MichaelS
Senior Member
Given the cuts to operations that Transit is already facing, adding $10 million more cuts to their operating budget means the busses may not actually run in a lot of instances.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
Given the cuts to operations that Transit is already facing, adding $10 million more cuts to their operating budget means the busses may not actually run in a lot of instances.
darwink
Senior Member
I think the $10 million is a misdirect. 1,587,302 guests a year at the Saddledome currently pay full fare both ways?
In the end this argument hinges on the belief that arenas are an asset that can make enough money to pay for what they cost these days. In some places with little competition (relative to the population) and many locked in near sell out nights they are.
The Flames will never win over the "why isn't this a normal profit making business making normal business returns crowd".
In the end this argument hinges on the belief that arenas are an asset that can make enough money to pay for what they cost these days. In some places with little competition (relative to the population) and many locked in near sell out nights they are.
The Flames will never win over the "why isn't this a normal profit making business making normal business returns crowd".
RyLucky
Active Member
How about a mandatory but discounted fee for transit on all tickets? The city can say they offered x million, when in fact it's a lot cheaper to provide transit per passenger to events like hockey games. Meanwhile, nobody drinks and drives, nobody dodges fares, everybody's encouraged to ride, and the flames get a small subsidy. I'm curious about the mode share to flames games, but I'd bet you'd capture a sizeable amount more than now.
BKha
Active Member
I was involved in a discussion on the weekend regarding property taxes for the arena. My brother in law says that the property taxes over the years will pay for the arena. My wife says the taxes won't be any different than the Saddledome, but brother in law says they'll be higher than the Saddledome, and that if the Flames actually did leave, the property taxes for the Dome would go down. I'm not sure who's right on that.
darwink
Senior Member
If the Flames leave the Saddledome, the lease reverts back to the city, and as a city asset that isn't leased out for the near exclusive use of a private corporation, wouldn't pay either city or provincial tax.
I can't remember the current situation but in the late 90s the city waved the city portion of the property tax, but the province did not. This was part of transitioning to a head lease, where the Flames are responsible for most maintenance and for renovations.
I can't remember the current situation but in the late 90s the city waved the city portion of the property tax, but the province did not. This was part of transitioning to a head lease, where the Flames are responsible for most maintenance and for renovations.
BKha
Active Member
Thanks, that's what makes sense to me. If the Flames stay as expected and we build a new arena, would the taxes be any better than they would for the Saddledome? My brother in law say the taxes should be more because the building will be worth more, and there would be more events.
outoftheice
Active Member
Flames have announced what their counter-proposal was: https://www.nhl.com/flames/fans/arena
I'm not sure the Flames realize that CRL money is already being spent in Victoria Park via the CMLC to fund the $150 million in additional infrastructure upgrades that they were so dismissive of when it was included in the City of Calgary's proposal
My proposed compromise solution. A hybrid of the two:
From the City of Calgary's Proposal:
- City of Calgary contributes $185 million towards the arena. The Flames maintain ownership of the arena however must pay property tax on the arena. This allows the City of Calgary to recoup it's $185 million investment.
- The Flames Ownership contributes $185 million towards the arena.
Change from the City of Calgary's Proposal:
- The 33% of the arena cost that is covered by the 'users' through ticket surcharge is eliminated. Instead this amount is split evenly between the Flames and the City of Calgary. The Flames argue that a ticket surcharge is coming out of their potential revenues anyways so why mince words. They can pay their half out of pocket and charge what they feel the market will bear.
- The City of Calgary's half of the 33% user portion will be made through an investment from the CMLC (City of Calgary arms length corporation that is in charge of the East Village revitalization) of $92.5 million. In exchange for this investment, the CMLC will become a partner on the arena's design and have a mandate to ensure that the arena includes multiple street-oriented restaurants and bar venues that will form the base for the proposed Stampede Trail entertainment street along Olympic Way SE. The $92.5 million will come from extending the existing CRL by an additional ten years (which will also free up more cash for investments in things like Olympic Plaza and Arts Common) and the justification will be that the investment in the arena will be the catalyst for the Stampede Trail entertainment district which will help spur more residential and commercial development in Victoria Park.
So in summary:
- City of Calgary contributes $185 million upfront investment (paid back through property tax from the arena).
- City of Calgary contributes $92.5 million via the CMLC and the existing CRL (not to be paid back but in exchange for the CMLC getting design input into the arena)
- Flames Ownership contributes $277.5 million (which is essentially the same amount as in their proposal), keeps ownership of the arena but has to pay property taxes.
I think that's a fair compromise. Curious what others think?
I'm not sure the Flames realize that CRL money is already being spent in Victoria Park via the CMLC to fund the $150 million in additional infrastructure upgrades that they were so dismissive of when it was included in the City of Calgary's proposal
My proposed compromise solution. A hybrid of the two:
From the City of Calgary's Proposal:
- City of Calgary contributes $185 million towards the arena. The Flames maintain ownership of the arena however must pay property tax on the arena. This allows the City of Calgary to recoup it's $185 million investment.
- The Flames Ownership contributes $185 million towards the arena.
Change from the City of Calgary's Proposal:
- The 33% of the arena cost that is covered by the 'users' through ticket surcharge is eliminated. Instead this amount is split evenly between the Flames and the City of Calgary. The Flames argue that a ticket surcharge is coming out of their potential revenues anyways so why mince words. They can pay their half out of pocket and charge what they feel the market will bear.
- The City of Calgary's half of the 33% user portion will be made through an investment from the CMLC (City of Calgary arms length corporation that is in charge of the East Village revitalization) of $92.5 million. In exchange for this investment, the CMLC will become a partner on the arena's design and have a mandate to ensure that the arena includes multiple street-oriented restaurants and bar venues that will form the base for the proposed Stampede Trail entertainment street along Olympic Way SE. The $92.5 million will come from extending the existing CRL by an additional ten years (which will also free up more cash for investments in things like Olympic Plaza and Arts Common) and the justification will be that the investment in the arena will be the catalyst for the Stampede Trail entertainment district which will help spur more residential and commercial development in Victoria Park.
So in summary:
- City of Calgary contributes $185 million upfront investment (paid back through property tax from the arena).
- City of Calgary contributes $92.5 million via the CMLC and the existing CRL (not to be paid back but in exchange for the CMLC getting design input into the arena)
- Flames Ownership contributes $277.5 million (which is essentially the same amount as in their proposal), keeps ownership of the arena but has to pay property taxes.
I think that's a fair compromise. Curious what others think?
Beltline_B
Senior Member
^I think the Flames need to turf Ken King and make you the replacement!
Col du Edworthy
Active Member
The flames are saying on one hand that the city's proposal is unfair because they'll have to pay more property taxes from increased value and then in their proposal they ask for a CRL which is supported by increases in property tax in the area because of the value the arena will add. That is so ridiculous, everyone else has to pay for the property tax increase, just not the Flames
darwink
Senior Member
CRLs do not increase property taxes in the area they apply. They increase property taxes city wide.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
Sounds fair to me.
BKha
Active Member
I'm open to city taxpayer support of the arena, so long as the Flames pays property tax.
darwink
Senior Member
They don't in the current arena. They wouldn't if they had use right for only the nights they used, rather than every night.
Oddball
Senior Member
I wonder what took them so long to release their position. The cynic in me says they had nothing and were just waiting for the ink to dry on the napkin they'd just scribbled on.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
I see there's a poll on SSP relating to this topic, might as well add one here.