The Myth of the CRL
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 11:32 AM MDT
in Opinion
Email
Print
Recently Cult of Hockey posted a letter written by Edmonton city councilor Ben Henderson where he lays out why he supports the downtown arena project. It's a well written letter and it's worth reading if you are even remotely interested in the arena debate. I applaud Mr. Henderson for taking the time to clearly lay out his position on the arena project, something not many other councilors have done despite the fact that there are millions of taxpayer dollars at stake. I am, however, concerned that Mr. Henderson, and possibly other councilors, simply don't understand what a Community Revitalization Levy (CRL) is, or that they are intentionally blind to the truth.
Out of the City's $177M investment in the project, $40M will be funded through a CRL. The idea behind a CRL is simple: the City invests in a revitalization project and the incremental increase in tax revenue from the revitalized area is used to pay back the the loan that was needed for the original investment. That's the short version, if you want a more in depth look at CRLs I'd suggest checking out this three part series from mastermaq.
In a lot of ways a CRL seems like a can't miss option. The City invests in an area, revitalization happens, and the City covers the loan without issue. If that sounds too good to be true, it's probably because it is.
For a CRL to work, all of the development within the boundaries of the CRL must be new development that wouldn't have otherwise happened. For this to be true there has to be a latent demand that Edmonton consumers are unable to satisfy currently. But the people that live in and around Edmonton are a fixed quantity with a fixed amount of income, and as a group we can't suddenly start consuming more goods and services just because we want to because we just don't have the means to do so. What drives development is an increase in population or incomes that in turn increases the demand for goods and services. You can't magically create demand out of thin air.
What will happen in reality is that development will occur inside the boundaries of the CRL (or at least that's the hope but it's far from guaranteed), but that development won't result in new people or new money; it will have just shifted those things from another area of the City because there isn't any latent demand. So why is this a problem? Because the increased tax revenue inside the CRL has to go to pay off the loan that started the whole thing, and if that increased tax revenue is really just shifted taxes from another area then the City is left with a shortfall in general tax revenues. That will leave the City with two choices: cut services or raise taxes.
At the end of the day, if Council wants to fund an arena with taxpayer dollars then that is going to be their choice and eventually they will have to answer to the electorate for that decision. But in the meantime I'd prefer if everyone involved was truthful about how the funding actually works and what the true impact of this investment is.
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yeah, thanks, I needed some Hennig Kool Aid too.
And while we’re being “truthful about how the funding actually works” how about we talk about milking the tax-cash-cow that downtown is to death?
No, because finally putting some of downtown’s own money back into something downtown would just be heresy after all. “No no! That’s my tax money here in my suburban home! How dare you take downtown’s money away from my suburban potholes!”
LOL.
Believe what we want, I guess.
I live downtown and if the city wants to spend money on the downtown that’s fine by me. But what I don’t want is to be told half truths. The CRL is a tax. Calling it anything else is deceptive.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 10:37 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
That’s it?
Sure the CRL is a tax. Levy means tax. BRZs also include a tax component, even though it’s dressed up as a mortgage or something. (I’m not the city, BTW. I just live, vote and pay (other) taxes here.)
No problem calling it that here.
I do think it’s a good tax, though, I would easily support councillors who vote for it.
It’s great that you can grasp that a levy and tax are the same thing but to many people steering this process seem to be under the impression that it’s free money. That’s not true. It’s a diversion of tax dollars. Taxes that cover something now will cover a loan on the arena in the future. Why not just call a spade a spade?
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 11:19 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Who exactly is “under the impression that it’s free money”? Levy is to tax essentialy as shovel is to spade.
Right now downtown provides 10% of our tax revenues and receives something like 3% of our expenditures. That is the huge problem in our civic sphere.
Who exactly is "under the impression that it’s free money"?
I made my position on that pretty clear in this post.
Right now downtown provides 10% of our tax revenues and receives something like 3% of our expenditures.
And that’s messed up but completely not the point.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
CRL= Community Revitalisation Levy
Levy = Tax
This is perfectly truthful. Perhaps you didn’t know what levy meant, but everybody I know realises this. Nobody is under any magic spell.
Henderson I guarantee knows this, so do the other city councillors. I don’t know how much more blunt than the Wiktionary entry below this needs to get.
From the City of Edmonton website:
“The City invests in public infrastructure in a particular area. That improvement spurs new development. The property tax revenue from that development, along with any revenue from a lift in the value of existing property, is dedicated to paying the costs of the infrastructure, including financing costs, for the next twenty years.”
My issue with that statement and the point of this post is that some of the new development within the CRL boundaries isn’t new it came from somewhere else. Therefore the taxes aren’t new they have simply been shifted from somewhere else. I know a levy is a tax that has never been the issue, that the CRL reassigns tax dollars when we’ve been told it won’t is the issue. I don’t know how much more blunt I need to be.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
Ryan, city goverments “shift” neighbourhood priority with every major infrastructure decision they make. When the decisions was made to build the 34 Avenue boondogle or the Gigantic Terwilligar rec centre, it took tax from the entire city and focused it on the South Side. Is it rational that the North Side residents have taxes “taken away” from their needs and “shifted” to the South Side?
Well hopefully it is okay, because money has also been “shiftily shifted” into the new rec centre at Commonwealth, and will shortl
y be “shift shafty shoof shifted” into the new rec centre at Clareview.
This is 0% different.
What you’re calling “shifting” is business as usual.
This is not the last time the city will choose to focus on a priority.
This is only “shifting” money “back” into downtown, which as I have stated has been milked and neglected (to the point I’m surprised PETA hasn’t staged a nude protest) since Hawrelak’s time as mayor.
BTW:
From Wiktionary:
levy (third-person singular simple present levies, present participle levying, simple past and past participle levied)
1. To impose a tax or fine, to collect monies due, or to confiscate property
2. To draft someone into military service
3. To wage war
The “levy” in CRL I assume means the first part of the first definition. i.e., “To impose a tax”
I also assumed everyone knew that.
Orrr...
There’s unrealized utility. For example, right now you go to RX1, watch the game or concert or whatever and go home. Unless you’re a drug dealer it’s unlikely you’ll be having a beer or late dinner at Diesel Ultra Lounge. On the other hand, I’d be all over spending time (and money) beforehand or afterwards at a great bar, club or restaurant a stone’s throw from the rink.
You’d be surprised to find that a large number of people (especially types who populate corporate boxes) have no interest in stopping by the Pint before a game or grabbing a Hervey’s double cheeseburger afterwards. Those would be high wage earners who have discretionary income currently unallocated.
The thing is, the new arena and district around it is not meant to be attractive to joe lunchbucket or recent U of A grad in his first job. The arena push is primarily driven by increasing corporate suites, where the real new revenue can be realized. To attract this group, you have to provide far better amenities. These would include better restaurants, bars and an overall far more diverse and upscale entertainment venue.
As far as shifting revenue, well I’m all for competition, which BTW seems to be a dirty word around these parts. If crappy establishments (who have made a living far too long by being the only game in town) go by the wayside that’s OK by me. And to be clear the risk is on developers as they will be the ones paying the taxes.
Frankly, the mediocrity we accept in this town is staggering. All because we’re too goddamn cheap (or near-sighted) to strive for something for our city much past “bike paths, green space and fixing potholes”.
I’m sure that there is some unrealized potential, but I’m not sure how much. Many of the people who attend games regularly already go for dinner before or after the game at well to-do establishments. If the arena and said establishments were both located downtown, I’m confident that it would happen more often, but I don’t know how much more often. My feeling is that it wouldn’t be much (when people have time, they go out; when they don’t have time, they go home). Do you have some idea of what you would consider reasonable?
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 26, 2011 2:15 PM MDT up reply actions
Scott, I don’t mean to answer for anyone else, but I would consider what has happened around Columbus’, Indianapolis’ or even Oklahoma’s arenas to be possible here. None are overly pretentious cities, each only have one major tennant, and all have had great entertainment districts spring up around their arenas. I don’t see the stretch in imagining we could do likewise.
I don’t know much at all about what’s happened in Indianapolis or Oklahoma City (Eric? Neal?), but I’m somewhat familiar with the Columbus project because it’s gotten so much attention from both sides of this debate. The thing I find most striking in terms of differences to the proposed project is the emphasis Columbus put on systematic tax abatement, which is about as far away as you can get from a CRL!
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 26, 2011 11:32 PM MDT up reply actions
What happened in OKC was the resurgence of a place they call “Bricktown”, which happened pretty much after the implementation of the “Pei Plan”, which included a lot of things like we’re proposing with this CRL, namely: a new arena (with a modestly sized convention hall) ( namely the Cox (nee Myriad) Convention Centre) a park (not unlike the proposed warehouse district park in Edmonton) and streetscape improvements (not unlike what we’ve commenced up 108th Street, and what we’ve proposed down Jasper Ave.)
Bricktown was like our warehouse district circa 1996, but now it’s like our Whyte Ave. It’s the place to be in OKC, you can ask anyone.
In Indianapolis, virtually the same thing happened only rather than “Bricktown” (OKC), or “The Warehouse District” (Edm.) substitute “The Wholesale District” which in addition to an NBA arena included a new mall, a restored grand old hotel a’la the Hotel MacDonald, and a restored old concert hall. Again, the place to be in Indy.
As for Columbus, I don’t doubt you know about it, but did you know that the “systematic tax abatement” is similar in ways to what Edmonton council implemented in 1997 that kick started the construction of all the current condo towers of 104 Street (among others), and most of the warehouse/office building – condo conversions? It’s a proven idea, but in no way incompatible with a CRL.
But we’re not talking about what Edmonton did in 1997. We’re talking about what Edmonton is planning to do now. Even if tax abatement and a CRL are compatible (though I admit that I struggle to see the rationale behind implementing both at the same time), I’ve never seen tax abatement suggested as part of the current plan, and to my mind, it seems like it was one of the more critical components to the success in Columbus. Thanks for the information on the other two cities. I wonder why they haven’t been used as frequently as examples.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 27, 2011 10:54 PM MDT up reply actions
Strictly speaking the Edmonton ’97 thing was actual cash paid to apartment/condo developers on a per-unit basis, while Columbus was a reduction of taxes. I would argue six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Why OKC and Indy haven’t been talked about is that they’re less recent and as far as planning goes, more piecemeal than Columbus or LA. In OKC for example, Bricktown wasn’t even considered as part of the original Pei Plan (as Bricktown at that time was still valued for its industrial contribution), but got its streetscape improvements about 8 years after the arena was built. Then in Indy, the first part of the plan was actually a shopping centre, while the arena came later. What Edmonton is going for, is similar to Columbus in design, but similar to LA in land area. (Columbus’s is many blocks larger, maybe triple; LA’s was designed very inward focused.)
Nonetheless, Indy and OKC also represent perfectly valid examples of trying to revive a moribund downtown with an arena and other measures.
What I believe anyone would find is basically that if you have people downtown around the clock, you will have the definition of “vitality” (i.e., “life”). Residences and hotels for night, office buildings and schools for daytime, and arenas and theatres (and parks, galleries and museums) for evenings. If you get some kind of balance there, you get something like Montréal or New York, but in our case, of course, smaller. Keep in mind, both M.Q. and N.Y. downtowns have had their evening lives anchored by arenas.
Yes, as anti-arena people point out, having people living downtown is key, but as they neglect, having a significant evening life is also key, if the goal is a safe and exciting city core.
For example, right now you go to RX1, watch the game or concert or whatever and go home. Unless you’re a drug dealer it’s unlikely you’ll be having a beer or late dinner at Diesel Ultra Lounge. On the other hand, I’d be all over spending time (and money) beforehand or afterwards at a great bar, club or restaurant a stone’s throw from the rink.
But won’t that money you spend around the new arena be at the expense of spending it elsewhere? The percentage of the population that has limitless income and can maintain existing spending habits while spending in a revitalized downtown is pretty small I would bet.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
Nope. Like I said, it’s about discretionary income of higher wage earners. Doesn’t have to mean “limitless”. If anything, I’d spend more because there was more and better things to do.
Keep in mind Ryan, the arena district doesn’t have to attract everybody, just people who have the means and desire to spend more of that discretionary income. There’s more of those types in town than you think. And Katz wants all of them.
But they have to maintain there existing spending patterns as well. I don’t share your opinion that there are a lot of people in Edmonton who can do that.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
In fact, we have greater average HH expenditures than Vancouver. No doubt driven up by the invisible high-income wage earners I’m talking about.
But how many of these invisible high-income wage earners exist is what I question.
At my work there are a fair number of people that, based on what I make, must make a pretty good living. But these same people live in the suburbs with kids and other life commitments. While they have the ability to spend more of their discretionary income in the arena district I doubt that they will.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
That’s a somewhat narrow view of things don’t you think? I’ve been a lucky guest in those corporate suites many times and those people didn’t have a problem getting out to the games. And they weren’t taking the LRT to get there either. The talk in those places is generally “When the hell is that new arena is going to get built?”.
But that’s a once or twice a season kind of thing for most of those guys. For this to actually work that demographic has to spend a lot more time downtown than they do now and I doubt that will happen.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
Isn’ there a 3rd option? Couldn’t the shift be lessened by increasing the amount of tourism to Edmonton from NE BC, Northern Alberta and Eastern Saskatchewan? Having something in Edmonton should attract more people to come to the city. The spending might be focused on the new area but would trickle down through out the community.
I live in Grande Prairie and hardly ever go to Edmonton for a weekend. There is not draw for me to go. Instead I head down the QEII to Calgary another two hours.
Hockey arenas have long been luring tourists to the frozen prairies in the dead of winter.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
by Doogie2K on Aug 26, 2011 2:01 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Are we assuming that revitalization is just gonna happen because the arena’s there? Because the arena’s all anyone’s ever talked about, on either side.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Because if we don’t assume that the revitalization will happen then the whole thing becomes even more ludicrous.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
People against the project focus on the arena because (and they’re right) arenas by themselves are not good economic sense. People (and Katz Group) who support the project are focusing on the district and possibilities for revitalization.
Problem is, the attention has been drawn to the arena because nay-sayers are a very vocal minority.
Then put the money towards other things to revitalize downtown… don’t put it towards the arena.
Here’s the thing, arena’s don’t attract economic development on their own. In order to revitalize downtown, you need people to want to live there. It’s no good if it’s a place where everyone congregates until 10pm and then takes off to go home.
If you want to develop downtown, give people a reason to be there all the time. Give companies a reason to put a head office there. Give people a reason to live there by putting in an effective transit system and a reason to want to move from the suburbs to downtown.
The problem is, so much money is going towards the arena itself that when it comes time, there’s less money to put towards the other necessary amenities.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Under the new proposed CRL, revitatization should be more likely because the city will be investing in 10 separate “catalyst projects”. Basically, the city is spending money to make an area more desirable for development. It doesn’t guarantee revitalizaiton, but makes it more likely. The EXTENT of that revitalization is certainly worth questioning, though…
I can’t imagine that the province will approve that revised CRL area.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
I’m not really sure that I support the “all-downtown” CRL, but I think your analysis misses some of the good points about a CRL.
First, I agree that a CRL is not much “new” money, and is predominantly just re-directed money. But the re-direction is important to urban economics or micro-economics; that is, WHERE in the your city is the best place for development and economic activity. (In fact, I think the idea of urban economics is one that has largely been ignored in terms of stadium development. Most academic studies that people point to as saying sports stadiums don’t increase economic activity focus strictly on regional economics and miss this important point of how cities develop. But that’s probably an argument for another day…)
How a CRL ultimately creates new money is due to the concentration of redevelopment. That is, the development might not be “new”, but if it had been built at each corner of the city, it does little to increase property taxes in any of those areas. Once you get a concentration of the development (i.e. the goal of the CRL, and encouraged by the city putting money into these areas), those developments create a “hot spot” driving up property values of the entire area (i.e. new money for the city). Yes, that money is initially earmarked for debt repayment, but eventually, this will be general revenue for the city’s use.
Moreover, since the development is concentrated, the increased cost to the city is minimalized. We don’t have to pay for utilities and infrastructure out to the each corner of the city — it is all going to one central location. The idea, of course, is that the “baseline” of the CRL is enough to maintain this central area. I doubt that it would be, so yes, the city would likely have to cut services or raise taxes A BIT — but since it is centralized, I don’t think the shortfall is as big as you imply. And the benefit is a better city — one in keeping with smart urban economics.
How a CRL ultimately creates new money is due to the concentration of redevelopment. That is, the development might not be "new", but if it had been built at each corner of the city, it does little to increase property taxes in any of those areas. Once you get a concentration of the development (i.e. the goal of the CRL, and encouraged by the city putting money into these areas), those developments create a "hot spot" driving up property values of the entire area (i.e. new money for the city). Yes, that money is initially earmarked for debt repayment, but eventually, this will be general revenue for the city’s use.
Thanks for this explanation. Do you know how well this has worked in places that have tried it in the past?
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 26, 2011 2:25 PM MDT up reply actions
Calgary was using a CRL to rebuild their core’s east-end. I left just as things were starting, but people tell me they’re building the crap out of that part of the city now. I was down there last week on business and the amount of new building construction in their downtown is staggering. We here in Edmonton simply have no idea as to the scale of what’s possible.
One problem with the CRL is that it’s almost impossible to quantify where the development came from. How can you quantify what development was a direct result of the CRL? Just because development occurred doesn’t mean the CRL worked as planned.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 10:50 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
“Alberta’s only CRL, the first in Canada, was implemented to upgrade Calgary’s depressed Rivers District.”
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Downtown+could+boost+from+business+group+says/5314886/story.html
From what I’ve seen and heard down there, it seems to be working.
How can you quantify that it’s working? Development alone doesn’t prove that it’s working. Can you show development hasn’t shifted from elsewhere?
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
I hate to be circular, but can you equally prove that development HAS shifted? All I know is that Calgary is using a CRL to rebuild a part of their downtown that (when I was there) was a wasteland similar to what we currently see around the Baccarat. It seems to be having a positive effect, so what’s the problem? And like Jon has been saying, this is business as usual for city planning departments everywhere.
And I’d love it if the City explained a CRL like this. I don’t agree with all your points but at least you’re not dumbing it down to what basically amounts to “free money” like the City has so far.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
I’d also point out that the revenue shift argument based on the assumption that “the people that live in and around Edmonton are a fixed quantity” is a false premise. I can tell you for a fact that attracting new residents and industry to our city is a very large issue for EEDC because that’s how you grow your tax base.
This is a good point. I don’t think that a fancy new arena is going to be a huge draw, but it’s one more thing that will hopefully improve the quality of life in Edmonton, and more specifically, Edmonton’s downtown.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 26, 2011 2:22 PM MDT up reply actions
It probably will be a mixture. I just wish that the people making the decisions and selling the development would acknowledge that. What we’re being told to believe – that it’s free money – just isn’t true.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
It is not a zero sum game for the city.
The arena district will be pumping upwards of over $1 billion dollars in new capital into the downtown core. The new museum will add another what $400 million to that. That is not zero sum. The fact that some councillors seem to be committed means that the non-public commitments to associated development must be reasonably solid if the arena district goes ahend.
The other part that is not zero sum is the additonal dollars that will be coming from the suburbs outside Edmonton into the downtown.
Both of those will have multipliers that are associated with them.
Of course, if they can’t figure out the last $100 million soon, then will all be moot.
The federal and provincial governments, I read, are putting money into a film studio in Calgary. What’s with that?
False Assumption by the author
That my friend is a falty syllogism. Your assumption is predicated on the idea that no on new will move into Edmonton. Considering Alberta and Edmonton in projected to lead the country and the G8 as well in terms of growth (i.e. GDP, which leads to jobs, which leads to inmigration) your argument if flawed. The idea that this arena will draw people to the city isn’t gonna fly either, but with people coming to the city; it doesn’t hurt to create a new neighborhood that is both central, new and trendy to boot. The people are coming to this city and with it a new tax base as well. I like that you thought outside the box here and are attempting to shoot holes in a idea; but your logic from the on set is flawed. Sorry to point that out.
If people move to Edmonton that’ll be great. Can’t imagine that an arena will be the reason anyone moves here though.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 7:42 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
This annoys me to no end – don’t planners already have transitory residents built into their plants? Isn’t it easy to look at pre-arena plans and post-arena plans to discern this number?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I would assume that a plan somewhere would have that information.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 10:43 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
It would be nice to have that in the public record.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Well that would make you one of a very small group.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 10:44 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
I can think of quite a few others, and I don’t even really know that many people. I’m serious.
One thing the Oilers have revealed is that 35% of their ticket holders do not live in the Edmonton area, and obviously an Oiler game is one of the things that draws them here. As with the new (awesome) waterslides at WEM, I would imagine a new and exciting arena would draw more.
Furthermore, right now, can anyone argue that our downtown doesn’t actually repel would be residents or tourists? All of the things they are considering using the CRL (tax) for would constitute improvements to downtown in my eyes (including the arena.)
Whether or not the downtown as it exists today “repels” people isn’t my issue with the CRL. It’s misrepresenting the facts that I have an issue with.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
by ryanbatty on Aug 26, 2011 11:45 PM MDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Ryan, your argument is based on the idea that the CRL and resulting development “won’t result in new people or new money” and assumes that Edmonton isn’t going to experience any net population inflow for the foreseeable future (nor that it can be influenced). Where exactly are you getting your information? Both are extremely unlikely to happen, and in the case of stagnant population, entirely wrong.
Sure growth will happen but to assume that an arena/entertainment district downtown will be the catalyst for that growth seems like a stretch to me. If you can give me actual examples of places where a sports stadium has lead to population growth I’ll be sure to look at it.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
The arena district has as its central component an arena, which we all acknowledge does not provide economic lift on its own. However, the RAM, arena district, adjacent proposed Quarters redevelopment and Jasper Ave facelift taken as a whole would almost certainly spur both downtown occupancy and serve to provide the entire city with a much needed shot in the arm. The arena district is simply the catalyst/lynchpin in this chain of events.
The problem providing comparables stems from the fact that Edmonton has let its downtown core languish at the expense of suburban development. Yes, not a unique situation, but we’ve done this to such a degree that it’s hard to find any city that has allowed that level of neglect. On top of which, we’ve let this go on for so long that the general populace has accepted a crap downtown as the status quo.
This project has the potential to re-invent our entire downtown core, and perhaps the attitude of the entire city. It has yet to be definitively proven that any additional dollars will come out of citizen’s pockets. This could be a project on a grand scale the likes of which we’ve never seen before. To me at least, the rewards far outweigh the risks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Conan O’Brien joins long list of LA media that don’t really know what’s going on with the Kings
- For Los Angeles Kings, when does rest become rust for Stanley Cup Final?
- Dominik Hasek wants NHL return; Tortorella on Game 6; Nash to Boston? (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Simon Gagne enjoying LA Kings' success, returns to practice after concussion absence
- Gagne back at practice, enjoying Kings' success
- First-place Knights go sight-seeing while awaiting Memorial Cup final
- NHL Network and NHL.com unveil comprehensive coverage plans for the 2012 Stanley Cup Final
- Canadiens hire Rick Dudley as assistant GM
