jpinkster Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Today the Calgary Flames unveiled plans for the new stadium plans: http://globalnews.ca/news/2171041/calgary-flames-arena-announcement-expected-tuesday/ The public burden on this is incredible. To recap: - $240M Community Revitalization Levy. This is a burden on tax payers, as this is valuable tax base that could be used on something that contributes to a greater public need.- $200M City of Calgary Field House. Direct burden on the tax payer. Sure we need the public field house, but is it worth $200M?- $250M ticket tax. Who is going to pay this tax? The consumer. Great vision, horrid funding model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowsnest Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Shoot for the stars, they'll get the moon :$*%&: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 The City of Calgary already has plans to build a Field House. The public Field House would cost $200M. In this case, the only City contribution would be to cover the costs of a facility they were already planning. The entire facility would be on City land and the state of the art facility would be a City owned asset which the Flames would be leasing. I'm still uneasy about the public burden on this, especially since there are some serious concerns about the remediation of the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianR Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Didn't someone also say.NO more building on the flood plain.If this goes ahead the gouge they put in the ground ,will allow all the built up creosote an escape route.There by removeing a hazard ,that the gov't doesnot want to touch.IMO,better in the long run for the environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Didn't someone also say.NO more building on the flood plain.If this goes ahead the gouge they put in the ground ,will allow all the built up creosote an escape route.There by removeing a hazard ,that the gov't doesnot want to touch.IMO,better in the long run for the environment. Development would not be allowed without remediation of the contaminated land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianR Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 So with the size of the hole[under ground] p/lot,the creosote will be at f/lawn dump,swan hills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roast Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 We aren't facing the exact same circumstance here, but Oliver hits hard on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twispi2 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 hopefully the company i work for gets the electrical contract. tons of overtime get back some of the tax i pay into it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northfork Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 So with the size of the hole[under ground] p/lot,the creosote will be at f/lawn dump,swan hills I don't think you understand that there are consultants that do these sorts of large complex remediation projects for a living, myself included. There is a whole other side to it with mitigating potential issues, it will be fine. Technology and hydrogeology have come a long way, this should be the least of your worries, as pinkster said the funding is what should get people worked up, glad I am no longer a Calgary resident/taxpayer!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayhad Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I will rally against having to pay for a new coliseum with tax dollars with everything I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 very tricky of them to throw in the field house and poof it's project that has public benefit so why wouldn't some public money be used. or so one would assume. a field house is sorely needed in Calgary. Every time I went to the Go Centre in Edmonton I was envious. but cfl football inside - no that is just wrong. still pretty hard to imagine public money being used - not to mention the unexplained and unbudgeted cost of remediation and required road construction. Seems like a non-starter. if the flames really want a new hockey venue then just build it. the team/owners could finance it themselves although I imagine their "portfolios" have taken a bit of a hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northfork Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 very tricky of them to throw in the field house and poof it's project that has public benefit so why wouldn't some public money be used. or so one would assume. a field house is sorely needed in Calgary. Every time I went to the Go Centre in Edmonton I was envious. but cfl football inside - no that is just wrong. still pretty hard to imagine public money being used - not to mention the unexplained and unbudgeted cost of remediation and required road construction. Seems like a non-starter. if the flames really want a new hockey venue then just build it. the team/owners could finance it themselves although I imagine their "portfolios" have taken a bit of a hit. God damn right. I was saying at work today, that the "need" for a new stadium was really only brought to life after Edmonton unveiled their plans.. Not to be outdone by Edmonton, Calgary strikes back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppb Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I believe our tax dollars could be spent much wiser in this city than building a new stadium for a bunch of billionaires.. http://www.calgarynope.com/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowsnest Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 ^ Amen brother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroutPanther Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Let's hope the people managing this project can actually keep on budget! I highly doubt it. No offense to anyone involved. 890 million? I am taking the over. Like 2-3x budget, over. Especially if oil prices pick up and many of our best tradesmen head back to the Mac... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Well I love John Oliver, he feeds my fix as Colbert and Stewart move on., Every single one of his main story editorials have been b.r.i.l.l.i.a.n.t. Having said that, it would seem unquestionably I am in the minority here. I haven't really looked at Calgary's funding model, so my official stance as far as the Calgary deal goes is ignorance.But I will admit - and have no problem doing so - my unabashed support of the Edmonton revitalization model. While, from the outset, a cursory, shallow analysis would make it seem Katz has made off with the taxpayer golden goose, I supported Edmonton's project for 2 basic reasons. One, the entire public good is served by the overall entirety of the whole project. This would include several office buildings and a new entertainment district. I think the everyone benefits from a revitalized, vibrant downtown. Secondly, I think taxpayers will (a prediction here) end up awash in black ink as tax revenues pour in over the coming decades. So my support is based on every John Q citizen benefiting, not just Oiler fans, millionaire players, and a billionaire owner. My position is one that certainly entails more risk; it would have been easier just to say a knee jerk no and stumble our way through a relatively bleak downtown with little vision or planning. So it's a roll of the dice; if the generated tax revenues don't pan out than it could blow up in our faces. I decided to separate - long ago - the emotion of the "rich guy getting richer" jealousy type argument. He's a businessman whose mandate is make profits and negotiate favorable business deals. As long as the taxpayer has some skin and the game and has a better than good chance (my analytical opinion) of doing well tax revenue wise, I really don't care if Katz's net worth goes from1 to 2 billion. It's about the future of our city (I'm talking Edmonton) and having leaders that have guts and vision.I'll also point out that as a (former) fine arts teacher that I had no problem with tax payer dollars building new museums and art galleries too (and new sports field and recreational complexes), despite the fact that not every citizen enjoys these buildings. Yes, I know that there is a significant difference in that museums and galleries are not privately owned, my point being if tax dollars simply plow roads, fix potholes and remove snow, at what point do you say, I want a livable city and the people who run it should have a sense of vision of the city's future. That's also why I voted for Mandel 3 to 4 times. If Edmonton was run by the likes of say, Sun columnist Lorne Gunter, we would have nice roads, some police and fire halls, little public transportation, and whole lot of bleak, concrete grayness, and no place to gather for people to have a night out for some entertainment and fun.So, I say all that without being entirely cognizant of the minute, nitty gritty details of the Calgary deal as outlined now. I guess I am gently encouraging Calgarians to identify the negative pitbulls on their city council and use them to be the skeptical hardball negotiators to squeeze everything they can out of the Flames ownership. I think - despite Oliver's excellent editorial - Edmonton and Calgary could be exceptions to the generalized rule of stadium deals, as long as their elected representatives do an excellent job of advocating for taxpayer interests. Despite my support of the deal in principle, during negotiations I was cheering on the most negative "nellys" of Edmonton city council because I knew ultimately they were the ones that could help get the best deal for everyone. You don't want cheerleaders during negotiations. No go ahead, "flame" away, if you'll pardon the pun. Smitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Folks, Fabulous debate here, great to see so many informed perspectives. We released some details from our office about CalgaryNEXT today. For those of you who live in Calgary it is CRITICALLY important that you let your Councillor know where you stand on this issue. From walking the halls here at City Hall I can tell you that there is very little appetite on Council to support the current proposal as it stands. If public money is going to be dedicated to a project, it is important that we find corresponding public benefit. Right now there are so many questions that still need to be answered. If the Flames are going to make an ask of public funds, we need to be transparent about the dollar figure. The price tag is not just the $200 million, it would be drastically higher. http://shanekeating.ca/calgarynext-whats-next/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayhad Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Folks, Fabulous debate here, great to see so many informed perspectives. We released some details from our office about CalgaryNEXT today. For those of you who live in Calgary it is CRITICALLY important that you let your Councillor know where you stand on this issue. From walking the halls here at City Hall I can tell you that there is very little appetite on Council to support the current proposal as it stands. If public money is going to be dedicated to a project, it is important that we find corresponding public benefit. Right now there are so many questions that still need to be answered. If the Flames are going to make an ask of public funds, we need to be transparent about the dollar figure. The price tag is not just the $200 million, it would be drastically higher. http://shanekeating.ca/calgarynext-whats-next/ Sorry jpinkster, no offence intended but you must delusional if you think talking to those "civil servants" is going to do anything to change their minds about giving hand outs to their cronnie buddies. I have been fighting with these clowns for years just trying to get us more access points on the bow. This council gives ZERO F*CKS about the populous, Nenshi really did a good job making some of us believe his governance would be different.... we were wrong to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbowtrout Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Maybe they'll add a boat launch for ya Jay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Sorry jpinkster, no offence intended but you must delusional if you think talking to those "civil servants" is going to do anything to change their minds about giving hand outs to their cronnie buddies. I have been fighting with these clowns for years just trying to get us more access points on the bow. This council gives ZERO F*CKS about the populous, Nenshi really did a good job making some of us believe his governance would be different.... we were wrong to believe. I appreciate your exaggeration. I'm not just talking to members of Council, I'm the direct adviser to one of them. This is what I do for work, and I get the time to interact with these folks on a daily basis. Are there some bad apples? Sure there are. For as many bad apples as there are, there are just as many who are just trying to make a positive difference. I look at work being done on the Green Line LRT for instance. Lots of political skin put in the game there, and it won't be privately benefiting any specific member of Council. There will likely be some public money spent on this project. That being said, I don't think anyone on that Council feels strongly about the first crack at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Jayhad, all due respect, but there's a significant difference between more access points on the Bow versus a multi-billion dollar project. I can't say for sure, but I would guess your council is similar to ours when I say, councillors did listen to very loud public concerns about the Edmonton deal, because it was a huge deal, one way or another. The public perceptions and views were taken into account. Politicians generally do respond when the volume of public input is pretty significant, as it was in our case on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 And what about the other 1/3 of Alberta that gets the financial shaft every time Edmonton/Calgary play the game of "what about me!" As far as I'm concerned, you want it, YOU PAY FOR IT! I have found it more than curious that the only ones making any financial sense seems to comedians. Boy is the world one screwy place! Don 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Haven't watched an NHL game since they rigged the Stanley cup finals and screwed Calgary out of a cup. So ya could careless as long as my taxes aren't used for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.