Arena survey leaves many pressing questions unanswered
Poll finds support for a new hockey venue, but even general outline of finances missing
Following the release last week of a major new survey commissioned by a group of eight city councillors, Calgary’s arena debate appears to be … right where it was before.
Frankly, it’s unclear what the much-ballyhooed survey was supposed to accomplish in the first place. If the intent was to help shape or advance the debate, then it failed miserably. If the intent was to give some political cover to city councillors already leaning in a certain direction, it likely failed on that count, too.
Regardless of how one feels about the question of a new arena, or where it should be located, and how it ought to be funded, we need city councillors to step up and make a decision. The sooner the better, too. With a municipal election coming this fall, voters deserve to know where the candidates stand.
The group of eight, as it were, pooled together money from their respective communications budgets to hire Mainstreet Research to conduct this poll. Ward 12’s Shane Keating, who headed up the effort, says the poll shows “there’s an appetite to get a deal done,” but also that it needs to be “reasonable for the taxpayer.”
With all due respect to all involved here, did we really need a poll to show that there’s broad support for a hypothetical deal that’s heavy on upside and comes with minimal risk? If it were that simple, I doubt that these politicians would feel the need to commission such a poll in the first place.
The reality of the situation, of course, is much more complex and challenging, and involves issues that the poll doesn’t really delve into.
For starters, the poll informs us that precisely half of Calgarians believe the city needs a new arena. That’s significant, but not exactly an overwhelming or convincing number. Of course, this doesn’t really tell us anything about what respondents are looking for in a new arena, or what location would make the most sense.
What the poll describes as a “conclusive finding” is the fact that a “large majority” (60 per cent) favour the city supporting construction of a new arena by “providing land or using savings,” so long as such an arrangement would “not impact their taxes.”
If the caveat is “will not impact your taxes,” there’s probably no end of projects that could garner high levels of support. Frankly, if we’re talking about something that would require significant city investment, it would be irresponsible to offer such guarantees.
The poll examined support for such ideas as a loan with interest and a direct grant in exchange for a revenue-sharing agreement. Such financing options were not part of the original CalgaryNEXT proposed framework, however, and we have no idea if current negotiations involve such ideas.
There’s been much talk, for example, about utilizing a community revitalization levy as a means of generating financing for a new facility. The Edmonton model is based around this, and the Flames have repeatedly touted the benefits of the arrangement in that city.
How do people feel about a revitalization levy? How do people feel about the risks of possibly having competing levies? Moreover, how much money do people feel is reasonable for the city to contribute to a project like this? What is the upper limit?
Who should own and operate this building? What should be done with the Saddledome? Should the city demand a location agreement to guarantee the Flames stay in town?
These all seem like much more pertinent questions, yet this councillors’ poll largely avoided them. If the aim is to consult with Calgarians and proceed based on their advice, then there would appear to be some glaring oversights here.
However, if these city councillors have already staked out positions on such matters and are prepared to take a stand and vote on principle, then good for them. But it would make this survey seem like a wasted exercise.