That truly is an absurd statement.
 

We all know that Varsity Acres in Calgary is already the Greenwich Village of Western Canada.

It has a delightful mixture of students (most of them elementary, of course), pizza parlors, a Fanny's Fabrics, Mac's and 7-11, and two, count em, two Chinese take-aways. What could an arena bring that isn't already in Varsity?
 

The Fanny's Fabrics is still open? I'm impressed. If there is a Red Rooster in the area, I'm moving. I want my Fanta pop yo-yo and perforated hockey card sheets.
 

You know -- now that I think about it, Fanny's might actually be gone. But that doesn't mean it isn't still a hip, hip 'hood.

No Red Rooster, alas.
 

Alas the Fanny's is gone and has been replaced by Wicker Land... all the wicker furniture you can handle!
 

How does a man make this statement and the reporter not reply back with a "WTF are you talking about?" question.

Yes, tied into Alberta's social fabric is a strong undercurrent of arts reform, the likes which are not seen except for maybe Greenwich Village?
 

i never realized that greenwich village involved hockey arenas and casinos.
 

Funny that he brings up L.A. which owes more to tax incentives and "adaptive reuse" policies that make it easier to convert old buildings for residential use, which lead to a housing boon. Things like the Staples Center is merely the cherry on top.

Press any of these "experts" on how exactly an arena addresses anything to do with urban renewal and you get vague misdirection or blather about how an arena "could be a part of something like a condo or a casino..." (A casino, as everyone knows, already exists less than 2 blocks from a proposed arena site)

Press further on the urban renewal and the best you get is that "it couldn't hurt" which, quite possible, it does (in terms of demands for infrastructure, especially in downtown Edmonton).

LAME.
 

(A casino, as everyone knows, already exists less than 2 blocks from a proposed arena site)

This is going to sound stupid since I'm procrastinating on writing an essay and thus can't look this up, but haven't there been economic studies and surveys down which found that casinos in fact increase demand just by being there, meaning that instead of one casino at 90% capacity you end up with two at 80% capacity or something similar?

That said, this sounds like an opportunity for a literal, Futurama-esque "Greenwich Village, but with blackjack and hookers... in fact, forget Greenwich Village" from the city council. I'm all in favour of anything that makes the administration of the capital of Alberta look like fictional womanising alcoholic robots.
 

"A casino, as everyone knows, already exists less than 2 blocks from a proposed arena site"

You'll never make it in Vegas Mike!...'what could we put on this empty peice of land between the MGM and the Bellagio?....maybe an art gallery - cause there's a casino on either side.';o)

just an aside - my word verifcation on this post..."zporn"....in my best italian accent - "I lika zporn"
 

Wicker Land!

What's the difference between a wicker basket and a wicker box?

One is used for picnics.
The other is what Elmer Fudd would like to do to Alicia Bridges.
 

Sacamano: while Fanny's has been replaced by WickerLand, you'll no doubt be happy to know that Matador Pizza & Steak House lives on. I ate there just last month and it was delightful.
 

Alicia Bridges? WHY WHY WHY?
 

I must say that while I can sort of understand why Fanny's would have closed (who even owns a sewing machine anymore), I can't really understand why Wickerland would be there (who has ever found anything wicker that is comfortable or stylish?).

I'm very relieved to hear that Matador is still pumping out their pies.

The Bullfighter Special remains my all-time favourite pizza.
 

I must say that while I can sort of understand why Fanny's would have closed (who even owns a sewing machine anymore), I can't really understand why Wickerland would be there (who has ever found anything wicker that is comfortable or stylish?).

my wife owns a sewing machine and we sleep in a wicker bed. stop marginalizing my people! bastard!
 

I think I meant Angelica

Alicia // Angelica
Who can keep track?
I suppose they have another sister named Andrea.



I didn't cross that bridge when I came to it.
 

All of my clothing is made of wicker and its damn comfortable.
 

Aw I was hoping for actual Ginsberg.
 

How long is wicker season in Alberta--2 weeks?

I imagine "The Greenwich Village of Western Canada"TM containing 4 Boston Pizzas whose charms will be utterly lost on all the pretentiously "boho" anorexics like one gets with the "Greenwich Village of the Eastern US"TM.
Ooops, my Boston/NYC rivalry is showing.

@Lord Bob: You mention Futurama and essay writing in one comment and I'm forced to share that I once wrote a lengthy seminar paper on how robots in Futurama appear to be there to have our vices for us with no apparent upside (other than hilarity, of course).
 

It should be noted that Mr. Rosentraub is the keynote speaker at the "Looks like an arena, smells like an arena, but you are all wrong, it isn't actually an arena" conference tomorrow here in Edmonton. So I guess we know what kind of arguments we can expect. I hope an enterprising reporter asks him if feels that Greenwich Village is at the top of the Global Urban Food Chain, or just near the top. I'd also ask him about the success story that is the 60,000 seat speed-chess arena in Washington Square. I hear Jane Jacobs was the one who thought up and advocated that facility. It's really "anchored" the success of the Village.
 

I saw a Winks (remember those?) down here in Calgary just today, and stared longily while remembering my days growing up in St.Albert.

Unfortunately after pulling over to get some "spuds" and a slurpee I realized it was closed and up for lease.

The connection was obvious. This is part of the land where they'll put the new Saddledome and rejuvenate South MacLeod Trail...
 

As ridiculous as the Greenwich Village part of that statement is, can anyone explain to me what in the sweet blue fuck "move the urban fabric" means? It sounds like a bad pick-up line.
 

Urban Fabric is actually available at Fanny's Fabrics. You buy it, plant it in the ground, and wait for the money to bloom.
 

You buy it, plant it in the ground, and wait for the money to bloom.

I'm still waiting on mine. Which is why I sued Fanny and put her crooked house of lies out of business.
 

You didn't "anchor" it with an arena, James. That's your problem.
 

So I take it you're going to the conference Andy? (airline vomit bags in hand)
 

Andy and friends,

I don't know if you were listening to Gord Whitehead and friends on 630 CHED (THE VOICE OF THE OILERS) last Thursday and Friday.

They were warning motorists that there were 6,000 teachers (from outside the city) attending a convention downtown and that parking would be at a premium and difficult to find!

But stalls for 20,000 people at Greenwich Village North should be easy. If the fabric store closes early, that is.

Dan
 

BuDarn. And I thought downtown parking was a "red herring."
 

The parking is a red herring

Those teachers were heading downtown for 9:00 am Thursday & Friday

Oilers? Concerts? Circusses?
Never
 

Debakey: Alicia Bridges was priceless.

http://aliciabridges.com/
 

So I take it you're going to the conference Andy? (airline vomit bags in hand)

Nope. Other stuff to do. Plus, I'd have more chance of seeing a spontaneous outcome at a WWE event. They might as well call this arena "debate" kayfabe, because that's all it really is. The only shoot we may see is from Brad Humphreys, or maybe some councillors. Everyone else is working the angle.

Actually, that wrestling analogy works pretty well. Maybe I'll start calling all this the Edmonton Screw Job.

I know far too much about professional wrestling...
 

Everyone here is too clever to just say: I think katz should pay for his own damn arena. (except grabs of course)
 

Actually, that wrestling analogy works pretty well.

Except if this were actually professional wrestling, at some council meeting you'd run into the chambers and smash the mayor's skull with a folding steel chair.
 

I saw a Winks (remember those?) down here in Calgary just today, and stared longily while remembering my days growing up in St.Albert.

We still had one of those when I left Drumheller in 2000. I wonder if it's still there...

Except if this were actually professional wrestling, at some council meeting you'd run into the chambers and smash the mayor's skull with a folding steel chair.

Wait, you mean you wouldn't do that already? Geez, no wonder the cops were in a bad mood when I went down to City Hall yesterday.
 

Ah, it's so sad to see Dan Barnes also take the bait. But at least we know now that Rosentraub is also advising the city on this matter. Too bad Barnes didn't ask if he was getting paid for it.

Mr. Rosentraub trots out "urban fabric" again. Oh, and he wants all of Edmonton to know: "You're standing at the precipice."

There is of course not a single quote from someone opposing the idea in the article. That's the norm, sadly. Just more quotes from guys working for the city on the issue.
 

Hi, just wanted to leave a note that I've added you to our blogroll.
 

The Winks in Drumheller is still there. Drove past in during the xmas holidays...
 

This was the worst part of the article, other than the absolutely preposterous "standing on the precipe" threat.

"Indianapolis in 1974 was as popular with tourists as the largest ball of twine in the midwest. Thirty-four years later, there is an extraordinary downtown neighbourhood where the sports facilities are good neighbours."

For the record, the largest ball of twine is located in Cawker City, Kansas. Plenty of good neighbours there too, just not much in the way of economic spinoff.


a) Rosentraub doesn't connect the dots with his statements. The first sentence says that Indy used to be a tourist wasteland. So, you'd expect the second sentence to acknowledge how this has changed with the new facilities, right? Wrong. He doesn't make that connection, and that's because he can't. Instead he just talks about the arenas being "good neighbours," whatever the hell that means.

b) Barnes then throws in the line about the economic spinoff. Problem is, again, there is no economic spinoff. Any hard numbers given in this story? Nope. Furthermore, even Mason has admitted that there is NO ECONOMIC SPINOFF from the arena. Doesn't seem to bother Barnes, though. Or anyone at the Journal, apparently.
 

I know far too much about professional wrestling...

What's scarier to me is that I understood every word of that.

Just once, I'd like to see asked and answered the question so many people on the critical side of this debate have put forward: if you're talking about building neighbourhoods, why not build a neighbourhood and leave it at that?
 

Its gonna get done

We Edmonites will have a world class facility for a world glass city [Whitewich Village].

The only question is the financing.

The "community" has coalesced around the idea.

Bitching about it is akin to pissing in the wind.

Its similar to the national consensus on Canada's Afghanistan Adventure.
Speak out against it and the Journal will run an Aislin cartoon calling you a pussy.

If you're against the arena
you're against progress
You small town hick you.
 

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=46fbbfbd-4ea0-4da9-8f00-88a9b44c9815&k=95047

Taxpayers end up footing the majority of the bill, Indianapolis
 

Rosentraub again used the Greenwich Village line today, this time talking about Columbus. Columbus. Greenwich Village. Columbus. And this is the guy we're supposed to be listening to. Greenwich Village. In Columbus.
 

Taxpayers end up footing the majority of the bill, Indianapolis

Great. Since Glass asserts in that article that, "the smaller the market, the larger the public investment is," we're going to have to suffer through the myth that is Edmonton as small market NHL club.
 

For God's sake Grabia, focus on the argument and not some one-liners that may not have be well thought through. Both Mason and Rosenstraub have not advocated major public funding--in fact both admit that that funding would not be intelligent spending. The argument of both these men is that cities and governments should try to push whoever is ultimatelt responsible for these buildings to build them downtown, and they've backed up those points with hard facts.
 

And Andy, I find it very surprising you won't attend this conference given your obessesion with this issue. Instead you reject it outright before it even happens. Did you not even notice the section of Barnes' article regarding Rosenstraub that rejected public funding? Are you that obsessed with the meme that the media and political establishment is pushing through a publically funded arena? By the way, your hero Humphreys agrees with Mason on most of these issues. If you want to find that out for yourself, just give him a call. Of course, you don't even seem to understand what Mason's position is.
 

For God's sake Grabia, focus on the argument and not some one-liners that may not have be well thought through.

You mean their arguments? Saying that downtown Edmonton can be a Greenwich Village of the West because of an arena is an argument. He wouldn't say it if he wasn't trying to persuade someone of something.

The argument of both these men is that cities and governments should try to push whoever is ultimatelt responsible for these buildings to build them downtown, and they've backed up those points with hard facts.

Hard facts? Like what?

Are you that obsessed with the meme that the media and political establishment is pushing through a publically funded arena?

Yes, because it's true. You can't read a newspaper and come to any other conclusion.

By the way, your hero Humphreys agrees with Mason on most of these issues. If you want to find that out for yourself, just give him a call.

How do you know I haven't?

Of course, you don't even seem to understand what Mason's position is.

I know it perfectly well, despite the number of times Mason has claimed to be misquoted.
 

Again you side step the issue Grabia. Both Mason and Rosentraub acknowledge that their is no financial reason for the public to pay for most of the arena. Rosentraub's position on that is stated in Barnes article! Their point is a downtown arena is better than a building built anywhere else. The "hard facts" are the comparative analysis of cities with downtown arenas and those with suburban arenas.

If you look at the massive amounts of money the public now has to pay for an interchange near South Edmonton Common, it is clear that the public needs to have a say in these mega-projects, even if they are mostly private projects.

And again Grabia, why not attend the conference? A major conference on your favorite issue happens in your hometown and you refuse to attend (and of course you bash it without attending).

By the way, when you talked to Humphreys, did you ask him if Dan Mason is some simple-minded gym teacher?

And finally, your point that reading a newspaper would lead one to conclude that the political and media establishment is firmly behind a publicaly funded area is not substantiated. I mentioned Barnes above. Also, no leading politician has yet supported public funds for an arena, while some (including Mandel himself) have come out against the idea.
 

Indeed, Rosentraub has spoken out against public funding in the past, but it doesn't explain his half-assed platitudes ("vitality!") and message which amounts to "well, if you're going to build, why not downtown?"

From the article:

"It's about the building of a neighbourhood. You do the residential and commercial developments. You actually design and build a neighbourhood."

That's all fine and good. But why is an arena integral to building a neighbourhood? It isn't.

Even if they're going to build an arena, Northlands is still sitting right there.
 

"And finally, your point that reading a newspaper would lead one to conclude that the political and media establishment is firmly behind a publicaly funded area is not substantiated."

Actually, there has been more direct evidence in the newspaper to suggest public funding is off the table than there ever has been to suggest otherwise. THAT is a fact.

"Even if they're going to build an arena, Northlands is still sitting right there."

Except Northlands is the "spaceship".

You know, if you contain your paranoia when you read Rosentraub's comments, you start to see he makes sense. The truth is, if an arena is going to be built, and if it can be built without (direct at least) public funding, and if said arena can be the catalyst for participation by other developers (eventually generating incremental tax dollars BTW)...what's the frickin' problem?

I would say that I too was a bit surprised that Andy didn't attend the conference. Doing so would certainly have added some meat to his editorial stance. But then I realized that he isn't a deriving an income from BoA, so maybe we should cut him a bit of slack. BoA is an entertaining hockey blog where I enjoy the extremist point of view and resulting comedic results. It certainly is not a blog like the Cult of Hockey, whose professional/paid writer I WOULD expect to be attending that conference.

BTW - pretty good game tonight!
 

"resulting comedic results."

Jeezuz - watching the game and typing again.

Should read:

"resulting comedic storylines"
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

THAT is a fact.

Not so fast, cowboy.

Rosentraub, who is an advisor on the Feasibility Committee, was talking up property tax schemes to 630 CHED today, so while the city may not pay FOR the arena directly, money from public coffers still can end up paying for everything around it. Considering the mayor's arena boner, I'm trying to be realistic.

Except Northlands is the "spaceship".

Right, and arenas are also "good neighbours," whatever that means. Some proof would be nice, for once. In the meantime, I don't buy it. People come and go to arenas whether they're downtown or not. It's not a core urban renewal issue.
 

Awww Mike, you too?

"...so while the city may not pay FOR the arena directly, money from public coffers still can end up paying for everything around it."

From the link on your new post...

"The city floated a bond of $145-million on the condition $311-million of new property would spring up around the stadium. Did it ever. Surrounding the stadium is retail and condos worth $1.7 Billion ..."

"It's not a core urban renewal issue."

Sorry Mike, but (respectfully) it is. The full scope of the project has yet to be released. That's the problem here. The people in charge are holding their cards FAR too close to their chest. Unfortunately, its how business is done here in Edmonton.
 

When I say it's not an issue, I mean that arenas do squat for urban renewal, if that's the issue at all (it isn't, it's merely cover for the Oilers to get 40 more luxury boxes)

Anyway, if its all about the casinos and malls, why bother having the arena downtown at all?

You are right, though. There's a lot that we don't know. Nothing wrong with being skeptical about this rabble of city planners, however.
 

"Anyway, if its all about the casinos and malls, why bother having the arena downtown at all?"

Casinos and malls? Its about alot more than that. The thing is, Mandel needs an anchor tenant or catalyst "first-mover". There's plenty of hints at what types of plans are in the works (the east-end project is the most recent one I can think of). I suspect the Epcor tower can be looked at as phase 1. But the arena and all these other plans are symbiotic. One cannot reasonably exist without the other. I know that sounds odd, but I think its at the heart of the matter.

Believe me, if it were just about a new arena with a mall/casino, there'd never be enough traction from either the city or its citizens.

Anyways, I applaud both you and Andy in your well-founded skepticism. But lets try not to add 2 and 2 to get 5 in the process.

GOILERS!/Crosby!
 

And again Grabia, why not attend the conference

a) Because I had other commitments
b) Because I wasn't willing to spend $250 dollars
c) Because the outcome was determined the day the mayor selected the members of the feasibility committee
d) Because I do this site for free, in my spare time
e) Because it's none of your business

Again you side step the issue Grabia

Actually, I have a year and a half of arguments against the idea on this site. While I'll admit that I don't believe for a minute this will be funded without public dollars--in fact, I'm certain public dollars are already being spent--it's not my only reason for opposing the arena. In fact, I haven't talked about it being publicly funded in this post at all. The only time I came even close was in response to the link PJO left here, and I was talking about market size stuff.

By the way, when you talked to Humphreys, did you ask him if Dan Mason is some simple-minded gym teacher?

I've never called Mason a gym-teacher. I've just noted that he doesn't have a single degree in economics. I don't think that's necessarily an impediment to an informed opinion; I just think it's worth noting, especially in light of the fact that he's been the media's single source of expert opinion on this from the get-go. If he's the expert, I think his training should be public knowledge.

And finally, your point that reading a newspaper would lead one to conclude that the political and media establishment is firmly behind a publicaly funded area is not substantiated.

I never said anything about the media supporting a publicly funded downtown arena. I said they've been wholeheartedly supporting the idea of a downtown arena.

You know, if you contain your paranoia when you read Rosentraub's comments, you start to see he makes sense.

The guy has repeatedly stated that building a downtown arena will result in a Greenwich Village. There's no paranoia there, David.

thing is, Mandel needs an anchor tenant or catalyst "first-mover"

This is just hog-wash.

But the arena and all these other plans are symbiotic. One cannot reasonably exist without the other. I know that sounds odd, but I think its at the heart of the matter.

So you are saying urban renewal can't happen without an arena?

But lets try not to add 2 and 2 to get 5 in the process.

You've fallen for an argument consisting of catch-phrases. I feel pretty good about my addition.
 

"So you are saying urban renewal can't happen without an arena?"

In this particular case, yes. For the reasons I explained above.

The rest? What the hell. It makes for a good read at the very least. Andy, I'd buy you a beer any time regardless.

Oilers won and the Stortini line is becoming amazingly effective. THAT'S the story I'm most interested about.
 

Andy, I think you're coming across as a jerk to Dan Mason. He was nice enough to come on here, respond to all the claims and offered his view, left a number where you could further discuss the arena issue or his credentials, meanwhile you continue taking shots at him and his credentials. Not to mention grossly misrepresenting/exaggerating his views/researched opinions

Did you once call him up?

If you're going to hold yourself in high regard, bring up your own credentials.

By the way, Dan Mason had a Ph.D. and research specializations in the following:

Research Specializations:

* Business / Economics
o Strategic Management / Organization + sport and collective bargaining

* Government / Politics
o Urban governance+ sport and economic development

* Physical Education / Recreation
o sport management/sport studies
+ business of professional sports

* Social Sciences / Humanities
o Popular Culture
+ Hockey

* Social Sciences / Humanities
o urban studies
+ sports franchises and sporting events

Dr. Daniel Mason
Associate Professor
Business, School of > Academic Program
Business, School of > Strategic Management and Organization
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation > Academic Program
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation > Strategic Management and Organization

Like I said, call him up. Have a discussion with an open mind.

_______________

As for my personal opinion, the arena plan is far ahead of what the general public knows. It was Mandell who came up with the $100M figure for Katz, and Katz mentioned he wanted at the press conference that ''life is already too short'' in reference to when to begin the project.

Mandell has already put his word out there that no public funding will be used. Indirect? Possibly. I'd too prefer minimum public investment - a guarantee clause would be idea.

We'll see what happens.

I have to ask though - what were your feelings on the city offering Dell massive tax breaks? Dell recently closed it's call centre, 900 jobs lost...just..like...that.
 

Andy,

Just a few points from someone with a development background....

Commercial or Industrial development doesn't happen without an Anchor Tennant. Building roads and lots and underground infrastructure without having a committed Anchor is a good way to lose your shirt - the Anchor serves as an attraction for other business in the development.

and Commercial/Industrial taxes are much higher than residential taxes - a good mix of Commercial/Industrial development actually helps keep residential taxes down...a good example is Saint Albert, which is top heavy on the residential side and has extremely high property taxes when compared to neighboring cities.

The parking slant does concern me though - San Diego Edmonton aint.
 

Commercial or Industrial development doesn't happen without an Anchor Tennant.

Oilman, thanks for this. I guess this is part of my problem. I see what you say, and I go, "ok." But then I read MacKinnon today, and I see this:

"What is being floated, with a fair amount of due diligence to support it, is the arena-as-anchor-of-a-well-planned-downtown-neighbourhood."

Which leaves me scratching my head, because there's plenty of evidence that shows that this is exactly how you don't build a neighbourhood. Greenwich Village is, in fact, a prime example. Neighbourhoods need to be built organically, with people living in those communities driving things.

My great problem with this whole enterprise has been the process. A few power brokers decided that the Oilers needed a new arena. Once that was decided, they just kept creating rationalizations to justify building that arena. That continues to happen, and the rationale shifts once people realize that rationale's emptiness. Somehow, we've gotten to the point where the Oilers need a new hockey arena because Edmonton needs to revitalize it's downtown core. And that's completely illogical to me.
 

I couldn't care less if Dan Mason has degrees in Urban Renewal, Arena Buildology, and General Godliness. There are zero independent studies showing a net financial benefit to having taxpayers build sports arenas. No amount of talking to Mason will help produce that verifiable support. So why would Andy waste his time on the Journal's go-to puppet?

Jeebus, journalism isn't about the facts. It's about getting quotes to help fill the spaces between ads. Mason's in the Journal editorial department's Rolodex. His plethora of degrees gives him a patina of credibility. He gives good quote. He's no more or less a relevant voice than the plumber in Beverly whose property taxes are going to get hiked to pay for this boondoggle. But MacKinnon and Staples don't have that plumber's phone number and it would be too much, ahem, work to find it. So instead of teeing off on Andy for not picking up the batphone when Mason calls, how about holding Pravda's paid reporters accountable for failing to talk to anybody otherother than a mouthpiece for the official party line.
 

art said:
"There are zero independent studies showing a net financial benefit to having taxpayers build sports arenas. No amount of talking to Mason will help produce that verifiable support. So why would Andy waste his time on the Journal's go-to puppet?"

Uh, where exactly, did Mason say that taxpayers *should* build sports arenas? Long comment thread to be sure, but "the rage" has pointed out a few times that Mason and Rosentraub are not advocating major taxpayer involvement.
 

What area of downtown are they talking about? I obviously haven't paid attention closely enough. North of 104 Ave across from City Hall?

Hasn't there been a few developments proposed for that area that for whatever reason seem to fall through. Can't find details on it, but I'm sure there was a multi-hi-rise development trumpeted for the area a few years back. Maybe it was a bit more east and south. Anyway, didn't happen. Maybe an arena is needed to get development going as oilman suggests. Downtown may not need revitalizing as a whole, but the eastern edge of downtown certainly does. Growing that neighbourhood from within doesn't seem that promising.

Of course my recollection could be completely wrong. Anyone else remember the thing? Had something like a couple hi-rise commercial/residential buildings, amongst some other residential development...a "market"...anyone...buehler...
 

That's not entirely true, Rod. As Mike noted, Rosentraub at least was talking about it yesterday. And I can provide a couple links to articles where Mason talks about the economic benefits of new arenas ($4.2 billion worth of growth in San Diego alone, apparently).
 

Downtown may not need revitalizing as a whole, but the eastern edge of downtown certainly does. Growing that neighbourhood from within doesn't seem that promising.

It's all the land around the CN tower, Rod. My own belief is that the ideal and optimal use of that land is residential. It's what is doing the trick on the west end of downtown.
 

Like I said before Andy, don't wish for too much residential development. It's probably becoming a problem in Edmonton already - a quick look to the east of Anthony Henday gives you an idea of how much residential growth there has been in Edmonton in the past few years. Typically, the developer pays the City levies and foots the bill for construction of all infrastructure (roads, sewer, utilities) and then provides a "warranty" period of 2 years for maintenance typically including all road and sidewalk repairs, blvd mowing, even snow removal...then after two years, it becomes the City's responsibility...and quite frankly, concrete repairs and snow clearing costs and such have doubled and tripled in recent years and residential property taxes have not increased anywhere near that amount - costs are offset by commercial and industrial taxes, increased levies, and decreasing services. The residential tax base just doesn't sustain the level of service required for a city like Edmonton that has so much sprawl and such a need for infrastructure maintenance without help or astronomical increases. I'm not saying an arena is necessary for the downtown, but I don't think it would hurt as much as some think.
 

I couldn't find any recent numbers on arena taxes, but in 1999, the then Corel Centre was paying a $7mil annual tax bill - in todays residential tax numbers - thats about 2800 single family homes.
 

"Downtown may not need revitalizing as a whole, but the eastern edge of downtown certainly does."

The development plan called "The Quarters". Planning is well under way. Check out the city's website.

The land Andy is talking about is owned by Qualico Developments. The same guys who own the land Epcor is building its new office building on.

Oilman's got it right.
 

"a) Because I had other commitments
b) Because I wasn't willing to spend $250 dollars
c) Because the outcome was determined the day the mayor selected the members of the feasibility committee
d) Because I do this site for free, in my spare time
e) Because it's none of your business"

Considering the time you spend on the arena issue, I think a couple of those above reasons are bunk. Of course, you may have had another legitimate reason to miss, but bashing the conference without going (which did have critics of arenas) is where you really go off the rails.

"I never said anything about the media supporting a publicly funded downtown arena. I said they've been wholeheartedly supporting the idea of a downtown arena."

Andy, that's not true:

Rage said: "Are you that obsessed with the meme that the media and political establishment is pushing through a publically funded arena?"

Andy said: "Yes, because it's true. You can't read a newspaper and come to any other conclusion."

In any case, let's just assume you misread my post. So what's wrong with a downtown arena, if most of the cost isn't publically funded? To me, if we could do what Columbus did (get an arena downtown with most funding coming from elsewhere) that would be absolutely ideal.

art vandalay said: "couldn't care less if Dan Mason has degrees in Urban Renewal, Arena Buildology, and General Godliness. There are zero independent studies showing a net financial benefit to having taxpayers build sports arenas. No amount of talking to Mason will help produce that verifiable support. So why would Andy waste his time on the Journal's go-to puppet?"

Where has Mason ever said he wants the public to fit most of the bill of an arena? If you're going to call someone a puppet at least provide evidence of your point.

"So instead of teeing off on Andy for not picking up the batphone when Mason calls, how about holding Pravda's paid reporters accountable for failing to talk to anybody otherother than a mouthpiece for the official party line."

At least those journalists went to the effort of interviewing the likes of Humphreys (your hero arrived in the journal today Andy), Rosentraub and Mason and atleast members of the media went to the conference. I in understand that Andy may have had a more important commitment, but that just underscores some of the strengths that mainstream media has over blogs imo.

Personally, I don't understand Grabia's crusade. There are far bigger issues. For example, why are there non-acute patients taking up acute care beds? Why is the government building more hospitals when long term care facilities would free up acute care beds far more cheaply? That's an issue of billions of dollars, not just the 100s of millions of the arena issue (and who knows if 100s of millions of public funds will even be spent on this project).
 

There are far bigger issues... Why is the government building more hospitals when long term care facilities would free up acute care beds far more cheaply? That's an issue of billions of dollars, not just the 100s of millions of the arena issue

Absolutely right.

Why are we focusing on the waste of a mere hundreds of millions of dollars when we could be talking about:
*$2 billion a year in welfare payments to Alberta farmers.
*subsidy promises to call centres.
*road clearing when it hasn't snowed yet, leaving no money to plough roads when it has snowed.
*icicles
etc.

I mean, if you're happy dropping your loonie into the Journal or Sun box every morning, and being fed propaganda for breakfast, knock yourself out.

Andy doesn't have to pay $250 to step in a pile of shit to know that something smells here.
Write your alderthingy and let him know how desperate you are to pony up for a new playpen for millionaires. The Ward 3 secretary wrote me back to say there was "overwhelming opposition" to the notion of taxpayer funds being used to build a new arena. I assume every other alderdick has heard the same.

And while I'm here, why not take the time to attend an all-candidates forum for the provincial election so you can stand up and tell the wannabees how happy you'd be if your income tax was used to subsidize a privately owned hockey team. Then duck while your neighbours throw rotten vegetables at you.

Open your f*ckin' eyes, man. I have been to sporting events at the Edmonton Coliseum and Commonwealth, the Saddledome, The Garage, the new arena in Victoria, The old Aud in Buffalo, Maple Leaf Gardens, The LA Coliseum, The LA Forum. All of them surrounded by the worst shithole neighborhoods, hookers, drug-dealers, losers.

The only sporting event I didn't feel like my vehicle or person was in peril - other than maybe the Rose Bowl - was McMahon Stadium in Calgary, which was built in the middle of nowhere but is now surrounded by, basically, the university neighbourhood.

With or without Dan "Four Degree" Mason, the evidence is abundant. Sports facilities do not revitalize anything, other than maybe crack sales. If anything, they irreparably ruin neighbourhoods.

With our without corporate welfare.
 

Considering the time you spend on the arena issue, I think a couple of those above reasons are bunk. Of course, you may have had another legitimate reason to miss, but bashing the conference without going (which did have critics of arenas) is where you really go off the rails.

Here's the thing. I don't care. But since you seem to be concerned with how people spend their days, you could look into how long the mayor and some other councillors were at the conference. They had other stuff to do, too, despite their obvious interest in the arena conference. Are you going to criticize them, too? Maybe you can send them an email using your real name, too. Criticisms from "the rage" will probably just be ignored.
 

I agree one thousand percent with Rosentraub's view that Edmonton should be imitating Indianapolis's strategy for urban renewal. Unfortunately, under this plan, the schmancy new recreation facilities come in only after about 20 years of budget-slashing, outsourcing of public services, and tax cuts by aggressive, hardass, union-smashing Republican mayors. So obviously the first step is to take Stephen Mandel out behind the barn and find some replacement who has clearer priorities than advocating for a civic poet laureate. Who's with me and Rosenbaum??
 

Are you suggesting, Colby, that Edmonton is not in the same economic situation as Columbus or Indianapolis? HERESY!!!
 

And I can provide a couple links to articles where Mason talks about the economic benefits of new arenas ($4.2 billion worth of growth in San Diego alone, apparently).

Misrepresentation at its finest...again!

From that article:


There has actually been $4.2-billion worth of growth, which is paying for the municipality's investment through higher property taxes, Mason said.

"Cities have smartened up and they're viewing the facilities as the centre of a much broader economic development project. That's why they tend to fit better in downtown."

The last four major Canadian arenas in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa were built by private companies, he said.

A new facility in Edmonton must spur other entertainment, residential and commercial projects to make it worthwhile for the city, Mason said.

"The significant advantage that Edmonton has is the Oilers are looking for a new arena, but the (Rexall) lease isn't up for a considerable time (seven years). They have the time to sit down and plan it out the right way."
 

And yet Dan Mason hasn't truly addressed why an arena is even needed downtown.

Arenas don't spur benefit, but the development will? Why bother with an arena downtown in the first place?

Indeed, the problem with him is that he has offered little but platitudes and the usual "but we have to plan this right" caution that amounts to a whole lot of nothing in the debate.
 

Arenas don't spur benefit, but the development will? Why bother with an arena downtown in the first place?

I don't necessarily believe it's REQUIRED to be downtown - it may just be a better alternative. Downtown won't single handedly drive/spur growth/investment in downtown IMO - there is plenty of growth there already - but it may just be a catalyst

Qualico's Stationlands' has been planning for years - since 2003. They've always indicated nothing was going to go up until a major tenant commits. After 5 years, finally EPCOR stepped it. A new arena may spur investment around it, which would otherwise be largely ignored.

PJO
 

I like the idea of a new arena.
 

"Qualico's Stationlands' has been planning for years - since 2003. They've always indicated nothing was going to go up until a major tenant commits. After 5 years, finally EPCOR stepped it. A new arena may spur investment around it, which would otherwise be largely ignored."

Now put this together with the Quarters residential re-development project and "Boom goes the dynamite!"
 

Holy fuck art vandelay. If you can't tell that I keep saying "most of the arena shouldn't be paid by the public" over and over again, then you're one dense motherfucker.

Any by the way, my point wasn't that 100s of millions don't matter. My point is why obess over a 300 million dollar issue while ignoring a 3 billion dollar one (numbers taken out of my ass, but you get the picture).

If Andy had just written one or two posts on this, that would be one thing. But when he has devoted so much time to this, why spend some of that time tackling other (bigger) instances of governments ignoring economic analysis?
 

"Here's the thing. I don't care. But since you seem to be concerned with how people spend their days, you could look into how long the mayor and some other councillors were at the conference. They had other stuff to do, too, despite their obvious interest in the arena conference. Are you going to criticize them, too? Maybe you can send them an email using your real name, too. Criticisms from "the rage" will probably just be ignored."

I definately think some councillors (like Amarjit Sohi who has been a vocal critic of spending money on arenas and yet stopped by the conference for only 5 minutes) should be criticised for not trying to gain as much information as possible. The media should be criticised for not paying attention to (or simply being to dumb to understand) the lectures and then asking stupid questions when they had the opportunity.

By the way, I have sent e-mails to Mackinnon and Matheson criticising their articles (and I used my real name). They responded negativity, and I doubt using my name made a difference.

All that, of course, is a distraction from my main point: why bash the conference if you didn't go? If you don't care, as you say, then why make up BS that the conference was stacked in one direction?
 

Above comment should read "why Not spend some of that time on other (bigger) issues? Hopefully my other spelling/grammar mistakes didn't obscure my meaning.
 

Rage, tell me the story of how you came up with your nickname...

:|
 

"But when he has devoted so much time to this, why spend some of that time tackling other (bigger) instances of governments ignoring economic analysis?"

Uhhh, I think it might have something to do with the fact that the arena and the controversy around it is somewhat related to the Oilers, which is somewhat related to this blog. But I'm just throwing it out there.

By the way. Blog. You know. The internet thing people articulate their feelings and opinions on in their spare time? For free. In between their real lives sorta thing. Other people reading them sometimes join in and post positive or negative comments based on those opinions. But we all know only complete idiots take things like blogs too seriously.

Right?
 

" But we all know only complete idiots take things like blogs too seriously.

Right?"
Harsh. I probably brought it on myself by calling art a mfer.

To explain myself, the reason I am very perturbed by some of Grabia's comments is because he's been tremendously unfair to the likes of Dan Mason (and now Rosenstraub) who he has bashed on multiple occasions .
 

" Uhh, I think it might have something to do with the fact that the arena and the controversy around it is somewhat related to the Oilers, which is somewhat related to this blog. But I'm just throwing it out there."

Again, I would buy that if Grabia had spent only one or two posts on this issue. If anything, he's compromised his coverage of the Oilers by spending so much time on arena politics. If you want to talk about politics all the time, why not talk about politics in general? That's all I'm saying, and I think it's a legitimate question.

Also, "it's just a blog" would resonate far more if it wasn't for the fact that traditional newspapers have gone into decline with blogs taking up a lot of that retreated space. I don't think one is necessarily a fool for taking blogs seriously.
 

Hey look. This isn't the "Unofficial Official voice of the Edmonton Journal". Its a freakin' blog. Andy's got a bee in his bonnet about some aspect that is connected to the Oilers, so he spends some (not alot, I've seen a wide array of editorial near-brilliance - wink!) of his spare time writing about it. Its his opinion and you either agree or disagree. That's fine. That's also as far as it goes for most of us.

And for the record, I often disagree with his take on this arena thing. So I throw in a comment or two. But its no big effin' deal either way. Generally I find that if you offer a respectful point of view that differs, you'll get a respectful reply. Even if the poster doesn't necessarily agree. Know what? That's what its all about. Decent, light-hearted discussion.

But I think you cross the line when you assert he or any blogger take up your cause, or write about something you think he should. Sorry man, that's just plain bullying. No blogger is responsible to anybody but himself. The good ones gain a following and unfortunately, a few trolls along the way too. It all makes for the fabric of a great blog. That some blogs actually generate an emotional response is a tribute to the posters.

I would suggest that you spend some of your own time articulating the points of view you espouse on your own blog. From what I've seen, you're got the room.

BTW - Oilers 2-1 at the start of the third. Storziak line is cooking!