Big, bold thinking — like the arena proposal — is a Calgary tradition

Sure the cost is huge, but don’t dismiss out of hand a city- enhancing scheme

Judging by the initial reaction, you’d be forgiven for thinking Ken King had just shot and skinned some famous, old lion in the African bush.

Instead, the Calgary Flames’ point man in the hockey club’s push to build a bigger, better arena in our city was just sitting down after finally unveiling plans for a grandiose events centre west of downtown.

Already the vitriol was flowing faster than the river waters that submerged the Saddledome a few years ago.

One thing you don’t expect from social media is reasoned and reflective argument. One thing you get is gut reaction, and this was as toxic as salmonella.

In summation, the overwhelming verdict was “why should taxpayers’ money help build a playpen for billionaire owners and millionaire players?”

Of course, there’s a lot more involved than just another rink — a community sporting facility and an indoor field for the Stampeders being among them.

The proposed tab for this complex is $ 890 million and that’s without all the transit and environmental cleanup costs: the land once housed a creosote plant and is a toxic nightmare for development.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi has voiced concerns about ratepayers’ cash being used and, after the announcement, a carefully worded statement reiterated those worries.

“I have said for a long time — and continue to strongly believe — that public money must be for public benefit and not private profit.

“The question for council, the ownership group, and all Calgarians is whether this proposal meets that test.”

Short on vitriol, but not exactly a welcoming mat.

In less aggressive terms — after all, Calgary’s the site of an upcoming provincial byelection — Premier Rachel Notley simply said her government would keep an open mind about any money flowing from Edmonton.

None of this would have surprised King and the Flames’ owners he represents.

This day was never going to be anything other than a “take one for the team,” in the most literal sense.

Time will tell if this project gets off the ground.

Despite all the initial meanspiritedness from the access- to-a-smartphone crowd, Calgarians are open- minded and fair and, with the current mayor, are represented by someone who’s no pushover to corporate pressure.

I love the proposal. Not because I necessarily agree with the details — or lack of them — having similar social concerns as Nenshi.

No, I love it because it is bold and it is big and it gets our city thinking.

On the same day the Flames’ plan was unveiled, the Economist magazine listed the world’s best cities in which to live.

Calgary — yes, that’s us, up here on the high, northern plain — came in tied for fifth. New York, London, Paris, Tokyo and the citizens of the other also- rans can eat their collective civic hearts out.

Did we get this recognition by immediately saying no to everything? Did we tell the CPR to take that blasted railway and stick it somewhere else as it was so damned noisy? Or that we shouldn’t bid on the Olympics because all those foreign types would come to town, or that we shouldn’t build a wonderful new bridge over the Bow as you can’t trust some Spanish fellow to design it?

We didn’t. The vitriol in each case flowed then as now, albeit slower.

But, simply put, in the end, Calgary did stuff. We rose to those challenges, like the town we live in — built upon a fluctuating barrel of oil and a belief in the future.

Are the Flames right with this proposal? Is this good for the city? Who’s picking up what tab? Let’s debate it and put Ken King’s rather large feet to a very hot fire. But let’s not be narrowminded and dismissive by immediately responding “not in my backyard.”