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

Arena: This deserves its own thread:

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2008, 10:53 PM
  #1
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Arena: This deserves its own thread:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...a-71322c3f7d9a

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 10:58 PM
  #2
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Good thought.

Repeating what I said in the other thread.

Considering the question it really is not a good result if you are against a new arena.

Question: Use municipal funding to build a downtown arena. Do you ... ?

- Strongly support? 17 per cent

- Somewhat support? 31 per cent

- Not support? 50 per cent

- No response/don't know 2 per cent

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:00 PM
  #3
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
Good thought.

Repeating what I said in the other thread.

Considering the question it really is not a good result if you are against a new arena.

Question: Use municipal funding to build a downtown arena. Do you ... ?

- Strongly support? 17 per cent

- Somewhat support? 31 per cent

- Not support? 50 per cent

- No response/don't know 2 per cent
Closer than I thought it would be.

Really 48-50.

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:01 PM
  #4
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 12,912
vCash: 500
In other News I havn't heard from PJO in a while.

Any way, Lagorge had a good point, can't exept people to really approve or disaprove when they havn't even see it or know where it is. Public opinion can be swayed rather quickly.

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:02 PM
  #5
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 12,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Closer than I thought it would be.

Really 48-50.
Ya, it is, they word it funny, breaking up approval into two groups, but really it is 50-50. Considering nobody knows that it will look like and where it is, not hard to imagine that could quickly be turned into a 70-30 swing in favour.

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:04 PM
  #6
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
In other News I havn't heard from PJO in a while.

Any way, Lagorge had a good point, can't exept people to really approve or disaprove when they havn't even see it or know where it is. Public opinion can be swayed rather quickly.
He is also correct that actually seeing the plan etc are more likely to sway them to approve it.

I am actually surprised that at this point that it was almost 50/50.

That tells me that unless the plan is awful and the Government really is paying the whole shot (both of those don't seem realistic to me) that public approval will sway in the arena's favour.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:04 PM
  #7
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
In other News I havn't heard from PJO in a while.

Any way, Lagorge had a good point, can't exept people to really approve or disaprove when they havn't even see it or know where it is. Public opinion can be swayed rather quickly.
LMFAO...PJO said in his blog (can't find the link) that Edmontonians are about to get hosed by a billionaire but he doesn't care because he doesn't live in Edmonton anymore.

As I recall...it was..."deal with your potholes sucka".

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:05 PM
  #8
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
He is also correct that actually seeing the plan etc are more likely to sway them to approve it.

I am actually surprised that at this point that it was almost 50/50.

That tells me that unless the plan is awful and the Government really is paying the whole shot (both of those don't seem realistic to me) that public approval will sway in the arena's favour.
Yep..and good on Edmonton.

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:14 PM
  #9
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Yep..and good on Edmonton.
Yep.

It is time.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:20 PM
  #10
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 12,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
LMFAO...PJO said in his blog (can't find the link) that Edmontonians are about to get hosed by a billionaire but he doesn't care because he doesn't live in Edmonton anymore.

As I recall...it was..."deal with your potholes sucka".
I didn't know PJO moved.

Whatever happened to my idea of have a sticky for people with blogs, I think that is a good idea, I just can't keep track of these blogs.

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:23 PM
  #11
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
I didn't know PJO moved.

Whatever happened to my idea of have a sticky for people with blogs, I think that is a good idea, I just can't keep track of these blogs.
Lowetide's blog has all the blogs on his page.

Funny thing was I really didn't read them until BBO and Dashing came up with the idea of posting them with the Oiler news in the morning.

I just bookmarked Lowetides Blog.

So I don't think we need to sticky all the links.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:28 PM
  #12
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
ahh ic, Ya I will have to do that to.

Still think it is a good idea as all the newbies ect won't know where to find them. Hell I have been here for years and I don't have a clue where to find them. Just seems like a waste of great info. Also each person could do a write up of their blog in their post.

Any whooo. Just an idea.
Not a problem...HA and I will take care of it. Just click on the links.

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:28 PM
  #13
Raoul Duke*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,007
vCash: 500
We're all taxed either way. Do we pick and choose where our tax goes? Politicians and city councilors raise their salary, they vote to build a multi-million dollar art gallery, they spend it on proposals to change the city from "City of Champions", to giant triangles - and then abort.

I could see if people chose where our dollars are spent. Building a new arena, I reckon would be low on the list.

Rexall Place/Northlands/Skyreach - isn't just a venue for the Oilers. A new arena breathes new life into downtown Edmonton that had been left rotting under Mayor Bill. Just from recent memory, Rexall hosted Bill Clinton.... which was a fairly big deal to have a speaker of that magnitude in our city that would sell out.
Just an example of a venue for things other than the Oilers like PJO likes to believe.

Potholes aren't being fixed either way.

Raoul Duke* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:29 PM
  #14
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
ahh ic, Ya I will have to do that to.

Still think it is a good idea as all the newbies ect won't know where to find them. Hell I have been here for years and I don't have a clue where to find them. Just seems like a waste of great info. Also each person could do a write up of their blog in their post.

Any whooo. Just an idea.
I understand it is just that I would be scared to leave anyone out or be unfair.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:34 PM
  #15
Raoul Duke*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post

I could see if people chose where our dollars are spent. Building a new arena, I reckon would be low on the list.
An annoying thing about infractions, the loss of editing a post.

I meant to say "I doubt that building a new arena in Edmonton would be low on their - the tax payers lists" as opposed to salary hikes, new ideas of welcome to Edmonton signs, architects to build proposals for art galleries, or signs for the city...."

Sorry if any confusion before this got through. Again, never understand why the infractions lose you the right to edit, seems it's be beneficial towards a poster in trouble's work to being acceptable again.

Raoul Duke* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:37 PM
  #16
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
An annoying thing about infractions, the loss of editing a post.

I meant to say "I doubt that building a new arena in Edmonton would be low on their - the tax payers lists" as opposed to salary hikes, new ideas of welcome to Edmonton signs, architects to build proposals for art galleries, or signs for the city...."

Sorry if any confusion before this got through. Again, never understand why the infractions lose you the right to edit, seems it's be beneficial towards a poster in trouble's work to being acceptable again.
It's okay RD...some of us can feel your pain and will welcome you back.

dashingsilverfox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:42 PM
  #17
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Mandel: "If you asked people, 'Do you want the old rink to pay $300 million on your taxes or the new rink to pay no money on your taxes?' what would they say?

"I'm seeing substantial support for a downtown arena, and support not necessarily for public funds. But it has to be funded some way, and we think we have a reasonably creative way of doing it that is not going to involve any current property taxes or grants from other orders of government."
Sounds like they already have some kind of financial model in place to pay for the project.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2008, 11:58 PM
  #18
Jek McPorkins
Red Six
 
Jek McPorkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 11,252
vCash: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Sounds like they already have some kind of financial model in place to pay for the project.
It has to be a casino. Game/Concert/Event nights would pack the casino/bars/lounges/hotel from quittin' time to closing time. There's a veritable ton of money being thrown around by youngsters nowadays.

To be honest, I'd think that most taxpaying hockey fans wouldn't want their taxes covering a chunk of the construction either, unless the city will be seeing a good chunk of the profits from the venue.

If Katz doesn't want to shoulder the load, I'm sure the city will point to the old Coliseum as his only alternative. City Hall needs to spend less, not more.

Jek McPorkins is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:03 AM
  #19
Alex87
Registered User
 
Alex87's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,962
vCash: 500
Laforge and Mandel are both right on the money- surveys do depend on the type of questions being asked and considering we don't know much about the arena except that "it costs money," it's a little early to be predicting the results of a referendum.

If they drew up a decent, non-biased proposal and explained how it could potentially benefit the city and not just the Oilers if done properly, you'd likely see more people in favour of it.

There's no question that it would cost the city a big wad of cash, but you have to remember the tax payers wouldn't be forking it all out between now and Christmas- it's a project that would expand over several years. Also, if Katz is willing to put up $100 million then you really can't pass up a "discount" like this on what will eventually become a necessary project sometime down the road.

Alex87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:15 AM
  #20
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,600
vCash: 596
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
What struck me right away is what Mandel mentions.

Quote:
"If you have nothing there and you're going to build an arena, and that arena creates a great deal of construction around it as a result of the arena, then that's new money, and you could maybe use that as a source of revenue through what is known as a community revitalization levy."
Does that mean its not tax money if this was the way to go ?

Then goes on to say..

Quote:
"If you asked people, 'Do you want the old rink to pay $300 million on your taxes or the new rink to pay no money on your taxes?' what would they say?
Sounds like it to me.

Vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:36 AM
  #21
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
What struck me right away is what Mandel mentions.



Does that mean its not tax money if this was the way to go ?

When I interviewed Brian Anderson (councillor) a few months ago he also mentioned the idea of the revitalization levy for the neighbourhood. It would be like some of the other BRZ's around the city where any business within a certain geographically defined area gets hit with a tax surcharge to pay for improvements within that area. In this case the money would go to pay down costs on the arena or infrastructure needed to be built by the city to support it. It is a tax technically but has a defined life expectiancy and particular purpose only rather than going into general revenue.

This is pretty much a done deal in terms of it happening. Its all optics and posturing now.

theoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:49 AM
  #22
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,458
vCash: 500
Have to say that Laforge is right and I said as much in some earlier threads is that people tend to be swayed by bright and shiny sketchings of bldgs which might turn the tide.

Masons comments are interesting as he sees this as a pretty firm "no" but I'm not convinced now that it is.

This pig will fly.

But I still think that the public acting disaffected and unwilling will result in a better and fairer deal and with us not left holding the bill as much.

I see this poll being used by Laforge to leverage public share and he'll be able to spin that public is wanting this when models are presented.

I still think the public shouldn't flinch and should drive a hard bargain as this thing is getting built anyway. Bet on it.

Nothing wrong in resolutely stating we don't want to pay for it all.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:53 AM
  #23
Real_Estate-Agent
Registered User
 
Real_Estate-Agent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,744
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil View Post

When I interviewed Brian Anderson (councillor) a few months ago he also mentioned the idea of the revitalization levy for the neighbourhood. It would be like some of the other BRZ's around the city where any business within a certain geographically defined area gets hit with a tax surcharge to pay for improvements within that area.

In this case the money would go to pay down costs on the arena or infrastructure needed to be built by the city to support it.
Either Brian Anderson has no idea what a BRZ levy is - or you misunderstood his answer. That is not what a BRZ levy is & that is not how the money is spent....

Either way, there already is a downtown BRZ - the businesses are already getting hit with a tax surcharge.......

Real_Estate-Agent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:53 AM
  #24
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Have to say that Laforge is right and I said as much in some earlier threads is that people tend to be swayed by bright and shiny sketchings of bldgs which might turn the tide.

Masons comments are interesting as he sees this as a pretty firm "no" but I'm not convinced now that it is.

This pig will fly.

But I still think that the public acting disaffected and unwilling will result in a better and fairer deal and with us not left holding the bill as much.

I see this poll being used by Laforge to leverage public share and he'll be able to spin that public is wanting this when models are presented.

I still think the public shouldn't flinch and should drive a hard bargain as this thing is getting built anyway. Bet on it.

Nothing wrong in resolutely stating we don't want to pay for it all.
Agreed. It is going to get done so you start to negotiate on how to make it work the best for your side. Standing on the losing side of these discussions just causes you to lose all leverage.

theoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 12:56 AM
  #25
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real_Estate-Agent View Post
Either Brian Anderson has no idea what a BRZ levy is - or you misunderstood his answer. That is not what a BRZ levy is & that is not how the money is spent....

Either way, there already is a downtown BRZ - the businesses are already getting hit with a tax surcharge.......
Or I wasn't clear. The comparison was mine just to illustrate that the funds are not from current tax revenue and are project specific. There are a number of BRZ's and although they are slightly different they do have specific purposes and they do expire when the purposes are fulfilled.

theoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:16 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.