This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
October 12, 2010
Edmonton mayor trying to kick-start Oilers talks again
The push for a new Edmonton Oilers arena suddenly "has a lot more momentum," according to Edmonton Journal writer David Staples, by which he seems to mean that the mayor is talking about it again. And again:
I asked [Mayor Stephen] Mandel about the impact of [Oilers owner Daryl] Katz finally appearing before the public and in front of city council. "He said he's going to put $200 million in. It's a big impact, $100 million into the arena and $100 million into the development. And knowing development, you can get about five-to-one, so you know that you can develop about $600 million of ancillary product there, and you get about $1.5 million dollars (in taxes) per ($100 million in development), that's nine million dollars, and that creates a CRL of about $130 million.
"He puts in about $100 million, you should be able to raise about $500 million from capital markets, from the banks. So you look at that, that $100 million to me was as important as the investment in the arena, because you take that money, and you say $100 million produces $500 million."
It goes on and on like that, in an article that is effectively an extended soapbox for Mandel (who just happens to be running for re-election next month). Number of independent analysts cited on Mandel's proposal — actually, number of people other than Mandel cited in the article at all — is zero. (Among other things, it'd be nice to know whether the city council remains skeptical.) So a more honest headline would have been: "Mandel's Arena Plan Gains Momentum, According To Mandel."
This is not surprising, the Edmonton Journal, heck the entire corporate media cabal of Alberta, are notoriously docile and function more as a PR arm of the corporate elite than a fifth-estate. The lapdog role of the media here has, among other things, ensured the provincial Conservatives have ruled the province unopposed for over 40 years -- despite corruption, gross incompetence and squandering a $15Billion dollar "Heritage Fund" during two oil booms! One reads the Edmonton Journal only to keep abreast of The Party's decrees. I take it then that this article means Dave Staples has been instructed to pave the way for the official announcement concerning "our" new arena.
Posted by Sean on October 12, 2010 10:35 AM
Neil, the one thing the Mayor has proved in the years he has been at the helm is that he is a straight shooter. He ain't perfect but he is not apt to mislead or exaggerate. This is man who should be taken at his word, though of course his judgement should be critically reviewed by all. Having said that, I think he is a very significant advantage to the city. There are few people who do mayoring for the right reasons and Mandel is one of them. He doesn't need the noteriety and certainly being able to capatilize on being mayor either during or after his time in office is over, is completely irrelevant to the guy.
Posted by Moe on October 12, 2010 11:27 AM
I'm sorry Moe, how anyone can read Mandel's quotes from this article and call him a "straight shooter" is beyond me. Out of one side of his mouth he is desperately shilling for Katz -- "Look everybody: $100 million is actually $600 million -- it's magic! We should be ever so grateful to this beneficent magical man." -- and out of the other side of his mouth he's pretending to be "skeptical" (until the election is over, of course). Despite your faith in the man Moe, he both misleads and exaggerates in this very article. He's an obfuscating political opportunist like the rest who run this province. On the other hand, if by "mayoring (sic) for the right reasons" you mean he follows the fine Alberta tradition of lining his own pockets and those of his developer friends I might have to agree with you.
Posted by Sean on October 12, 2010 12:18 PM
And of course, one should mention that Mandel got $40,000 from Katz for his re-election campaign.
Funny how that works.
PS: That tidbit, like all relevant ones that aren't spoon fed by interested parties, came from the Globe & Mail, a national newspaper. Edmonton's media is in a coma on this issue...
Posted by Mike W on October 12, 2010 01:43 PM
And of course, one should mention that Mandel got $15,000 from Katz for his re-election campaign.
Funny how that works.
PS: That tidbit, like all relevant ones that aren't spoon fed by interested parties, came from the Globe & Mail, a national newspaper. Edmonton's media is in a coma on this issue...
Posted by Mike W on October 12, 2010 01:45 PM
Neil;
David Staples is nothing but a schill for Katz, IMO. For some reason, the Journal employs him to write for them.
His lengthy "investigative" reports tend to be fawning, druelling, PR screed about how simply wonderful every new NHL arena in North America is, and how everyone one of them (even those which are surrounded by the same empty warehouses and parking lots that the arenas were supposed to kickstart development in/over) has brought joy, peace, prosperity (and twittering birds circling the heads of passersby, I would imagine) and life changing economic booms to their host cities.
Believe it or not, a few months ago he actually mentioned Columbus and Kansas City as prime examples of this type of success. Along with opining that a new arena downtown would do for Edmonton what it has done for Los Angeles. Because, you know, we have the Lakers and Hollywood and fantastic weather 12 months out of the year, too.
Who doesn't want to see Eva Longoria wearing a strapless gown sauntering down to the arena (over a red carpet buried under 12" of snow - the cold stuff, not...) when it's -35 deg in February?
While Mr. Staples is entitled to his opinion, the wise reader would believe no 'fact' he offers without extraordinary proof.
As for Mandel, well, he's just a politician courting both the rabid pro and rabid anti arena vote at the same time. What can we say... I guess when Michael Moore said there was no crime in Canada, he didn't count the politicians...
Wow.. Crying over a arena? Get over it that whole area(not including the new epcor building) needs a facelift & why not make it a arena/entertainment district? It's much better then the shelters/drop ins/ trashy bars/ vacant buildings that are there now, no?
Posted by Truth on October 12, 2010 07:32 PM
I'm not crying here, just adding to the discussion.
In Edmonton right now the backlash is strong against anyone critical of the arena. For those who think this will spawn some new industry, boost the economy and cure most of the ills of Edmonton lets consider Disneyland for a moment.
Big attraction, puts Anaheim on the map and draws people around the world to a city that they would otherwise not really care to visit. All good points. Step out of the loop around Disneyland Drive, Katella and Harbor street and it's a ghost town. The luster and magic disappears pretty quick.
Yet here's an attraction that brings in on a bad day 25000 people and about 20+ million people yearly between the two parks yet those spin offs don't spin too far. They stay within the Disneyland vicinity.
Proponents here figure that $400M publicly funded arena will do what Disneyland doesn't do in the best circumstances with its great weather - spin off money to other business in the neighborhood.
It's funny that for all the hoopla surrounding an arena redevelopment that nobody seems to question why the Coliseum never spawned an funky, eclectic, walkable entertainment district up on 118 avenue. I guess that's because there's so much prostitution, drug dealers and other less desirables. Yet Boyle Street is basically 118 avenue, maybe even a little worse than that. So if the original arena did little to help - if not outright hurt the 118 avenue community with the maddening crush of traffic 45+ times a year - will someone explain why a new arena in a similarly downtrodden area that will probably have the same crush of traffic will have different results?
Truth:
A $400M arena in that district would only be better than the shelters if you are a wealthy hockey fan who can A) afford to buy tickets to the game and B) will never need the shelter or other social services that it displaces.
The discussion should never be framed, as you have done, as "either" a $400m arena or urban squalor. There aren't only two positions to have on this issue.
Instead of making a gift of $400m in taxpayer dollars to Mr. Katz, who Forbes estimates is worth $1.7Bn, 10% of that amount could be invested to improve the area for it's present tenants, for example. Even 1% of that amount invested in improvements would provide a tangible benefit to the area, to the users of the services in the area, and the city as a whole.
The real 'truth' is that arena or stadium projects do not result in urban renewal or 'growth' with any regularity. They sometimes can improve the districts in which they are built (at a very high cost for the return generated), but do not cure the social ills in those areas. They simply move the problems to different areas.
It's a bit like groups of concerned citizens forming a patrol to drive prostitutes out of their neighbourhood. On those rare occasions in which they succeed, they act like they have cured a social ill. In fact, they have just made it someone else's problem. That's no cure, especially when it costs $400m just to give them the bum's rush six blocks east.