Couple of things:

I know of people who live within that zone - does that mean their property taxes will go up as well even though they have already established themselves OR does that mean only new construction will be affected by this TIF/CRL? If everything that falls within that zone will be subject to a CRL I guess when the Oilers and City Council stress they'll build it without raising taxes they really mean they'll build it without raising MOST people's taxes.

Also wouldn't it make just as much sense to declare the area just north of the proposed arena (and trust me, it's a blighted community) a property tax-free zone for 10-15 years and offer other incentives to encourage people to buy and develop within that area and breathe some new life into the community? Wouldn't that be a safer option than throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at an arena?

Lastly, I found an inflation calculator online and after punching in the numbers for other comparable arenas the Oilers wish they had (GM Place in Vancouver, Nationwide Arena in Columbus, Xcel Center in St Paul) the numbers to build those arenas today come out to about 180M-275M.

Where's that other 175M dollars being spent? And could the arena be built without it?

Andrew:

It isn't really accurate for the city to suggest "a CRL will pay". IF the proposed CRL was a surtax over and above present tax assessments, that might be so.

However, they have pegged the CRL revenue trigger at the current property tax level (for land that is heavy on unpaved parking lots, let's not forget). Anything above that will go to arena funding. So, who pays for the services, infrastructure and maintenance for the "new development"? You know, the things that property taxes are supposed to represent payment for?

Yeah, the rest of the citizens of Edmonton. Property taxes are not "profit" for a city. Developers would love us to think otherwise. So when Mandel (by pure chance, a developer of malls and other commercial property) & his cronies carry on about the tremendous revenues this fantastic (and thus far, imaginary) development will bring, I think we need to keep our feet on the ground.

The "house/factory" argument still holds even if we are talking about TIFs/TIRZs or CRLs. If I built a house or office building twice as nice as what exists today on a given property, would any municipality offer to allow me to fund part of the mortgage with the difference in property taxes I will pay?

In a word, no. And yet here we are...

Interesting John.

I have to confirm - the CRL will be an additional tax to ALL within that zone regardless of whether it's new development or development that occurred years ago. And it will affect both residential and business units.

So if I own a condo in that area and have for the last 8 years my taxes are going up to pay for the arena?

Am I correct?

Andrew;

I can't answer that question confidently... what I can say is that the original CRL proposal included a term that essentially placed the 'current' tax assessment for the lands on which Katz planned to build as the base amount. Anything above that would be directed to pay down arena debt.

At the time, the CRL was only supposed to apply to the 'new construction' zone. Now, as you rightly point out, the game has changed. As far as I am aware, there was nothing in the original discussion that pertained to existing buildings (beyond the obvious, the baccarat casino and a few other structures). It is certainly possible that the city will seek to impose what amounts to a surtax on residents and business owners in the newly expanded area. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any reason that the city would expand the CRL zone unless they intended to do exactly that. It is not hard to envision a situation in which most of central Edmonton will eventually be incorporated into an expanded expanded CRL zone. No shovel has yet scratched the ground, and this already looks like the gift that keeps taking.

It might be a good time to call your ward councillor and let him/her know exactly what you think. In the end, though, Edmonton taxpayers will pay for the arena, whether through a CRL or simply by paying for the services & infrastructure that the development would normally pay for through municipal taxation.

There is no such thing as a free lunch (unless you are the mayor, or the owner of an NHL team, of course...)

Thanks for the info, John.

I've heard similar rumblings that this arena deal is pretty much done. I'm curious if you saw today's Metro (April 4) where Katz comes out with a letter to the mayor absolutely against the ticket tax.

It's funny, part of me truly believes that if done right these things can be quite beneficial to a city centre. The problem is that owners have taken cities for such rides it's hard to imagine this being a positive for Edmonton.

At the end of the day the Oilers and Katz are more interested in creating a glorified mall and a hell of a lot less interested in creating a Wrigley Field type neighborhood.

Andrew;

It's no surprise that Katz is against the ticket tax, really, is it? In his warped dwarfish mind, even a tax of one dollar per ticket is one dollar less he can charge.

I agree with you. Major new development can be beneficial to cities. However, it gets more difficult to see how the city itself benefits when most (if not all) of the generated revenue goes into a sports owner's pocket. I suppose some will eventually trickle down from the owner to the players (then to divorce lawyers, exotic car dealers and strip joints), but where else? In Edmonton's case, the general public seems to have been manouevred into believing that there is only one way to revitalize the downtown, and that that is to give Mr. Katz $450m. If the city is willing to spend $250-300m in that area, I humbly suggest there are a great many other development opportunities that could be explored in that region that don't involve handing a billionaire several hundred million dollars. My guess is those opportunities would return more in tax revenue to the city than the proposed arena (which hasn't been seen yet, much less designed or tendered) will.

The thing that troubles me about this particular play is that any business can make the same argument: "A community with an Olive Garden or Tim Hortons is a happier and better community". Who could argue with that? So shouldn't those owners get free buildings and an exemption from property tax too?

The economic model of pro sports will not be fixed until we allow it to find it's own level.

your thoughts?