Taxpayers group questions public dollars in arena deal as supporters hail district revamp

A day after the city officials and the Alberta government announced they'd reached an arena deal in principle with the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation (CSEC) and the Calgary Stampede, critics are taking aim at the use of public dollars to build an arena, saying there are more critical issues facing taxpayers.

"We've got record-high dependence on food banks, people are struggling with inflation, they're struggling to afford their homes. Is this really appropriate use of taxpayers money to build an NHL arena? No, it's not," said Kris Sims, the Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

But as critics attacked the use of public dollars in the proposed development, supporters emphasized the deal goes beyond replacing the aging Saddledome and offers much-needed revitalization in the surrounding area.

"There is so much to gain from having a 'master planned' culture and entertainment district," said David Lo, executive director of the Victoria Park Business Improvement Area. "That's the real prize here." 

The city is committing $537 million toward a new event centre that will replace the Saddledome and anchor the Rivers District, which includes East Village and Victoria Park, the city said. The project's total price tag is pegged at $1.2 billion.

The provincial government said it will contribute $300 million toward surrounding infrastructure, such as roads, utilities and parking. It's investing another $30 million to cover half the cost of a separate community arena. The city and CSEC will split the other half of that cost.

The Calgary Flames ownership group will be spending $40 million upfront, and an additional $17 million per year, increasing one per cent each year over 35 years.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is not opposed to a new arena, Sims said, but it's against public funds being used to build one, especially given the likelihood the price tag will go up over time. "Are Calgarian property owners going to have an eight or 10-per-cent property tax hike? Are businesses going to have their taxes go way up and hollow out the downtown again? Are we going to have to beg for more funding from other levels of government, which is, again, taxpayers?" Sims said. 

The deal is only in principle with a lot of details still to be worked out, such as who would cover cost overruns. But, in a document posted on the Flames' website, it says both CSEC and the city will share cost overruns. It's just not clear what the split would be.

Former city councillor Jeromy Farkas, who was opposed to an earlier deal that collapsed more than year ago, says he has a lot of questions around this one. 

"Especially when you think about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the province and the city have to fork out upfront and the Flames [ownership] only has to put in five per cent of that (upfront) and a marginal payment every year," he said. "It just makes zero sense to me."

Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek is defending the new deal with the Flames ownership, saying its larger scope makes it better than the one that fell apart 16 months ago.

She said adding in the provincial portion allows much-needed improvements to be done, such as an underpass at 6th Street to improve connectivity in the area. The mayor says the deal will also include indoor and outdoor event spaces.          "So now that that's clear and there's funding in place for it, the district can actually support the event centre," she said. "Previously, we were fixated on the building alone." 

Premier Danielle Smith faced questions Wednesday regarding the province's contribution, but she repeated the fact that the money will be spent on infrastructure, not construction of the arena.