A fancy new Arena

[fellowtraveller]

The municipality said they don't want changes to the gas tax rules.

Quebec City and Quebec said they would fund it themselves -with 45% from the province and some from the city.. and the remainder?

so that is about 180 billion from the province of quebec.. I'm not sure about the rest.

It's like the federal government is trying to muzzle in on the arena for PR reasons but the province and muncipality won't have any of it.

I'm sure about 'the rest of it'.

It all comes, all of it, from the $8billion Quebec gets from the feds in equalization. Federal money, provinical money, municipal money- all the same. With a new arena, they'll need $8.450 billion. The math is simple and the politics are standard for Canada.

Of course Quebec doesn't want changes to any gas tax rules, that would be not having your cake and eating it too.

[PIK]

I think he's arguing that the CFL has value to Canada that cannot be measured economically (e.g. he mentioned "bringing the country together"), and its something that can be done relatively cheaply.

On the other hand, in the case of the NHL:

- Hockey is less likely to disappear from Canada (e.g. we'll probably always have teams in Toronto and Montreal, even if some of the smaller market teams fail)

- With its higher revenues/salaries and the focus on the U.S. market, the NHL may not be as relevant to Canadian identity as it once was

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Esq]

Just to correct myself

"We're announcing today that Quebec City and the province of Quebec have concluded a partnership where we will both contribute 50 per cent to the building of a multi-function amphitheatre, up to a maximum of $400 million."

not 45%

Edited February 10, 2011 by Esq

[Smallc]

I think he's arguing that the CFL has value to Canada that cannot be measured economically

And in that case, so does hockey - no matter what the players are paid. I personally hate both of them.

[Black Dog]

Not without public money. The city of Toronto invested $10M in BMO field, the Province of Ontario paid $1B for Skydome, which they later recouped by selling it for one dollar to Rogers, etc...

Yes, they know well how to play the game, the media and sports consortia.

Oh, just because they could build it without public money doesn't mean they would. They aren't stupid.

[Black Dog]

Not necessarily...

A private sector stadium/arena really only sees benefits/revenue from properties it owns/controls (e.g. arena rental, parking, concessions, naming rights, advertising, etc.). On the other hand, when a government invests in such a stadium it can see benefits outside those associated with the stadium itself. For example, a stadium might increase tourism in the area (and thus bring the government additional revenue through hotel occupancy taxes, increased tax base, etc.) This is, of course, assumes that there is a successful sports franchise playing there.

Sports economists have studied the hell out of this. Arenas and stadia do bupkis for cities in real economic terms.

[segnosaur]

Re: public financing of CFL stadiums vs. NHL...

Thank you for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

I hope I didn't step on your toes there, or put words in your mouth. (If I did I apologize). But, I kind of saw where you were coming from and thought seeing things described in a slightly different way might make a difference.

[Molly]

Cities and towns across the country currently share an annual pot of just over $2 billion from the federal gas taxes collected at the pumps.

While municipalities are free to pick their own projects, the federal government stipulates the gas-tax money can only be used for infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water treatment systems

THAT's the part that should be getting some attention. Gas tax money is already committed- commited to help with grossly underfunded essentials. Raiding that pot to buy some votes with cirucuses is irresponsible, and completely unacceptable.

[Saipan]

Minicipalities should be sued (I sue mine) for throwing tax money at pet projects, like golf course, bowling alley, hockey etc. for the chosen ones. They should not be in business of any business. Only public service, water, garbage, snow cleaning, street repeair......

[GWiz]

Minicipalities should be sued (I sue mine) for throwing tax money at pet projects, like golf course, bowling alley, hockey etc. for the chosen ones. They should not be in business of any business. Only public service, water, garbage, snow cleaning, street repeair......

Works for me, and I agree...

But let's face it, it ain't ever gonna be that way... Why you say? It's because of the electorate, an electorate that can easily be BOUGHT by just the sort of thing we are talking about, purely GREED and self interest and to hell with anyone else... And/or an electorate that's beyond caring or believing they as individuals can make a difference in influencing Government decisions... By 40-50% of citizens not even bothering to vote and simply accepting anything the Gov. of the day, at every level, does...

[Molly]

So why shouldn't stuff like water works and garbage collection be provided by private enterprises?

[Shwa]

Minicipalities should be sued (I sue mine) for throwing tax money at pet projects, like golf course, bowling alley, hockey etc. for the chosen ones. They should not be in business of any business. Only public service, water, garbage, snow cleaning, street repeair......

You sue yours and I bet you are throwing more money away than you spend in taxes too. Because you would lose in most cases. Not to mention tying up valuable court time for a nothing cause.

Oh wait, an incorporated city or town is not allowed to act like a corporation and make investments and stuff - you know do business. Uh-huhhh....

[GWiz]

So why shouldn't stuff like water works and garbage collection be provided by private enterprises?

In Winnipeg garbage and recycling programs are already in the hands of private corporations... There have been and are some major problems that have arisen because of it, but it's "acceptable", at best... As well the promised reduced costs of privatising them never materialized and now exceed the costs of when it was public with inferior service...

I'd have a bigger problem if "water works" was privatised because then profitability and GREED would trump health, safety and the environment in decision making by a corporation... Our water/sewer rates and costs are the highest in the country and great expenditures to infrastructure are needed and overdue...

[Saipan]

So why shouldn't stuff like water works and garbage collection be provided by private enterprises?

Not a problem, whoever does it, we pay for it. Because it's for everyone.

Unlike school taxes. That should be paid by people NOT houses. Houses do not need education.

[Saipan]

You sue yours and I bet you are throwing more money away than you spend in taxes too.

I wouldn't spend a penny. Charter of Rights is for everyone - FREE.

Because you would lose in most cases.

Based on what?

[segnosaur]

Not necessarily...

A private sector stadium/arena really only sees benefits/revenue from properties it owns/controls (e.g. arena rental, parking, concessions, naming rights, advertising, etc.). On the other hand, when a government invests in such a stadium it can see benefits outside those associated with the stadium itself. For example, a stadium might increase tourism in the area (and thus bring the government additional revenue through hotel occupancy taxes, increased tax base, etc.) This is, of course, assumes that there is a successful sports franchise playing there.

Sports economists have studied the hell out of this. Arenas and stadia do bupkis for cities in real economic terms.

Actually I've read pretty much the same thing. (The idea is that money spent by people going to things like hockey games, etc. is fungible, and if they don't go to a game, they might instead use it for movies, restaurant meals, etc., since the money spent is something that would be considered disposable income earmarked for entertainment purposes. So, the economy benefits with or without the stadium.)

So, I should have perhaps qualified my statement a bit:

A city might benefit if the presence of the stadium provides benefits to the tourism industry. (I touched on that when I mentioned hotel occupancy taxes.) Of course, not all teams will draw people from outside the region.

I should also point out that it would be beneficial if the stadium is also used for other purposes (especially conventions that do tend to cater to travelers rather than just the local population.)