New NHL Arenas

[guyser]

Finally: Katz's implied threats to relocate ring pretty hollow when you consider that this is really about real estate, not hockey. Dude stands to make a pretty penny off his holdings in the "arena district". He can't move that land with the team.

Maybe he is going to move it to Markham?

A new NHL sized rink + development is planned for Markham, which lies outside the 75 mile rule for Buffalo, but not the Leafs.

Crazy but who knows ,that said I was only joking about moiving.

http://www.640toronto.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1419729

[WIP]

I haven't been in Alberta for over 30 years, so I can't comment on the specifics, but, it's worth noting that sports franchises were the first to play the global corporatism game of pitting one government jurisdiction against another in a bidding process, which in this case, provided franchise owners with free arenas and stadiums. Now that the economy has tanked, the idiotic sports fans who will pay any price for a ticket, and the parasites in local media that depend on the teams for their revenues, are being out-voted by the less-than-fanatic majority who are turfing out mayors and city councilors for giving team owners the keys to the vault. So, are hockey fans in Alberta still willing to be blackmailed into building the owners brand new hockey arenas? If Calgary and Edmonton are willing to call their bluff, they may find that the owners don't have the re-location options they claim to have right now.

[scouterjim]

I fixed it for you.

No, I mean "idiot hockey fans". They want tax breaks for the teams, bigger pay for the players, and now subsidized arenas so they can scream and yell at a bunch of grown men chasing a chunk of rubber around the ice with a bent stick. Idiocy like that transcends political views.

[bloodyminded]

No, I mean "idiot hockey fans". They want tax breaks for the teams, bigger pay for the players, and now subsidized arenas so they can scream and yell at a bunch of grown men chasing a chunk of rubber around the ice with a bent stick. Idiocy like that transcends political views.

Yes, even with politicized droolers like Mr. Cherry confusing hockey with war and vice versa, many of us centrists, righties and lefties enjoy hockey, and enjoy that it transcends political views.

[scouterjim]

Yes, even with politicized droolers like Mr. Cherry confusing hockey with war and vice versa, many of us centrists, righties and lefties enjoy hockey, and enjoy that it transcends political views.

I have no problem with people enjoying hockey. I am against tax dollars used to subsidize teams and building of arenas. If the teams are so hard up for money that they want tax payers to subsidize them, then they should pay the greedy bastards that play for their teams less!

[fellowtraveller]

As I said: the means of repayment are the expected increase in the taxbase from the development.If that doesn't come through, then what?

Happens all the time: municipalities build out major infrastructure for residential and industrial subdivisions all the time. They expect that developers and investors will buy the land, build houses and businesses, resell same to retail buyers and the resultant property taxes will pay back the cost of roads, drainage, gas, water sewage, power infrastructure plus a profit.

Usually it works that way, sometimes it does not, but that does not stop cities from doing it , based on their best business case.

Why is this any different? All development has risk.

They don't routinely offer to help build capital projects for other businesses though.

Nobody knows the details of what is on the table. And you are completely wrong about that, cities, provinces and feds routinely kick in plenty of $ to entice business in many different ways.

Advertise that you are a medium size business and offering to build a plant in Canada that will employ a few hundred people indefinitely. You would get at least 100 offers from govts, and the starting point would be free land, no property taxes and free infrastructure to your front door. Guaranteed. It happened not long ago in Edmonton, with the meat packing plant that ended up in Brandon.

[Black Dog]

Happens all the time: municipalities build out major infrastructure for residential and industrial subdivisions all the time. They expect that developers and investors will buy the land, build houses and businesses, resell same to retail buyers and the resultant property taxes will pay back the cost of roads, drainage, gas, water sewage, power infrastructure plus a profit.

Usually it works that way, sometimes it does not, but that does not stop cities from doing it , based on their best business case.

Why is this any different? All development has risk.

Ah, no. You don't see cities build infrastructure or capital projects on the expectation that that development will yield other developments nearby to pay for the first one.

In any case, you never answered the question.

Nobody knows the details of what is on the table. And you are completely wrong about that, cities, provinces and feds routinely kick in plenty of $ to entice business in many different ways.

Examples of capital projects plz.

Advertise that you are a medium size business and offering to build a plant in Canada that will employ a few hundred people indefinitely. You would get at least 100 offers from govts, and the starting point would be free land, no property taxes and free infrastructure to your front door. Guaranteed. It happened not long ago in Edmonton, with the meat packing plant that ended up in Brandon.

We're talking about an asset that will be owned by the city, maintained by the city and the revenues from which will go to a private entity. Different story altogether.

[fellowtraveller]

Ah, no. You don't see cities build infrastructure or capital projects on the expectation that that development will yield other developments nearby to pay for the first one.

of course you do. Cant possibly build the new subdivision until water sewage and drainage capacity is in place. The expectation is most definitely that revenues will be the payback, they dont do it unless there is that specific expectation. Cities help themselves in this regard by controlling development.

Examples of capital projects plz.

Anthony Henday, Windermere subdivsuion,Summerside, Ellerslie, all of Mill Woods, Castledowns,Winterburn industrial,all the development in northwest on 156 st and a whopper the Heartand project where billions are going into infrastructure well in advance of a shovel in the ground or a penny in tax generated. etc etc etc etc. First came a huge whack of civic investment, then came the land sold to developers, And all of was risky to some degree.

[fellowtraveller]

We're talking about an asset that will be owned by the city, maintained by the city and the revenues from which will go to a private entity.

calm down. None of those things are known yet.

[Black Dog]

City, Katz reach agreement in principle on new arena

The deal, approved by an 8-5 council vote following an hours-long meeting behind closed doors, closely follows a 17-part motion passed in April that laid out what the city wants to see happen.

The maximum construction cost will be $450 million. That will be covered by $100 million cash from Oilers owner Daryl Katz, $125 million from a ticket fee and $125 million from tax on surrounding development and other city funds.

More public money? You bet!

“This facility, this team, is not an Edmonton private property. People come here from all over the region,” Mandel said.

“I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request to talk to the province — ‘the city has put in, the Katz Group has put in, we need your help.’ ”

The city will own the 18,500-seat building, buying the land along 104th Avenue from Katz for the price he paid, but Katz will operate it, receiving all the revenues and covering all the costs.

Are you fucking kidding me? So they'll have an asset from which they can't realize any operating revenues and can't collect any actual tax revenue from. Some asset.

Oh and it looks like the ticket tax is history as well.

Katz wrote a letter to the city earlier this year indicating his concern about the proposed ticket tax, but Karvellas said “we have conceded that to the city.”

However, the company rather than the city will collect what is now being called a “facility improvement fee” over the 35-year life of the agreement in exchange for providing money for construction and building maintenance.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Black Dog

[ninjandrew]

So after everything we've been talking about, the only positive being realized for the city is that its filling ugly vacant space with something new and cool? That "facility improvement fee" is BS too.

[fellowtraveller]

That will be covered by $100 million cash from Oilers owner Daryl Katz, $125 million from a ticket fee and $125 million from tax on surrounding development and other city funds.

And the actual dollar amount that is paid by taxpayers in this scheme? So far, zero. The ticket fee already exists and has been in place for about 15 years. The additional $125m is in the form of a CRL, taxes above and beyond what property owners pay now within the arena district go towards a mortgage on the new building. The old money still goes to the city, not Katz. The new money doesn;t go to Katz either, but to the mortgage.

Ther is also a ticket tax at Commonwealth, which just went up yesterday to fund improvements. Let us all howl at the injustice of football fans and concert goers having to pay, just as they will at the new arena.

That "facility improvement fee" is BS too.

Yet not a peep of complaint from you for the last 15 or so years when it was called a ticket surcharge. Why is that?

[Black Dog]

And the actual dollar amount that is paid by taxpayers in this scheme? So far, zero.

$125M in municipal debt. The cost of purchasing the land back from Katz. the aforementioned infrastructure improvements.

Plus the $100M the province is going to be asked to put up...

The additional $125m is in the form of a CRL, taxes above and beyond what property owners pay now within the arena district go towards a mortgage on the new building. The old money still goes to the city, not Katz. The new money doesn;t go to Katz either, but to the mortgage.

The CRL is not on top of existing property taxes. It means existing property taxes will be redirected to pay off the arena debt. In other words that's money not going to the city to fund other purposes.

Ther is also a ticket tax at Commonwealth, which just went up yesterday to fund improvements. Let us all howl at the injustice of football fans and concert goers having to pay, just as they will at the new arena.I

Yet not a peep of complaint from you for the last 15 or so years when it was called a ticket surcharge. Why is that?

Because I've never had an issue with the ticket tax? Do pay attention.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Black Dog

[ninjandrew]

Two arguments Ive heard for the Edmonton arena are that the wave of people in the area pre and post game (event) will offer a lot of business, and that the Rexall neighborhood is crap because its low density population, whereas the downtown area is higher density (though I dont know what difference that one makes, or even how accurate).

Edited May 19, 2011 by ninjandrew

[PIK]

No to hockey arena's but no problem with money for football stadiums.