darwink
Senior Member
The payback is the arena being around. The question is: without this proposal would we spend more, less, or the same on maintaining/building/renovating another facility/the current dome.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
I think the city is supposed to officially release their side of the bargain today sometime. Looking forward to seeing the official details.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
I haven't had a chance to look into the latest on this, but I hear both groups offered up their side this morning
Geo_Jedi
New Member
One thing that did grab my interest is King's response to the city's take and him mentioning the Flames would be releasing their new arena proposal next week.
I know I am Interested to see that proposal and if there are any drawings or site plans associated with the Vic Park location.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-f...says-city-arena-proposal-won-t-work-1.3591428
I know I am Interested to see that proposal and if there are any drawings or site plans associated with the Vic Park location.
Oddball
Senior Member
Here's an article on it from the Herald.
The simplistic version seems to be that the City was proposing an 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 model where through a combination of sources the city would pay $185M, the team would contribute $185M and ticket buyers would pay the $185M. CSEG's proposal seems to have been to split it %52/%48 where the City would pay %52 and the team %48. From here it becomes hopelessly murky because both sides have differing interpretations of the city's contribution. The Flames seem to take exception with just about every aspect and have don't want to give the City any other mechanism to recoup costs apart from property tax. They also say the ticket surcharge comes out of their revenue.
As both a fan and tax payer I can't help but laugh about the squabbling over who pays what from a top down view, because from the bottom up we pay everything.
I've been trolling Calgary Puck a lot lately. Someone says that the Flame's proposal could include renders.
Also, welcome to SRC!
The simplistic version seems to be that the City was proposing an 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 model where through a combination of sources the city would pay $185M, the team would contribute $185M and ticket buyers would pay the $185M. CSEG's proposal seems to have been to split it %52/%48 where the City would pay %52 and the team %48. From here it becomes hopelessly murky because both sides have differing interpretations of the city's contribution. The Flames seem to take exception with just about every aspect and have don't want to give the City any other mechanism to recoup costs apart from property tax. They also say the ticket surcharge comes out of their revenue.
As both a fan and tax payer I can't help but laugh about the squabbling over who pays what from a top down view, because from the bottom up we pay everything.
I've been trolling Calgary Puck a lot lately. Someone says that the Flame's proposal could include renders.
Also, welcome to SRC!
darwink
Senior Member
Always_Biking
Senior Member
I'm interested in seeing what the flames new proposal will look like physically (if they are unveiling new renderings). In the end my gut tells something will be worked out. It's like a couple of lawyers mediating.
Welcome Geo_Jedi!
Always_Biking
Senior Member
Fairly similar, except that the Flames don't want to have to pay that $175M in property taxes?
Oddball
Senior Member
Yeah, I don't believe there's a real flight risk either. But, having a 3rd party mediate could certainly work wonders in this case. The thought occurred to me in an elevator ride. The cousin of the shower-thought.
I think this is pretty typical of arena/stadium negotiations with municipalities. Usually they get worked out.....once in a while a team does actually leave, but in order to leave they need to find a destination that's as good or better, and Calgary is a good market. I do think a new arena would be nice. I'm not adverse to some concessions from the city, as long as it's reasonable.
If the city's share was $185 million, that would be divided up by 506,000 property owners (houses only) and say over 10 years (120 months) it works out to $3 per month. I could live with that, even for the opportunity to go see some concerts that would normally skip Calgary.
If the city's share was $185 million, that would be divided up by 506,000 property owners (houses only) and say over 10 years (120 months) it works out to $3 per month. I could live with that, even for the opportunity to go see some concerts that would normally skip Calgary.
MichaelS
Senior Member
I would be quite pleased with the City proposal, provided the Flames pay property tax on the new arena, something they adamantly oppose right now.
I don't for a second buy into Ken King's CRL claims as part of their yet to be released offer (part of me thinks they delayed their publication of it to put together a presentation to try and make them appear less greedy). This is tied in with my earlier caution about the fact CMLC wants another $150 million to "revitalize" Victoria Park. We don't need CMLC, or a new Arena, to help with the revitalization of Victoria Park. Look at all that has been built in the last 10 years. Now, remember the following, all done without the added cost of CMLC or an Arena:
Approved:
Bentall Kennedy's Portfolio development, 3 towers, 776 units
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2015-5331
Gablecraft Homes, 2 towers, 185 & 193 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2015-2126
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2016-2555
Oxford Properties, 2 towers, 568 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2016-0326
Strategic:
1 tower, 379 units (technically not quite approved yet, but my understanding is it is imminent, and they will break ground 2018):
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2016-5299
Lamb Development's Orchard: (Permit is too old to still appear on the map, so here is the development website)
http://www.theorchardcalgary.com/
And, a bit further south of Victoria Park, but still relevant is Anthem Properties in Erlton, 4 buildings, 874 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2014-5213
Under Review:
Arris REIT, redesignation to allow for residential at their Stampede Station site:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/LOC2017-0192
Cidex/AIMCO, 1250 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2017-4075
Proposed:
ONE Properties 12th Avenue:
http://oneproperties.com/12th-avenue-residential/
Did I miss any? So, when Ken King says we should be grateful to the Flames, and give them free money because the Arena will spur development, I really, really hope the Mayor and Council's response is, we don't need the help.
I should also say, it is because of this list above, that I feel CMLC extending their mandate into Victoria Park is a bit unnecessary.
I don't for a second buy into Ken King's CRL claims as part of their yet to be released offer (part of me thinks they delayed their publication of it to put together a presentation to try and make them appear less greedy). This is tied in with my earlier caution about the fact CMLC wants another $150 million to "revitalize" Victoria Park. We don't need CMLC, or a new Arena, to help with the revitalization of Victoria Park. Look at all that has been built in the last 10 years. Now, remember the following, all done without the added cost of CMLC or an Arena:
Approved:
Bentall Kennedy's Portfolio development, 3 towers, 776 units
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2015-5331
Gablecraft Homes, 2 towers, 185 & 193 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2015-2126
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2016-2555
Oxford Properties, 2 towers, 568 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2016-0326
Strategic:
1 tower, 379 units (technically not quite approved yet, but my understanding is it is imminent, and they will break ground 2018):
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2016-5299
Lamb Development's Orchard: (Permit is too old to still appear on the map, so here is the development website)
http://www.theorchardcalgary.com/
And, a bit further south of Victoria Park, but still relevant is Anthem Properties in Erlton, 4 buildings, 874 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2014-5213
Under Review:
Arris REIT, redesignation to allow for residential at their Stampede Station site:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/LOC2017-0192
Cidex/AIMCO, 1250 units:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2017-4075
Proposed:
ONE Properties 12th Avenue:
http://oneproperties.com/12th-avenue-residential/
Did I miss any? So, when Ken King says we should be grateful to the Flames, and give them free money because the Arena will spur development, I really, really hope the Mayor and Council's response is, we don't need the help.
I should also say, it is because of this list above, that I feel CMLC extending their mandate into Victoria Park is a bit unnecessary.
RyLucky
Active Member
Free transit with the purchase of an event ticket? Sounds like a great idea - the kind of city investment in a stadium that I can support. Thoughts?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-for-a-new-555-million-arena/article36276378/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-for-a-new-555-million-arena/article36276378/
MichaelS
Senior Member
From the article:
"The requests would put a multimillion-dollar dent in the city's finances and could result in higher taxes. Waiving transit fares on game days, for example, would mean giving up about $10-million in revenue annually, according to one of the sources. Calgary would then have to fill this gap, perhaps by cutting transit services to other parts of the city or raising property taxes, the source said."
Considering that Calgary Transit is currently facing huge operating deficits, resulting in a reduction in service to all of the city, I don't see how this is a good idea. Should the rest of the city see a service reduction, in order to provide free transit to people attending a sporting event? They currently don't get that benefit when going to the Saddledome, why is it necessary now?
"The requests would put a multimillion-dollar dent in the city's finances and could result in higher taxes. Waiving transit fares on game days, for example, would mean giving up about $10-million in revenue annually, according to one of the sources. Calgary would then have to fill this gap, perhaps by cutting transit services to other parts of the city or raising property taxes, the source said."
Considering that Calgary Transit is currently facing huge operating deficits, resulting in a reduction in service to all of the city, I don't see how this is a good idea. Should the rest of the city see a service reduction, in order to provide free transit to people attending a sporting event? They currently don't get that benefit when going to the Saddledome, why is it necessary now?
darwink
Senior Member
Well game theory wise you would ask for it as it is an easy something to trade back and forth. For the flames it would help keep the 'all in price' of nights lower, making the ticket tax work better, especially on low yield events like hitman games.
The cost also wouldn't be a straight forward calculation. You have many drivers, many people with transit passes already, and a reduced fare enforcement/sale need at now two LRT stations.
The cost also wouldn't be a straight forward calculation. You have many drivers, many people with transit passes already, and a reduced fare enforcement/sale need at now two LRT stations.
RyLucky
Active Member
In my opinion it's worth paying the property tax even for other people to ride transit. Maybe they'll even realize commuting by transit is something they could do. I'm not comfortable buying the owners a stadium, but free transit to games on busses and trains that are going to run anyway (though perhaps extra will be needed) seems like something reasonable to ask.
Even better would be a mandatory $3 surcharge on all hockey/concert tickets, yyc flights, and /daystudent that enables "free" transit.
However
Even better would be a mandatory $3 surcharge on all hockey/concert tickets, yyc flights, and /daystudent that enables "free" transit.
However