Edmonton sees similarities in testy debate over new arena

For Edmonton elected officials watching Calgary’s unfolding arena drama, it’s déjà vu.

As the Flames and city council trade public punches over efforts to replace the aging Saddledome, it’s a scenario all too familiar to Edmonton Coun. Tony Caterina, particularly the implied threats to move the team if a deal for a new arena falls through.

“We had that threat, I think, at least three times,” Caterina recalls. “They used it as leverage to get public sentiment on their side.”

He’s referring to a September 2013 trip to Seattle by Oilers owner Daryl Katz after Edmonton arena talks reached an impasse — a public threat that garnered much outcry and resulted in the purchase of full-page newspaper advertisements to apologize to fans.

The 10-year-plus battle that led to the 2013 arena agreement — a deal Caterina vocally opposed at the time — was fraught with intrigue and emotion.

“Even though I didn’t like the financial agreement, it’s complete night and day now,” he said. “I wish we could have negotiated a better deal, but it looks like it’s going to be beneficial to both the hockey club and the City of Edmonton.”

Caterina isn’t the only one drawing parallels.

Dr. Moshe Lander, professor of sport economics at Montreal’s Concordia University, who also occasionally teaches in Edmonton and Calgary, sees similarities between the two deals — on the surface.

“The structure of the deals are very similar, the war of words looks similar,” he said. “I don’t know if the outcome will be similar.”

The difference, he says, is rooted not only in the varied economics of the two cities, but also the circumstances.

“The data doesn’t seem to show a new arena, by itself, will rejuvenate downtown or whatever particular region you place it,” he said.

“If there’s rejuvenation already underway, if there’s development already underway, then for sure the arena can help, but it just doesn’t do it by itself.”

Rogers Place was the linchpin of a massive rejuvenation project of neglected railway lands in downtown Edmonton, city Coun. Bryan Anderson said.

“I was in favour from the outset, and I’m even more in favour today,” he said. “It was a 50-50 investment in capital, and what we got was 35 years of legal guarantee for a franchise in the city, guaranteed by the NHL.”

Not only did the city get ownership of the arena, Anderson said the city is free from ownership, maintenance and capital replacement costs over the same time period — not to mention revenue from a community revitalization levy (CRL).

Essentially a property tax on the growth of downtown real estate values, the CRL revenue pays for roughly $316 million worth of downtown infrastructure, and is expected to bring the city more than $980 million over the next two decades.

“During negotiations, Katz promised to spend $100 million of additional construction around the arena,” Anderson said.

“I asked how much that develop permit value was at in June, and I was told it was $3.7 billion.”

Calgary shouldn’t expect to reap the same rewards Edmonton saw from Rogers Place, Lander says.

A new Saddledome is not going to accelerate what’s already happening (in the East Village)

“A new Saddledome is not going to accelerate what’s already happening (in the East Village),” Lander said. “Not when the Saddledome, the BMO Centre and the Stampede grounds are already there — this isn’t going to accelerate or rejuvenate or add anything to what’s already going on.”

While a shiny new arena is a nice boon for any city, Lander said it isn’t going to make the Flames a better hockey team — any more than Rogers Place did for the Oilers.

“Ten years of crappy performance is what’s going to make Edmonton successful as a hockey team — if you get enough No. 1 draft picks, eventually something’s gotta click,” he said.

He doesn’t disagree the Saddledome is showing its age, especially in light of a billion-dollar, decades-long modernization at Madison Square Garden, home ice for the New York Rangers and the NHL’s oldest arena.

“The idea of a new arena is not a bad one,” Lander said. “Should it be with taxpayer money? No.”