Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why? Why should a corporate subsidy be prioritised over mobility infrastructure?

It's not a corporate subsidy.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It's not even a transit project. Druh and her gang want it to be a transformative project to try and change Calgary into Europe. If more people knew that this is nothing but a streetcar system designed to clog roads there would be riots. $290 million toward a badly needed arena is peanuts compared to this project which will end up costing ~$7.8 billion if done correctly.

I know I've criticised the on street section heavily, but it's only one section. It's not going to have a significant impact on the city's roads, it won't clog traffic. And it certainly won't turn Calgary into Europe, sadly, if that is intended to be a criticism.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It's not a corporate subsidy.

Yes it is. Of course it is, it's so blindingly obvious that it is that it's irritating that we might have to explain this again.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes it is. Of course it is, it's so blindingly obvious that it is that it's irritating that we might have to explain this again.

It's been explained to you numerous times that it's not. The arena is for a lot more than the Flames. The Flames ownership is also investing a similar amount in the arena plus they plan on investing in building up the area. The city will see outside investment via a new arena. The Green Line will be year after year of $40 million or more of additional operating costs.

Also, what happened to the importance of building an entertainment district? Not that long ago it was a major priority for the city. Council is panic mode because most of them and administration only know how to spend massive amounts of money and are clueless when it comes to having to make rational business decisions.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I know I've criticised the on street section heavily, but it's only one section. It's not going to have a significant impact on the city's roads, it won't clog traffic. And it certainly won't turn Calgary into Europe, sadly, if that is intended to be a criticism.

The NC part will fuck up traffic big time. And trying to turn Calgary into Europe was definitely meant as a criticism. Calgary is a modern city that has nothing in common with centuries old cities that were built way before automobiles were invented.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well they won't be spending that money until they have figured it out. We'll see if they do, but assuming they do, the money will be better spent on light rail infrastructure than corporate subsidy.

Jeff Davison was on QR today saying that the city has already spent over half a billion on the Green Line. That's a lot of money for a project that we're still trying to figure out. In fact, it's $210 million more than the city plans on spending for their share of a new arena.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It's been explained to you numerous times that it's not. The arena is for a lot more than the Flames. The Flames ownership is also investing a similar amount in the arena plus they plan on investing in building up the area. The city will see outside investment via a new arena. The Green Line will be year after year of $40 million or more of additional operating costs.

Also, what happened to the importance of building an entertainment district? Not that long ago it was a major priority for the city. Council is panic mode because most of them and administration only know how to spend massive amounts of money and are clueless when it comes to having to make rational business decisions.

No, it was explained to you because you don't understand how property taxes work. Calgary will not make money off the arena, we are paying to build something for a private business. Now, you and many others may still value the arena as worth the cost, but it is a subsidy nonetheless.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Jeff Davison was on QR today saying that the city has already spent over half a billion on the Green Line. That's a lot of money for a project that we're still trying to figure out. In fact, it's $210 million more than the city plans on spending for their share of a new arena.

Where's his source for that? It may be true, but every time I've heard the guy speak, he spouts idiocy, so I'm not going to believe the figure without confirmation.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No, it was explained to you because you don't understand how property taxes work. Calgary will not make money off the arena, we are paying to build something for a private business. Now, you and many others may still value the arena as worth the cost, but it is a subsidy nonetheless.

How can you explain something when you don't understand it?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

How can you explain something when you don't understand it?

Do you deny that building the arena will cost the city more money than it will raise?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Where's his source for that? It may be true, but every time I've heard the guy speak, he spouts idiocy, so I'm not going to believe the figure without confirmation.

Sounds about right; the most recent financial update from the September Transportation and Transit meeting had spending at $469.3 million:

[milomilo]

Wow. Spending at this rate are we going to have anything left to actually build it?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Do you deny that building the arena will cost the city more money than it will raise?

The arena is being built in part to drive investment in the Rivers District. That development over time should easily result in more than $290 million in tax revenue being raised for the city.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Sounds about right; the most recent financial update from the September Transportation and Transit meeting had spending at $469.3 million:

At the end where it says "year to date" is that supposed to be from when they started (2014?) until 7/31/2019? Because if it's just for this calendar year then they've definitely have spent a lot more than half a billion already.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Wow. Spending at this rate are we going to have anything left to actually build it?

Wow, is right. We usually end up with something pretty decent and tangible for that kind of money. Just exactly what have they done so far that they've spent over $500 million?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The arena is being built in part to drive investment in the Rivers District. That development over time should easily result in more than $290 million in tax revenue being raised for the city.

So you disagree with all the research saying that subsidies to sports teams don't pay back the money?

All the rivers district will do is concentrate tax revenue in one place. There will be some increase in tax revenue city wide, but not enough to offset the cost to the citizens that they will pay in extra taxes. Why do you support socialism? Why do you think the city best knows how to stimulate investment, rather than the population and its businesses?

If you want the arena and are ok with the cost, that's fine (I might be too). But it is a subsidy. We are buying an arena because we want an arena, not as an investment.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Wow, is right. We usually end up with something pretty decent and tangible for that kind of money. Just exactly what have they done so far that they've spent over $500 million?

Some of it will be remediating and preparing the ROW in the south. Transit is going to be built on that ROW regardless some day, so it is worthwhile spending.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Some of it will be remediating and preparing the ROW in the south. Transit is going to be built on that ROW regardless some day, so it is worthwhile spending.

A big chunk also went to land acquisition for the SE leg. CP demanded a pretty penny for the land along their right-of-way. This land acquisition cost was mentioned by City staff as one of the main reasons the nose creek alignment should be abandoned. The railroads in Canada can set their price for the land and the city has no power of expropriation to counter it. The city also had to agree to close the rail crossing from Inglewood into Ramsay as part of their deal with CP.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

A big chunk also went to land acquisition for the SE leg. CP demanded a pretty penny for the land along their right-of-way. This land acquisition cost was mentioned by City staff as one of the main reasons the nose creek alignment should be abandoned. The railroads in Canada can set their price for the land and the city has no power of expropriation to counter it. The city also had to agree to close the rail crossing from Inglewood into Ramsay as part of their deal with CP.

Colour me surprised!

I thought CP had already assumed their power of 'don't give a fuck' IRT to the 8th St crossing?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So you disagree with all the research saying that subsidies to sports teams don't pay back the money?

The problem with the economic studies on sports venues is the assumption that entertainment dollars would be spent elsewhere in the same geographic region. If there was no new arena, the money would still be spent in Calgary.

This is partially because there are no studies on what happens to dollars spent on local entertainment when that entertainment is taken away. Does the person switch their season tickets from hockey to opera, or do they take the family to Mexico for an all-inclusive hotel.

Another part is that some of the economic studies have their primary purpose advocating for other uses of public funds. This encompasses everything from redirecting funds to other capital projects, social services, to tax relief.

A third part of the sports economic debate is that some economists, especially those in USA and Europe (I explicitly exclude Trevor Tombe) make a living off media events and selling white papers extolling the virtues of lack of economics to support public dollars towards sports venues or events. Their shtick is to give easy media interviews making their case. The media loves these types because they have a track record of giving responses in easy to understand sound bites.