Calgary announces agreement for new $1.2 billion arena for the Flames

[McShogun99]

If a deal has been made it's just devastating news for Calgary taxpayers. Not only do we have to shoulder an increasing share of the city's business taxes but we have to sacrifice hundreds of millions of tax dollars to the rich little snots who own the Flames.

The Flames should have been forced to pay for their own effing arena. I don't know why that's so tough for our council and city management to understand. If the Flames can't do the right thing and pay for their shiny toy then maybe they should think about leaving.

Property tax in Edmonton has almost doubled from the day they started building the new arena to now.

 

[Mike Jones]

Property tax in Edmonton has almost doubled from the day they started building the new arena to now.

Edmonton did a couple of things right that Calgary has obviously failed to do and one of them is ensure that there is enough taxation (Decent ticket tax, etc) to recover the city's investment.

When it comes to property taxes just wait - developers wanting to develop around the arena are going to line up with their hands held out. They'll want sweetheart tax break deals like the Flames got and we'll wind up with zero funds.

No - Calgary council and Premier Smith have ensured that there is no way taxpayers are going to recover our investment.

 

[Figgy44]

Following the recent conversation be like:



TBH, I think it's split pretty closely down the middle. 56% were against the Olympics and there were many voters like me that would have liked to host the Olympics, but said no due to mistrust of the management of it and perceived cost overruns and operational headaches we'd likely run into. This feels a little bit like the same.

I feel a little of the same for this deal. I like the fact we will have the event centre, but for management and cost overruns, CSEC, Province and City will fight for a win for all of them. Then dish the losing facets to the populations.

 

[CycloneSweep]

As an Edmontonian I’m pissed that provincial money is being used on this. If the city of Calgary pays for this sure whatever. But there is so much other things the province needs to work on, building one city an arena is wild.

I love how all overages, flood damage etc is all up to the city to deal with. The Flames have zero worries it’s amazing

 

[Mike Jones]

As an Edmontonian I’m pissed that provincial money is being used on this. If the city of Calgary pays for this sure whatever. But there is so much other things the province needs to work on, building one city an arena is wild.

I love how all overages, flood damage etc is all up to the city to deal with. The Flames have zero worries it’s amazing

I agree. Every provincial taxpayer should be PO'ed by Smith's agreement. Why should they pay for a new toy for Calgary billionaires? The arena will not be a common good and should be privately paid for.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Why fix if it ain’t broke? Even Weegar was super impressed when he arrived in Calgary last year.

 

[K1984]

This wasn't a result of the ice district being built though. It was built in an area where those things were already built with the hopes that they would no longer be an issue once the area was built up. But a combination of horrendous municipal policies and the area being essentially shut down during Covid has meant that it's continued and even grown as an issue.

This all day.

I lived downtown near the Ice District and (thankfully) moved just before COVID. There was legitimate momentum building in the area and it was nowhere near what it is today from a homelessness/safety perspective.

COVID sucking tons of people out of office buildings downtown (even to this day) + rapid escalation of social issues in the city + inept city council unable/unwilling to find a solution for it produced the outcome we have today. If COVID never happened I am certain this wouldn't be a discussion today.

 

[super6646]

I haven't seen any impartial or empirical evidence in your posts. If you want to provide some point me to it.


you did. Right here when you were quoting me:

super6646 said:
I do like the blame being shifted to the public here, very classy stuff.

when you imagined I am shifting blame to the public. It's you who should be blaming the public if you feel that Gondek and Smith have failed in their duty to their constituents. The public elected them. Them holding office is literally the will of the public.



I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The hypocrisy I see is Albertans getting their underwear twisted about a deal that benefits the Flames when they've been relatively quiet about the millions on billions of public money benefitting foreign Oil companies and others in this province for the last 50 years. You know how I judge them to be relatively quiet? Because they've elected the same party every election but one in that time.

That's pretty clear dictionary definition hypocrisy. If you're going to be angry about something, when the time comes to do something about it you should do something about it.



That's a lot of assumptions for one paragraph. That the immediate area local population were voting exclusively against the arena deal and that all other votes were ill informed being the major one. The city council voted unanimously in favor of this deal. Am I led to believe that every elected official in this city is nothing but a two bit crook in Murray Edwards' pocket?



Well they have. Unquestionably they have. It is my view that the day of the good deal is long dead, and that late stage capitalism will soon succeed in sucking the middle class dry. Viewing it through that context I can be degrees more pleased with spending public money that benefits a Calgary based company, that has deep roots in the community of Calgary, who are providing a public entertainment service important to many Calgarians. If you think that's absurd you're welcome to your opinion.

Do cities benefit from subsidizing sports arenas? Economists are skeptical. - Macleans.ca

"The research is pretty clear that there aren't aggregate benefits of such subsidies for the city as a whole,'' said Trevor Tombe

macleans.ca

The Economics of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums

Proponents say subsidizing stadiums is justified because of the economic impact it will have on the community. Stadiums are huge construction projects and hold the promise of new, nearby development taking root. Despite these arguments, economists generally oppose subsidizing professional sports...

research.stlouisfed.org

It’s a bad deal. Most economists take that position.

And again, saying that Albertans are hypocrites. Many of us opposed the funding towards keystone and have been upset with our government. I keep pointing out that Calgary voted for change but it falls on deaf ears. 44% of albertans in deep blue alberta voted for the f***ing NDP. And remind me, where in Gondek’s policy platform did she say she was going to let Murray Edwards and co bend over Calgarians? There hasn’t been an election to gauge public opinion, but I don’t think she holds well…

Blame the public? Get out of here man.

 

[Mike Jones]

Do cities benefit from subsidizing sports arenas? Economists are skeptical. - Macleans.ca

"The research is pretty clear that there aren't aggregate benefits of such subsidies for the city as a whole,'' said Trevor Tombe

macleans.ca

The Economics of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums

Proponents say subsidizing stadiums is justified because of the economic impact it will have on the community. Stadiums are huge construction projects and hold the promise of new, nearby development taking root. Despite these arguments, economists generally oppose subsidizing professional sports...

research.stlouisfed.org

It’s a bad deal. Most economics take that position.

And again, saying that Albertans are hypocrites. Many of us opposed the funding towards keystone and have been upset with our government. I keep pointing out that Calgary voted for change but it falls on deaf ears. 44% of albertans in deep blue alberta voted for the f***ing NDP. And remind me, where in Gondek’s policy platform did she say she was going to let Murray Edwards and co bend over Calgarians? There hasn’t been an election to gauge public opinion, but I don’t think she holds well…

Blame the public? Get out of here man.

I agree. Great post.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

When it comes to property taxes just wait - developers wanting to develop around the arena are going to line up with their hands held out. They'll want sweetheart tax break deals like the Flames got and we'll wind up with zero funds.

No - Calgary council and Premier Smith have ensured that there is no way taxpayers are going to recover our investment.

The area around the Saddledome is a wasteland.

It’s prime real estate, downtown, close to the river, and it’s been nothing but a waystation for buses and semis for 40 years.

Developing one of the city’s only prime unused locations is crucial. There’s no way this project isn’t going to be a huge part of this town’s character for the next 50+ years.

It should’ve been done years ago. It’s done now.

Get to shovelling.

 

[Mike Jones]

The area around the Saddledome is a wasteland.

It’s prime real estate, downtown, close to the river, and it’s been nothing but a waystation for buses and semis for 40 years.

Developing one of the city’s only prime unused locations is crucial. There’s no way this project isn’t going to be a huge part of this town’s character for the next 50+ years.

It should’ve been done years ago. It’s done now.

Get to shovelling.

Development is crucial but should be paid for by private money - no tax breaks and no free money for hockey teams. If developers don't want to invest their own money then 'wastelands' can be turned into parks - a common good we can all enjoy.

 

[CycloneSweep]

The area around the Saddledome is a wasteland.

It’s prime real estate, downtown, close to the river, and it’s been nothing but a waystation for buses and semis for 40 years.

Developing one of the city’s only prime unused locations is crucial. There’s no way this project isn’t going to be a huge part of this town’s character for the next 50+ years.

It should’ve been done years ago. It’s done now.

Get to shovelling.

People are starving, our healthcare system is in shambles, homelessness and drug issues are high. And they decide to spend a f***ton of taxpayer money on a billionaires plaything for millionaires to play in where they will charge those same taxpayers $6 for a bottle of water. By the time this might make the city money, the Flames will need a new building. And the cycle will continue.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

People are starving, our healthcare system is in shambles, homelessness and drug issues are high. And they decide to spend a f***ton of taxpayer money on a billionaires plaything for millionaires to play in where they will charge those same taxpayers $6 for a bottle of water. By the time this might make the city money, the Flames will need a new building. And the cycle will continue.

Take it out of the forest fire budget...

oh wait..

 

[ManofSteel55]

I agree. Every provincial taxpayer should be PO'ed by Smith's agreement. Why should they pay for a new toy for Calgary billionaires? The arena will not be a common good and should be privately paid for.

She really cemented herself further than ever as a puppet for the wealthy with this one move. Buying votes. Such an awful premier.

 

[ManofSteel55]

People are starving, our healthcare system is in shambles, homelessness and drug issues are high. And they decide to spend a f***ton of taxpayer money on a billionaires plaything for millionaires to play in where they will charge those same taxpayers $6 for a bottle of water. By the time this might make the city money, the Flames will need a new building. And the cycle will continue.

And add on to that the money they waste on the oil industry war room, fighting the federal government on carbon tax, CPP, etc (regardless of how we feel about these, its an unwinnable battle that is going to cost us millions in court fees)...yeah, that's all I'll say about it so we don't wade too deep into topics we shall not discuss, ha ha.

 

[gach]

If a deal has been made it's just devastating news for Calgary taxpayers. Not only do we have to shoulder an increasing share of the city's business taxes but we have to sacrifice hundreds of millions of tax dollars to the rich little snots who own the Flames.

The Flames should have been forced to pay for their own effing arena. I don't know why that's so tough for our council and city management to understand. If the Flames can't do the right thing and pay for their shiny toy then maybe they should think about leaving.

Tell us how you feel about helping to pay for Edmontons arena also

 

[Mike Jones]

She really cemented herself further than ever as a puppet for the wealthy with this one move. Buying votes. Such an awful premier.

I'm not sure 'puppet' is a good word. I think she sees herself as being a 'partner' and someone who can make things work. Her issue is that she doesn't understand the what common good means. An arena where only affluent people can afford to enter is not a common good.

 

[Mike Jones]

Tell us how you feel about helping to pay for Edmontons arena also

I don't agree with that either. The math is simple - private funding for rich people's toys. An arena is not a common good and they should never be paid for by tax dollars.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

Development is crucial but should be paid for by private money - no tax breaks and no free money for hockey teams. If developers don't want to invest their own money then 'wastelands' can be turned into parks - a common good we can all enjoy.

Except that’s not how the world works, and you know it.

Encana didn’t spend $2B out of pocket to build the Bow.

If the choice is “get something” or “get nothing”, a completely revitalized riverfront area with a new rink and all the accompanying (and desperately needed) infrastructure improvements is better than nothing.

“turning the area around the Saddledome into parks we can all enjoy” is a fundamentally unserious thought, and makes me doubt that you care one lick about the “enjoyment” of other people in your city.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

People are starving, our healthcare system is in shambles, homelessness and drug issues are high. And they decide to spend a f***ton of taxpayer money on a billionaires plaything for millionaires to play in where they will charge those same taxpayers $6 for a bottle of water. By the time this might make the city money, the Flames will need a new building. And the cycle will continue.

Yes, because if they didn’t spend the money on this, they were totally gonna invest the extra $1.2B in the opioid/homelessness crisis…

 

[CycloneSweep]

Except that’s not how the world works, and you know it.

Encana didn’t spend $2B out of pocket to build the Bow.

If the choice is “get something” or “get nothing”, a completely revitalized riverfront area with a new rink and all the accompanying (and desperately needed) infrastructure improvements is better than nothing.

“turning the area around the Saddledome into parks we can all enjoy” is a fundamentally unserious thought, and makes me doubt that you care one lick about the “enjoyment” of other people in your city.

Is it really better than nothing if the taxpayers have to pay high prices to even take part?
Like your money is being spent so they can change you big money to see what your tax dollars bought you. It’s insane.

Yes, because if they didn’t spend the money on this, they were totally gonna invest the extra $1.2B in the opioid/homelessness crisis…

So because they are awful and wouldn’t, we should just be happy that we can subsidize a billionaire?

 

[Dust]

People are starving, our healthcare system is in shambles, homelessness and drug issues are high. And they decide to spend a f***ton of taxpayer money on a billionaires plaything for millionaires to play in where they will charge those same taxpayers $6 for a bottle of water. By the time this might make the city money, the Flames will need a new building. And the cycle will continue.

Your statement is true (and likely true for most major cities in Canada right now), however that money would never have gone to fix those things even if a new arena wasn't built.

 

[Lunatik]

Do cities benefit from subsidizing sports arenas? Economists are skeptical. - Macleans.ca

"The research is pretty clear that there aren't aggregate benefits of such subsidies for the city as a whole,'' said Trevor Tombe

macleans.ca

The Economics of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums

Proponents say subsidizing stadiums is justified because of the economic impact it will have on the community. Stadiums are huge construction projects and hold the promise of new, nearby development taking root. Despite these arguments, economists generally oppose subsidizing professional sports...

research.stlouisfed.org

It’s a bad deal. Most economists take that position.

And again, saying that Albertans are hypocrites. Many of us opposed the funding towards keystone and have been upset with our government. I keep pointing out that Calgary voted for change but it falls on deaf ears. 44% of albertans in deep blue alberta voted for the f***ing NDP. And remind me, where in Gondek’s policy platform did she say she was going to let Murray Edwards and co bend over Calgarians? There hasn’t been an election to gauge public opinion, but I don’t think she holds well…

Blame the public? Get out of here man.

The thing with these economists taking that position, is they do not consider the potential loss of the franchise to a city, nor do the look at each individual case. Also how much of this data is from before they started using arenas/stadiums to revamp entire neighborhoods? As that is a relatively new thing.

For instance St. Louis losing the Rams over a stadium doesn't hurt the city as much as Calgary losing the Flames would. Taking the only major sports team out of a small city would absolutely hurt the city. Also Revamping a portion of downtown Calgary probably makes more of an economic difference than building a new baseball park in Arlington in an area that already has a 100k seat football stadium.

Edit: To be clear, I am not going to argue if it is a good or bad deal, just pointing out that these economists need to be taken with a grain of a salt, and context always matters.

 

[Mike Jones]

Except that’s not how the world works, and you know it.

Encana didn’t spend $2B out of pocket to build the Bow.

If the choice is “get something” or “get nothing”, a completely revitalized riverfront area with a new rink and all the accompanying (and desperately needed) infrastructure improvements is better than nothing.

“turning the area around the Saddledome into parks we can all enjoy” is a fundamentally unserious thought, and makes me doubt that you care one lick about the “enjoyment” of other people in your city.

If the Flames don't want to pay for an arena we have options. The Flames owners don't want us to know that but we do. If they don't want to build a new arena there are things we can do with the property.

And given the current deal approved by the city and the province we were better off with nothing.

 

[CycloneSweep]

Your statement is true (and likely true for most major cities in Canada right now), however that money would never have gone to fix those things even if a new arena wasn't built.

And that’s a problem.