Nothing seems to make fiscal conservatives forget themselves faster than the prospect of building venues for their sports team of choice. .Calgarian conservatives rightly rage against the corporate welfare poured into Quebec companies, such as Bombardier. They've been indignantly howling over the $13 billion tax dollars Prime Minister Trudeau is giving Volkswagen to build a battery manufacturing facility. Closer to home, older Albertans still get their blood pressure up when reminded of the wasted billions the provincial government poured into failed ventures such as Novatel and MagCan. .When it comes to building a massive hockey arena in Calgary, however, many conservatives suddenly become proud socialists as they cheer the announcement of hundreds of millions of tax dollars being spent on the venture. .The case for subsidizing arenas is weak and it always has been. While subsidy supporters claim these venues bring dollars into the areas where they were built, it simply isn't true. Most of the dollars that will be spent at events in arenas, whether at sporting events or concerts, will come from local citizens. A visiting team may draw some fans and they will stay in local hotels, but it's hardy an economic windfall of revenue for the area. .Subsidy supporters act as if the local consumers will take their excess money and burn it if there isn't a new arena to spend it in. In reality, that disposable income will still be spent locally whether it's at theatres, restaurants or other events. Arenas don't create money. They just create another place to spend it. .This isn't to say arenas and professional sports teams don't bring value to the cities they're in. They bring exposure and profile to their host cities and they contribute to local spirit and morale. They can revitalize areas where they're built and create an interesting zone in a city. Let's not pretend its impossible to do all that without massive tax funding, however. Other cities have managed to maintain professional sporting venues without heavily soaking taxpayers. In an ostensibly conservative city such as Calgary, a private path to a new arena could have been found if the effort was made. .Much of what I just wrote could have come from the lips of Premier Danielle Smith only a few years ago. Smith was an avowed capitalist who was consistently critical of tax dollars going into private sports facilities. She was certainly vocal with her opposition to any tax dollars going toward the Edmonton arena when she was leading the Wildrose Party years ago. .Elections change everything though. .Danielle Smith is in a tight race with the NDP and it's clear Calgary is the prime battleground. The UCP felt the need to buy electoral love in the city and the arena deal offered a great and visible way to do it. .There is no doubt Calgary needs a new arena. The Saddledome is out of date and the area it resides in is a blight on the Calgary landscape. The question of course was whether or not it is the responsibility of taxpayers to deal with that. Danielle Smith of old would have said no without hesitation. Today's Smith just poured $300 million into the project. We can rest assured that bill will grow over time and we likely will be on the hook for that. These things never stay within budget. .Buying Calgary a new arena with tax dollars will likely prove to be an effective political move by the UCP. The NDP still has yet to formulate a response to the move and it's put them on their heels. If they oppose it, they likely will lose Calgarian support. If they support it, it will just look like they're chasing the UCP. It is put them in a tough spot. Meanwhile, Calgarians will likely look more positively at the UCP when it comes time to mark their ballots next month..Smith played it wisely in saying the deal is conditional on the UCP being re-elected. That way, people can't claim the UCP doesn't have a mandate for the plan and it also implies the deal may collapse if the NDP win the election. .Is this what it has come to, though? .Is it really impossible for a conservative party to win elections on conservative principles? I would like to think not. Subsidies are the lazy route. I know I will be hearing from many folks saying, "It's worth it because the NDP would be so much worse!".Yes, the NDP would be a worse government to have than the UCP, but can't that case be made to Albertans without getting into the subsidy game? .Once the floodgates of spending open, governments find them hard to close. .How long will it take before the UCP fully morphs into the high spending Progressive Conservative Party it was created to replace? .The move to subsidize the arena in Calgary is likely a political winner. Time will tell if the sale of basic conservative principles was worth it though.
Nothing seems to make fiscal conservatives forget themselves faster than the prospect of building venues for their sports team of choice. .Calgarian conservatives rightly rage against the corporate welfare poured into Quebec companies, such as Bombardier. They've been indignantly howling over the $13 billion tax dollars Prime Minister Trudeau is giving Volkswagen to build a battery manufacturing facility. Closer to home, older Albertans still get their blood pressure up when reminded of the wasted billions the provincial government poured into failed ventures such as Novatel and MagCan. .When it comes to building a massive hockey arena in Calgary, however, many conservatives suddenly become proud socialists as they cheer the announcement of hundreds of millions of tax dollars being spent on the venture. .The case for subsidizing arenas is weak and it always has been. While subsidy supporters claim these venues bring dollars into the areas where they were built, it simply isn't true. Most of the dollars that will be spent at events in arenas, whether at sporting events or concerts, will come from local citizens. A visiting team may draw some fans and they will stay in local hotels, but it's hardy an economic windfall of revenue for the area. .Subsidy supporters act as if the local consumers will take their excess money and burn it if there isn't a new arena to spend it in. In reality, that disposable income will still be spent locally whether it's at theatres, restaurants or other events. Arenas don't create money. They just create another place to spend it. .This isn't to say arenas and professional sports teams don't bring value to the cities they're in. They bring exposure and profile to their host cities and they contribute to local spirit and morale. They can revitalize areas where they're built and create an interesting zone in a city. Let's not pretend its impossible to do all that without massive tax funding, however. Other cities have managed to maintain professional sporting venues without heavily soaking taxpayers. In an ostensibly conservative city such as Calgary, a private path to a new arena could have been found if the effort was made. .Much of what I just wrote could have come from the lips of Premier Danielle Smith only a few years ago. Smith was an avowed capitalist who was consistently critical of tax dollars going into private sports facilities. She was certainly vocal with her opposition to any tax dollars going toward the Edmonton arena when she was leading the Wildrose Party years ago. .Elections change everything though. .Danielle Smith is in a tight race with the NDP and it's clear Calgary is the prime battleground. The UCP felt the need to buy electoral love in the city and the arena deal offered a great and visible way to do it. .There is no doubt Calgary needs a new arena. The Saddledome is out of date and the area it resides in is a blight on the Calgary landscape. The question of course was whether or not it is the responsibility of taxpayers to deal with that. Danielle Smith of old would have said no without hesitation. Today's Smith just poured $300 million into the project. We can rest assured that bill will grow over time and we likely will be on the hook for that. These things never stay within budget. .Buying Calgary a new arena with tax dollars will likely prove to be an effective political move by the UCP. The NDP still has yet to formulate a response to the move and it's put them on their heels. If they oppose it, they likely will lose Calgarian support. If they support it, it will just look like they're chasing the UCP. It is put them in a tough spot. Meanwhile, Calgarians will likely look more positively at the UCP when it comes time to mark their ballots next month..Smith played it wisely in saying the deal is conditional on the UCP being re-elected. That way, people can't claim the UCP doesn't have a mandate for the plan and it also implies the deal may collapse if the NDP win the election. .Is this what it has come to, though? .Is it really impossible for a conservative party to win elections on conservative principles? I would like to think not. Subsidies are the lazy route. I know I will be hearing from many folks saying, "It's worth it because the NDP would be so much worse!".Yes, the NDP would be a worse government to have than the UCP, but can't that case be made to Albertans without getting into the subsidy game? .Once the floodgates of spending open, governments find them hard to close. .How long will it take before the UCP fully morphs into the high spending Progressive Conservative Party it was created to replace? .The move to subsidize the arena in Calgary is likely a political winner. Time will tell if the sale of basic conservative principles was worth it though.
