Friday, April 27, 2007
"...willing to be persuaded..."
I'm a bit reluctant to chime in on the New Arena issue; I don't want to get in Andy's way here. As all the commenters have noted, he's on fire; also, I acknowledge that my opinion is too alien to political realities to really persuade anyone.
But, what the hell. Again:
I know it seems like you can only get so far with this. Most opponents (or skeptics) of the new arena are not opposed to taxation & redistribution as a whole, but rather taxing regular people in Edmonton and redistributing it to the EIG et al. Correspondingly, most opponents of the arena are more than willing to seize on any argument which helps their case -- that Edmonton taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing a bunch of millionaire owners and hockey players.
To those of you, I say: be warned. Once you begin arguing in earnest about the details (are the economic benefits real, or imagined? Which site is better? etc.), you've already half lost. This is illustrated nicely -- and starkly -- by the Paula Simons piece Andy linked to yesterday. I'm talking about this part:
This is not to criticize Simons herself. She raises plenty of objections, which is a lot more than most of her colleagues have managed. And since her piece is not about objecting to a publicly-funded arena in principle, I can't exactly criticize her for not doing it effectively. But take another look at the last two sentences of that first paragraph. Here are a few sentences that I think follow a lot more naturally than, "But is the city core the right place for such a facility?":
INSTANT UPDATE: Looks like I should have trusted my instinct and just shut up about this. As Andy has just noted, a Journal editorial today asks the important question, and some others too. Kudos.
But, what the hell. Again:
I would just like to, once again, raise the "moral" objection to public funding of a hockey rink in Alberta: a substantial segment of the population is willing to voluntarily part with their money to fund NHL hockey, so it is simply disgusting to force the remaining population to pay for it as well.
I know it seems like you can only get so far with this. Most opponents (or skeptics) of the new arena are not opposed to taxation & redistribution as a whole, but rather taxing regular people in Edmonton and redistributing it to the EIG et al. Correspondingly, most opponents of the arena are more than willing to seize on any argument which helps their case -- that Edmonton taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing a bunch of millionaire owners and hockey players.
To those of you, I say: be warned. Once you begin arguing in earnest about the details (are the economic benefits real, or imagined? Which site is better? etc.), you've already half lost. This is illustrated nicely -- and starkly -- by the Paula Simons piece Andy linked to yesterday. I'm talking about this part:
For the moment, let's accept, for the sake of argument, that we actually need a new arena. Our current sturdy, plain-Jane Rexall Place certainly seems to get the job done. But I'm willing to be persuaded that in this age of American-style, eye-popping entertainment complexes, our simple but functional coliseum no longer measures up to its continental competition. The big emphasis these days seems to be on selling fancy-schmancy luxury boxes to corporate clients, who can write off such business entertainment expenses as tax deductions. And our old rink doesn't have enough room for hobnobbing bigwigs.
But is the city core the right place for such a facility?
This is not to criticize Simons herself. She raises plenty of objections, which is a lot more than most of her colleagues have managed. And since her piece is not about objecting to a publicly-funded arena in principle, I can't exactly criticize her for not doing it effectively. But take another look at the last two sentences of that first paragraph. Here are a few sentences that I think follow a lot more naturally than, "But is the city core the right place for such a facility?":
- "Remind me again: when did it become the role of city taxpayers to create more room for hobnobbing bigwigs?"
- "Hey, look! When we build this thing, taxpayers in Edmonton will be subsidizing corporate entertaining in two distinct ways!"
- "As a concerned advocate for the taxpayers of Edmonton, I must insist that the luxury boxes merely be fancy, as fully fancy-schmancy boxes would be an unfair cost for the taxpayers to bear."
- "And since that's the main reason why it's needed, it is blindingly obvious that we should not be using a single cent of tax money to build it."
INSTANT UPDATE: Looks like I should have trusted my instinct and just shut up about this. As Andy has just noted, a Journal editorial today asks the important question, and some others too. Kudos.
Labels: New Arena
# posted by Matt @ 2:50 pm 
Comments:
I would just like to, once again, raise the "moral" objection to public funding of a hockey rink in Alberta: a substantial segment of the population is willing to voluntarily part with their money to fund NHL hockey, so it is simply disgusting to force the remaining population to pay for it as well.
I don't know that this objection is particularly well founded in modern day Canadian life.
Plus, you're only against this because you're a jealous Flames fan. Mono-rail...Mono-rail...MONO-RAIL!
I loved the monorail reference when LT made it earlier in the week, very a propos.
There's actually another Simpsons reference that came to mind. You know when Bart and friends went to the WO--D F-IR in Knoxville? They rent the car and are trying to decide where to go, and Milhous says something like: "Who has better vacation ideas than Triple-A? According to the publishers of this Triple-A guidebook, 'no one'" That's what the early iterations of this "plan" reminded me of.
Is public funding for a new arena required? According to all the people who would benefit most directly from it, 'Yes!'.
My hometown (pop. 11,000) is building a 6,500 seat facility that includes a pool, indoor riding ring, and hockey rink (with luxury boxes, which I don't understand). Seeing the public debate on that was simply unbelievable - there was a letter to the local paper talking about how, if the planned $100,000 (or whatever) in monthly revenue fell through, not only would they not have that money, but taxpayers would be required to come up with 100K.
Anyway, the thing is on the outskirts of town and my brother and I gave serious thought about writing a letter to the paper arguing in support of a monorail that would take people to it. I decided it would either a) be a reference with which most of the community was unfamiliar and dismissed as foolish or b) seized on. Neither possible outcome seemed palatable.
What we really need is for the LRT to circle the downtown fifteen feet off the ground.
Although truthfully, I think the moral objection to spending tax payers money on an arena is nonsense. If you want to start with programs that disproportionately benifet one segment of the population - health care should be at the top of your list given that its paid for by the young for the benifet of the old rather than any assessment of insurable risk affecting your contributions.
Funding for post-secondary education disproportionately benifets the upper middle class whose children are more likely to make use of it, but that doesn't mean that all taxpayers aren't on the hook for it. Thus every blue collar 9 -5er is pitching in so his doctor's kids education bill is lower.
Beyond that what about funding for the 'arts'. They're ever begging for more government money to continue to lead their sheltered lives and produce derranged dislays or dreary novels that fail commercially principly because they don't want to get a real job to fund what should be their hobby. Those that are actually good at what they do experience commercial sucess so a subsidy wouldn't be necessary to begin with, hence, taxpayer money is being transfered to people who don't need it anyhow, or to people who make things we don't want. That's really a lovely arrangement eh?
In my mind an arena is no worse than the above mentioned programs in creating a disproportionate benefit, that benefit accrues to hockey fans which if nothing else is at least a wider sub-strata of the population than some other government schemes.
Matt said...
Ah, Chris, now we're getting somewhere!
Yeah it's like social evolution moving in reverse, but it is "somewhere."
It wasn't really an argument rivers it was more like colour commentary - perhaps I should have suggested that the arts are a MONNNNSTTTERR when it comes to conferring a disproportionate benifet.
Funding for post-secondary education disproportionately benifets the upper middle class whose children are more likely to make use of it, but that doesn't mean that all taxpayers aren't on the hook for it. Thus every blue collar 9 -5er is pitching in so his doctor's kids education bill is lower.
While most of those who attend are still coming from a certain socio-economic background, I'm going to disagree with this comment. It is only taking into consideration the question of access, not the other benefits of a pse that are dispersed throughout society.
If you believe in the importance of access to higher education what you'd have to achieve that would be means tested government bursaries, scholarships and loans to facilitate that. General funding such as what occurs for a large portion of those that attend university is statistically a subsidy to the upper middle class.
You can argue the economic benifets of higher education, but its more difficult to argue why people who could afford to pay wholly for their education should be sudsidized as with or without said subsidy they would be there anyhow.
You can argue the economic benifets of higher education, but its more difficult to argue why people who could afford to pay wholly for their education should be sudsidized as with or without said subsidy they would be there anyhow.
Now that I agree with.
When did this turn into Paul Wells' site, anyway? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home
I would just like to, once again, raise the "moral" objection to public funding of a hockey rink in Alberta: a substantial segment of the population is willing to voluntarily part with their money to fund NHL hockey, so it is simply disgusting to force the remaining population to pay for it as well.
I don't know that this objection is particularly well founded in modern day Canadian life.
Plus, you're only against this because you're a jealous Flames fan. Mono-rail...Mono-rail...MONO-RAIL!
# posted by 
: April 27, 2007 2:54 pm
: April 27, 2007 2:54 pm I loved the monorail reference when LT made it earlier in the week, very a propos.
There's actually another Simpsons reference that came to mind. You know when Bart and friends went to the WO--D F-IR in Knoxville? They rent the car and are trying to decide where to go, and Milhous says something like: "Who has better vacation ideas than Triple-A? According to the publishers of this Triple-A guidebook, 'no one'" That's what the early iterations of this "plan" reminded me of.
Is public funding for a new arena required? According to all the people who would benefit most directly from it, 'Yes!'.
My hometown (pop. 11,000) is building a 6,500 seat facility that includes a pool, indoor riding ring, and hockey rink (with luxury boxes, which I don't understand). Seeing the public debate on that was simply unbelievable - there was a letter to the local paper talking about how, if the planned $100,000 (or whatever) in monthly revenue fell through, not only would they not have that money, but taxpayers would be required to come up with 100K.
Anyway, the thing is on the outskirts of town and my brother and I gave serious thought about writing a letter to the paper arguing in support of a monorail that would take people to it. I decided it would either a) be a reference with which most of the community was unfamiliar and dismissed as foolish or b) seized on. Neither possible outcome seemed palatable.
# posted by : April 27, 2007 3:13 pm
: April 27, 2007 3:13 pm What we really need is for the LRT to circle the downtown fifteen feet off the ground.
Although truthfully, I think the moral objection to spending tax payers money on an arena is nonsense. If you want to start with programs that disproportionately benifet one segment of the population - health care should be at the top of your list given that its paid for by the young for the benifet of the old rather than any assessment of insurable risk affecting your contributions.
Funding for post-secondary education disproportionately benifets the upper middle class whose children are more likely to make use of it, but that doesn't mean that all taxpayers aren't on the hook for it. Thus every blue collar 9 -5er is pitching in so his doctor's kids education bill is lower.
Beyond that what about funding for the 'arts'. They're ever begging for more government money to continue to lead their sheltered lives and produce derranged dislays or dreary novels that fail commercially principly because they don't want to get a real job to fund what should be their hobby. Those that are actually good at what they do experience commercial sucess so a subsidy wouldn't be necessary to begin with, hence, taxpayer money is being transfered to people who don't need it anyhow, or to people who make things we don't want. That's really a lovely arrangement eh?
In my mind an arena is no worse than the above mentioned programs in creating a disproportionate benefit, that benefit accrues to hockey fans which if nothing else is at least a wider sub-strata of the population than some other government schemes.
Matt said...
Ah, Chris, now we're getting somewhere!
Yeah it's like social evolution moving in reverse, but it is "somewhere."
It wasn't really an argument rivers it was more like colour commentary - perhaps I should have suggested that the arts are a MONNNNSTTTERR when it comes to conferring a disproportionate benifet.
Funding for post-secondary education disproportionately benifets the upper middle class whose children are more likely to make use of it, but that doesn't mean that all taxpayers aren't on the hook for it. Thus every blue collar 9 -5er is pitching in so his doctor's kids education bill is lower.
While most of those who attend are still coming from a certain socio-economic background, I'm going to disagree with this comment. It is only taking into consideration the question of access, not the other benefits of a pse that are dispersed throughout society.
If you believe in the importance of access to higher education what you'd have to achieve that would be means tested government bursaries, scholarships and loans to facilitate that. General funding such as what occurs for a large portion of those that attend university is statistically a subsidy to the upper middle class.
You can argue the economic benifets of higher education, but its more difficult to argue why people who could afford to pay wholly for their education should be sudsidized as with or without said subsidy they would be there anyhow.
You can argue the economic benifets of higher education, but its more difficult to argue why people who could afford to pay wholly for their education should be sudsidized as with or without said subsidy they would be there anyhow.
Now that I agree with.
When did this turn into Paul Wells' site, anyway? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home
