fund any private equityI don't really understand the opposition to any subsidy when the convention centre seems to sail along without controversy. Seems like an arbitrary line.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
The users of the convention centre are close to 100% for profit enterprises. The arena will be owned by the City of Calgary.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.
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 users of the convention centre are close to 100% for profit enterprises. The arena will be owned by the City of Calgary.