HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

New Arena Thread: Rogers Place? Yawn...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-15-2013, 09:06 AM
  #76
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
At one point I am almost sure that Replacement obtained an opulent, state of the art, best in the world type home (relative to the rest of the world) for very little money down.

It's the miracle of financing.

Katz will eventually have paid for a substantial portion of the arena just as Replacement eventually paid down his first mortgage.
If you need to know I paid a subtantial portion, 1/3 cost, in cold hard cash. At the time of purchase the minimum amount I would have had to pay up front to purchase, legal fees, and obtain a mortgage would have been around 10% I did more than that because I wanted to reduce my mortgage payments and I could.

The bank never paid me back 2M in advertising/yr, I didn't have any "naming rights" and/or other revenue from the facility and the city didn't offer to pay for the property my house sits on.

Yeah, exactly the same..

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:07 AM
  #77
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Apparently needs stating but people will pay more to enter a much better facility. A facility Katz essentially did not pay for. How does it logically follow that Katz is the one being squeezed here on ticket tax on a rink he doesn't own, and which he contributes little to?

Katz gets all ticket price revenues for every event. Throughout the saga one of the few rights the city has held onto is being able to use a ticket tax as a revenue stream to pay back part of their massive investment. I don't think it unreasonable that the city should have this avenue to partially reimburse their expenditure.
As chrisj pointed out the ticket tax money is coming out of Katz's pocket in the form of lower market clearing ticket prices.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to get from there to your opinion on the matter.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:11 AM
  #78
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
If you need to know I paid a subtantial portion, 1/3 cost, in cold hard cash. At the time of purchase the minimum amount I would have had to pay up front to purchase, legal fees, and obtain a mortgage would have been around 10% I did more than that because I wanted to reduce my mortgage payments and I could.

The bank never paid me back 2M in advertising/yr, I didn't have any "naming rights" and/or other revenue from the facility and the city didn't offer to pay for the property my house sits on.

Yeah, exactly the same..
No one said it was exactly the same.

If millions of people watched the televised events staged at your home, the bank may have paid you back $2M/yr in advertising.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:14 AM
  #79
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
As chrisj pointed out the ticket tax money is coming out of Katz's pocket in the form of lower market clearing ticket prices.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to get from there to your opinion on the matter.
For the first part as noted this is an assumption. Its not unreasonable to expect that people will pay more to enjoy an entertainment environment with far better amenities, seats, facility experience, etc. Just as they do at new state of the art cineplex, hotels, resorts etc.

Posh cost more, anywhere, in any nature of venue you care to mention. Maybe you missed the memo.

Katz is getting this arena built for him with virtually all upfront costs incurred by the city. By having this, and obtaining revenue from all events he has more than his "fair share" in this arrangement.

The startling thing in this exchange is that people are questioning the right of the city to even retain a small "ticket tax" on a facility they are said to own.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:20 AM
  #80
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
No one said it was exactly the same.

If millions of people watched the televised events staged at your home, the bank may have paid you back $2M/yr in advertising.
This is the key point of disagreement in this specific exchange. You stated:
Quote:
It's the miracle of financing.

Katz will eventually have paid for a substantial portion of the arena just as Replacement eventually paid down his first mortgage.
For one Katz has a below market interest rate to work on in what is a very long amortization period. Neither of which he could obtain from a bank and especially for no money down.
Two, as mentioned Katz is getting a 2M/yr "kickback" for "advertising" on a facility the city owns. Please explain why the city should have to be paying that stipend. Next Katz has naming rights on a facility he doesn't own. Somebody explain that to me. Finally, this is a purported investment of some sort and Katz obtains all revenue from all events at the facility. Again more than "'fair share".

So Katz really isn't paying back anything out of pocket here.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:23 AM
  #81
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
For the first part as noted this is an assumption. Its not unreasonable to expect that people will pay more to enjoy an entertainment environment with far better amenities, seats, facility experience, etc. Just as they do at new state of the art cineplex, hotels, resorts etc.

Posh cost more, anywhere, in any nature of venue you care to mention. Maybe you missed the memo.

Katz is getting this arena built for him with virtually all upfront costs incurred by the city. By having this, and obtaining revenue from all events he has more than his "fair share" in this arrangement.

The startling thing in this exchange is that people are questioning the right of the city to even retain a small "ticket tax" on a facility they are said to own.
It's not an assumption. There absolutely is a market clearing ticket price and if a ticket tax is imposed on top of it then it must fall.

The market clearing ticket price is, of course, higher for a new arena which is a big reason why Katz is demanding it be built.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:26 AM
  #82
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
This is the key point of disagreement in this specific exchange. You stated:


For one Katz has a below market interest rate to work on in what is a very long amortization period. Neither of which he could obtain from a bank and especially for no money down.
Two, as mentioned Katz is getting a 2M/yr "kickback" for "advertising" on a facility the city owns. Please explain why the city should have to be paying that stipend. Next Katz has naming rights on a facility he doesn't own. Somebody explain that to me. Finally, this is a purported investment of some sort and Katz obtains all revenue from all events at the facility. Again more than "'fair share".

So Katz really isn't paying back anything out of pocket here.
Personally I don't agree with the City spending any money on advertising anywhere.

But given that they do, $2 M spent advertising at what is essentially the City's window to the rest of the world makes sense.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:39 AM
  #83
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Personally I don't agree with the City spending any money on advertising anywhere.

But given that they do, $2 M spent advertising at what is essentially the City's window to the rest of the world makes sense.
Well, the city owns the window, and the entire building it looks out of. Using your own quote why are they paying Katz for the window view? Because he promises to spray it with windex once/yr ?


Obviously what I'm stating is its mysterious for the city to have to pay an advertising fee on a building they own. One would infer that there could be some benefit of ownership..

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:47 AM
  #84
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,570
vCash: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Good luck with that.

Regarding this press conference tomorrow. which city Infra fund will the mayor be raiding to make up the final 35 million or so? Place your bets here! Or they will just expand or re-work the CRL and massage it's projections.
To some degree I think numbers will be massaged. Although I do wonder if Katz is kicking in some more now, of course his numbers are probably massaged too.

I just think if the money was coming from someone other than Katz we would've heard by now.

I guess there is also the chance that they are just going to go ahead and worry about the money later.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 10:28 AM
  #85
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Well, the city owns the window, and the entire building it looks out of. Using your own quote why are they paying Katz for the window view? Because he promises to spray it with windex once/yr ?


Obviously what I'm stating is its mysterious for the city to have to pay an advertising fee on a building they own. One would infer that there could be some benefit of ownership..
The city is advertising with the Oilers not the arena. This is the typical arrangement.

I think the mistake here is to view the City as a profit driven entity. It's not.

The City is in the business of collecting taxes and building projects just like this.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 10:30 AM
  #86
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
At one point I am almost sure that Replacement obtained an opulent, state of the art, best in the world type home (relative to the rest of the world) for very little money down.

It's the miracle of financing.

Katz will eventually have paid for a substantial portion of the arena just as Replacement eventually paid down his first mortgage.
You seriously brought this argument to the table? Awful awful competitive argument, absolutely nothing like the arena deal.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 10:36 AM
  #87
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
The city is advertising with the Oilers not the arena. This is the typical arrangement.

I think the mistake here is to view the City as a profit driven entity. It's not.

The City is in the business of collecting taxes and building projects just like this.
Utter nonsense. Where are all of these stupid city advertising going to be patches on oiler jerseys?

Your 2nd point is also pure folly.

The city is in the business of collecting taxes and providing the necessities for the citizens of the city, that includes core services and infrastructure.

How along the way governments of all types, especially municipal govts suddenly became the person bankers for every big project is beyond me. It is not up to a city to 'stimulate' anything. It is up to them to try and create an environment where investment is made in things and projects by private entities.

For a province and increasingly a country that thinks of itself as capitalistic and free enterprise driven it's appalling how much governments are being hoodwinked into funding things like this.

Beerfish is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 10:50 AM
  #88
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
For a province and increasingly a country that thinks of itself as capitalistic and free enterprise driven it's appalling how much governments are being hoodwinked into funding things like this.
The Russian oligarchs pride themselves on being capitalists as well...

Silver is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 10:57 AM
  #89
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
The city is advertising with the Oilers not the arena. This is the typical arrangement.

I think the mistake here is to view the City as a profit driven entity. It's not.

The City is in the business of collecting taxes and building projects just like this.
Beyond everything else I'm astounded with this statement and that you think the city is, or ought to be, in this business.

Are you aware perhaps of a time before govt's and taxes? You must not be aware such a world ever existed.

That said the present day "business" of civic govt is to provide organization, facilitate regulation, and fund necessary expenditures on a municipal level.

Civic govt, and especially that of a prairie city, does not have the purview of building Paris on the banks of the North Saskatchewan river albeit I can see how abundant confusion would arise from present administration.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 11:04 AM
  #90
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Utter nonsense. Where are all of these stupid city advertising going to be patches on oiler jerseys?

Your 2nd point is also pure folly.

The city is in the business of collecting taxes and providing the necessities for the citizens of the city, that includes core services and infrastructure.

How along the way governments of all types, especially municipal govts suddenly became the person bankers for every big project is beyond me. It is not up to a city to 'stimulate' anything. It is up to them to try and create an environment where investment is made in things and projects by private entities.

For a province and increasingly a country that thinks of itself as capitalistic and free enterprise driven it's appalling how much governments are being hoodwinked into funding things like this.
There is more to infrastructure than sewers and roads. Museums and arenas also have their place and have since the founding of Western Civilization.

There is no way a building of this nature would be built by a private entity in a city as small as Edmonton. If the people of Edmonton want an NHL franchise and a world class event centre they have to pay for it out of the public coffers.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 11:27 AM
  #91
Draekke
Registered User
 
Draekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
The more and more I read about the situation and the argument between pro-arena and anti-arena sides, the more I feel that one side is coming off a little more "uppity" than the other. That the anti-arena arguments are exercising hypocrisy, when discussing the principles of tax money being spent on the arena.

I get that anti-arena people think it's wrong that the city is paying so much, and that the billionaire owner is just being greedy, and that the argument of "why should I, a person who never goes to a game live anyways, care about a new arena that might provide benefits above and beyond what the current arena has to offer to those who go to the game...my tax dollars shouldn't go to something like that." I understand the arguments, I do (and yes, there are other sides of the argument, just didn't want to list it all). But from my standpoint, anti-arena people who don't want their tax dollars spent on this are upset that they are basically paying for something that they are not personally benefiting from (or that they perceive other funding opportunities may be more beneficial). So they are up in arms that, theoretically, they are losing out on other benefits that their taxes might pay for.

So anti-arena people are "losing" those potential benefits, and that seems to me to be one of the biggest pieces of the argument; that you are upset that you are losing something without benefit.

But if that's the principal in which you are arguing, it's really counter-intuitive, or hypocritical.

Pro-arena people are upset that there is a possibility that they won't get the benefit of a much better building for their team to play in. Perhaps this group is made up of a lot of fans that go to the game, and will enjoy those benefits first-hand. But the other side of the argument here, is the pro-arena people are worried that without this arena, the Oilers may end up moving. For some people, the Oilers encompass the one thing that those people are passionate about. Watching, and having pride for, your team is something that pro-arena people may value above a lot of other things. And what pro-arena people might be hearing when they listen to the arguments from anti-arena people, is that their team may not be as important to everyone. And that just because some don't believe that taxes should go towards this, there is a possibility that the passion that drives them may leave the city.

Basically I see it coming down to this:

Anti-arena = Upset in principle that taxes are being put towards this, and so are "losing" those potential benefits that don't get purchased with the tax dollars spent elsewhere.

Pro-arena = Upset that because some other people may not share their passion (or have as much passion for) their team, they may lose it.

This is just how I see it, and may be completely off base, but it seems to me that anti-arena people are unhappy that they lose tax dollar spending for an arena. And that they think that because it is going towards an arena, they are losing out on other things and that it's not fair, and shouldn't happen that way. You shouldn't have to give up the things that you want for unnecessary luxury items. But pro-arena people believe that if this doesn't go through, if tax dollars aren't spent on the arena, they may be losing out on the benefits that they perceive to enjoy for themselves. That they are losing an item that they care for dearly, because other don't want it.

Aren't some of those principle based arguments just hypocrisy if tax dollars aren't spent on this, and the part of the population that wants this to happen then lose out on the benefits that they desire?

Whether or not you believe that the tax dollars should be spent on something like this, the argument is there. Should one portion of the population lose out on something that they want just because the other portion doesn't want it? This goes both ways. No is the answer. But unfortunately there is limited capital here. Something's got to give. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong...however I think that the people who are arguing principles for anti-arena are being hypocritical. (I would also believe that principle-based pro-arena arguments are hypocritical too, but I don't see many of those...or have just missed them or something).

Draekke is online now  
Old
05-15-2013, 11:45 AM
  #92
fysloc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 333
vCash: 500
Clearly taxes should never be spent on anything except the most vocal person's house and road to work and whatever facilities they actually use. Who needs a bridge for the other 1 million people? Just build a fancy smooth road from that 1 guy's house to work, and its the most effective use of taxpayers money.

fysloc is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 11:49 AM
  #93
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,570
vCash: 488
But now according to various arena insiders — with strong regional backing from St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove and Leduc of the city’s plan to request $25 million from the province from its regional project fund, and today with a new injection of private funds to cover part of the final $30 million shortfall — funding sources for the entire $480 million have been identified and the deal is likely to win final approval in front of city council at today’s meeting.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...on-arena-deal/

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 11:55 AM
  #94
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,650
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
But now according to various arena insiders — with strong regional backing from St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove and Leduc of the city’s plan to request $25 million from the province from its regional project fund, and today with a new injection of private funds to cover part of the final $30 million shortfall — funding sources for the entire $480 million have been identified and the deal is likely to win final approval in front of city council at today’s meeting.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...on-arena-deal/
A victory for the silent majority.

worraps is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 11:58 AM
  #95
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,570
vCash: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
A victory for the silent majority.
I'm curious if this covers the Wolverine statue.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 12:31 PM
  #96
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draekke View Post
The more and more I read about the situation and the argument between pro-arena and anti-arena sides, the more I feel that one side is coming off a little more "uppity" than the other. That the anti-arena arguments are exercising hypocrisy, when discussing the principles of tax money being spent on the arena.

I get that anti-arena people think it's wrong that the city is paying so much, and that the billionaire owner is just being greedy, and that the argument of "why should I, a person who never goes to a game live anyways, care about a new arena that might provide benefits above and beyond what the current arena has to offer to those who go to the game...my tax dollars shouldn't go to something like that." I understand the arguments, I do (and yes, there are other sides of the argument, just didn't want to list it all). But from my standpoint, anti-arena people who don't want their tax dollars spent on this are upset that they are basically paying for something that they are not personally benefiting from (or that they perceive other funding opportunities may be more beneficial). So they are up in arms that, theoretically, they are losing out on other benefits that their taxes might pay for.

So anti-arena people are "losing" those potential benefits, and that seems to me to be one of the biggest pieces of the argument; that you are upset that you are losing something without benefit.

But if that's the principal in which you are arguing, it's really counter-intuitive, or hypocritical.

Pro-arena people are upset that there is a possibility that they won't get the benefit of a much better building for their team to play in. Perhaps this group is made up of a lot of fans that go to the game, and will enjoy those benefits first-hand. But the other side of the argument here, is the pro-arena people are worried that without this arena, the Oilers may end up moving. For some people, the Oilers encompass the one thing that those people are passionate about. Watching, and having pride for, your team is something that pro-arena people may value above a lot of other things. And what pro-arena people might be hearing when they listen to the arguments from anti-arena people, is that their team may not be as important to everyone. And that just because some don't believe that taxes should go towards this, there is a possibility that the passion that drives them may leave the city.

Basically I see it coming down to this:

Anti-arena = Upset in principle that taxes are being put towards this, and so are "losing" those potential benefits that don't get purchased with the tax dollars spent elsewhere.

Pro-arena = Upset that because some other people may not share their passion (or have as much passion for) their team, they may lose it.

This is just how I see it, and may be completely off base, but it seems to me that anti-arena people are unhappy that they lose tax dollar spending for an arena. And that they think that because it is going towards an arena, they are losing out on other things and that it's not fair, and shouldn't happen that way. You shouldn't have to give up the things that you want for unnecessary luxury items. But pro-arena people believe that if this doesn't go through, if tax dollars aren't spent on the arena, they may be losing out on the benefits that they perceive to enjoy for themselves. That they are losing an item that they care for dearly, because other don't want it.

Aren't some of those principle based arguments just hypocrisy if tax dollars aren't spent on this, and the part of the population that wants this to happen then lose out on the benefits that they desire?

Whether or not you believe that the tax dollars should be spent on something like this, the argument is there. Should one portion of the population lose out on something that they want just because the other portion doesn't want it? This goes both ways. No is the answer. But unfortunately there is limited capital here. Something's got to give. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong...however I think that the people who are arguing principles for anti-arena are being hypocritical. (I would also believe that principle-based pro-arena arguments are hypocritical too, but I don't see many of those...or have just missed them or something).
tbh despite you stating the same thing half a dozen times I have no idea what you are actually stating. You used the word hypocritical several times without denoting why it is hypocritical to have one or the other opinion.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 12:37 PM
  #97
The Big Unit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,187
vCash: 500
I think what often gets lost in the arena discussion is that the project that's being debated isn't only a hockey arena for Katz and the Oilers. It's building an arena district that's supposed to contain hotels, office towers, condo towers, and a winter garden (whatever the **** that is). Essentially it's an attempt by the city to use what is currently empty land in a prime location and turn it into a property tax generating machine for the city. Land values downtown will rise as a result of this project and they hope the spinoff is more development of the downtown core, making it a more attractive place to do business and even more property tax money coming in. If you think that the city won't make their money back you're dreaming. It just won't happen within a few years because municipalities are forced to take a long term view and they believe this will be a net positive in the long run. I realize part of this is also a legacy project for Mayor Mandel but it's not going to be the money loser many people think it is. The spinoff effect of building a project of this magnitude is just as important for the city as the project itself.

The Big Unit is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 12:39 PM
  #98
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draekke View Post
Aren't some of those principle based arguments just hypocrisy if tax dollars aren't spent on this, and the part of the population that wants this to happen then lose out on the benefits that they desire?
You are off base. Our government is charged with providing services to the people. Those services include things like health care, roads, education, police, and fire protection. It is not part of governments mandate to subsidize entertainment ventures.
It's not about who gets what they want it's about doing the task they've been assigned in the constitution without getting into debt and causing them to fail at providing health care or adequate roads or enough schools. There is no hypocrisy.

Halibut is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 12:41 PM
  #99
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,570
vCash: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Unit View Post
I think what often gets lost in the arena discussion is that the project that's being debated isn't only a hockey arena for Katz and the Oilers. It's building an arena district that's supposed to contain hotels, office towers, condo towers, and a winter garden (whatever the **** that is). Essentially it's an attempt by the city to use what is currently empty land in a prime location and turn it into a property tax generating machine for the city. Land values downtown will rise as a result of this project and they hope the spinoff is more development of the downtown core, making it a more attractive place to do business and even more property tax money coming in. If you think that the city won't make their money back you're dreaming. It just won't happen within a few years because municipalities are forced to take a long term view and they believe this will be a net positive in the long run. I realize part of this is also a legacy project for Mayor Mandel but it's not going to be the money loser many people think it is. The spinoff effect of building a project of this magnitude is just as important for the city as the project itself.
Billionaire owner that negotiates like a billionaire overshadows everything else.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 12:45 PM
  #100
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Unit View Post
I think what often gets lost in the arena discussion is that the project that's being debated isn't only a hockey arena for Katz and the Oilers. It's building an arena district that's supposed to contain hotels, office towers, condo towers, and a winter garden (whatever the **** that is). Essentially it's an attempt by the city to use what is currently empty land in a prime location and turn it into a property tax generating machine for the city. Land values downtown will rise as a result of this project and they hope the spinoff is more development of the downtown core, making it a more attractive place to do business and even more property tax money coming in. If you think that the city won't make their money back you're dreaming. It just won't happen within a few years because municipalities are forced to take a long term view and they believe this will be a net positive in the long run. I realize part of this is also a legacy project for Mayor Mandel but it's not going to be the money loser many people think it is. The spinoff effect of building a project of this magnitude is just as important for the city as the project itself.
No it's not. Those things are ancillary to the arena being built and will have their own costs associated with them. All the things you project about growth in property values and the rest are taken into account by the use of the CRL. The city has budgeted an amount equal to what they expect to gain based on the project but the $55 million short fall takes them above that number.

Halibut is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.