Where Will City Council Come Down in Calgary's Arena Debate?

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the arena debate brewing in Calgary, and why city council needs to make its position known and at the same time draw some lessons from the experience in Edmonton:

While municipal politicians in Edmonton recently engaged in a dramatic debate over a proposed new downtown NHL arena, their counterparts here in Calgary on Monday engaged in a somewhat less dramatic debate over the sale of shark fins.  
In terms of how elected representatives at the municipal level are prioritizing issues of importance to their respective cities, it presents a striking contrast.  
That’s not to say that there isn’t concern in Edmonton over the sale and consumption of shark fins, but conversely, it’s most certainly not to say that Calgary doesn’t have important decisions to be made regarding the home of its own NHL franchise.  
In fairness, the major difference in Edmonton is the existence of a proposal from the Oilers, and from that, the existence of a framework for politicians to vote on. While the Edmonton framework faces a glaring $114-million shortfall, it represents a clear choice on whether the city is prepared to commit public dollars in partnering to build a new downtown arena.  
At this point, the ownership of the Calgary Flames have not requested or proposed anything with regard to a new arena. But it is clear that the Flames have been long planning for a replacement for the Scotiabank Saddledome, which also happens to be the sixth-oldest arena in the NHL. The lease there expires next year.  
It is also safe to assume that the Flames are keeping close watch on the specifics of the Edmonton deal and what it offers to the Oilers. While the votes being cast in Edmonton have no direct bearing here, it does present the Flames with a starting point for what they feel they can reasonably expect from the city.  
And while Calgary city council often finds itself preoccupied with dubious and mundane matters, they’ve had little or nothing to say about what they’re prepared to offer the Flames, or where they’re prepared to draw the line.  
Given what’s being offered to the Oilers, it’s hard to envision a scenario where the Flames won’t make a request. And according to the CBC’s Ron MacLean, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.  
During Saturday’s broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada, MacLean reported that the Flames would be unveiling their plans for a new arena “in three to four months,” and that it would involve a new downtown arena with the Edmonton deal serving as a template.  
Given how tumultuous the debate has been at times in Edmonton, it’s not surprising that the Flames have been so low key thus far. But why have alderman been so, too — especially if they’re in the loop on all of this?  
To his credit, Mayor Naheed Nenshi has not skirted the question. On the heels of the vote last week in Edmonton, Nenshi warned the Flames not to expect the same sort of arrangement here, and cited his own personal opposition to using public money to subsidize private business.  
However, the mayor is but one vote, and so it would certainly be worth knowing where the rest of council stands. Hopefully, Calgary politicians will be more willing than their Edmonton counterparts to demand answers on why public money would be needed in the first place.
After all, NHL arenas in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal were all constructed with almost exclusively private financing.  
According to Forbes magazine, the Flames — which are valued at $245 million — generated $117 million in revenues last year and a profit of $11 million. The Forbes numbers may not be accurate, but the strength and profitability of the Canadian NHL markets is well established. 
Moreover, council should avail itself of the evidence pertaining to cost. In her latest book, Harvard University’s Judith Grant Long looks at 121 professional sports facilities in North America and details how they’ve cost taxpayers $10 billion more than is commonly reported, thanks to a raft of hidden subsidies.  
Long’s advice to municipal politicians is to avoid paying building costs. Help with land and infrastructure, if you must, but she argues that on the facility itself, teams should go it alone.  
Sage advice, but Calgarians are still left wondering whether their elected politicians will heed it.

Premier's Pointless TV Address

Not that the amount would do much for Alberta's enormous deficit, but it's pretty clear that the Redford government wasted $55.000 Thursday night.
That was the price tag for buying the airtime on CTV to air the Premier's eight-minute address to Albertans. But the speech contained really nothing Albertans didn't already know, and offered no real solution for fixing the financial mess the government now has on its hands.
Redford confirmed that the province is facing a $6-billion shortfall in revenue this year, and that will mean some "very difficult choices". But the Premier and other ministers have been talking for weeks about "tough choices", but so far - and that includes the Premier's TV address - there have been no specifics.
Rather than chart out a strategy for dealing with the situation, Redford instead offered spin, excuses, and vague assurances.
She ruled out across the board spending cuts and ruled out taxes increases, for now. She claimed the government would still deliver on Albertans priorities, but didn't specify what those were on how the govenment would pay for them. She talked about the importance of being able to transport bitumen to new markets, but there's not much the government can do about that in the short term.
There was nothing in this speech that Redford couldn't have said in a news conference or in the Legislature. Unfortunately there wasn't much in this speech worth saying in any venue.
Albertans are just as in the dark after this speech as they were before it. The only difference is that we're out $55,000.
Watch the speech for yourself:

If you'd rather not watch the 8-minute video, you can read the transcript here. Here's the reaction from the Wildrose Party, the Liberal Party, and the NDP.

Didn't Premier Redford Promise "Certainty"?

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the budget crisis the Alberta Tories are now facing, and how the whole situation exposes their ridiculous assumptions and promises in last year's election:

A deep sense of unease has swept across Alberta as the Redford government contemplates deep spending cuts or even tax increases to address its budget crisis.
The latest numbers would indicate that Alberta is facing a deficit of $3 billion — perhaps even more, according to some analysts. Government departments have reportedly been asked to find cost savings, and have been instructed to prepare various spending-cut scenarios. There’s also been very public musing about Alberta’s revenue situation and whether tax increases might need to be considered.
But the good news is that in last year’s election campaign, the PC Party of Alberta — led, of course, by Alison Redford — made very clear and firm commitments to the people of Alberta.
As the Tories declared, “Albertans want to know what their leaders think on the issues, so they can trust them to provide the leadership the province needs.”
Accordingly, they boasted of their “three-year budget with no tax increases and no service cuts,” which Redford assured us “provides the certainty that Albertans need.”
So if the Tories promised us “certainty,” why should anything at this point be uncertain?
The uncertainty, as we all know, came from those Wildrose types who questioned the government’s rosy assumptions and spoke of the need to curtail spending to balance the budget.
The Tories demanded the Wildrose tell us, “Where will you cut? How dramatic will the cuts be? And when can Albertans expect your cuts to occur?”
I suppose those inclined to doubt the sincerity and credibility of the Tories’ campaign promises would ask such questions of the government now. But if even the government has such doubts about its own promises, where does that leave the rest of us?
Not that the government will admit as much, though. You see, it’s not that their campaign promises were in any way flawed or that their assurances lacked credibility, it’s that circumstances have changed. The government says the “tough choices” they’re now facing are due to a drop off in resource revenues, precipitated by the large discount Alberta oil is selling at. And while the discount is real and problematic, the gap between the price of West Texas Intermediate and Western Canada Select began growing in late 2011 and early 2012 — in other words, before the campaign assurances of budget “certainty.”
What, exactly, led the government to be “certain” that the gap would close? Where did the “certainty” come from in concluding that the problems wouldn’t become more pronounced?
Really, what the government is admitting here, is that their promises were not worth the paper they were written on. Albertans were not given pledges based on probabilities and preferences — they were promised “certainty.”
Much like what we’re seeing now on the questions of tax increases in the forthcoming spring budget or the possibility of having to borrow to pay for operational spending. In both cases, Redford was quite unequivocal that neither would occur.
However, how do we know that Redford’s certainty on those questions now is any different from the certainty they offered us last year? If last year’s promises were based on the realities they hoped would exist, maybe these promises are, too.
It does appear as though the groundwork is being laid for future tax increases. Beyond this year’s budget, Redford would only say that she doesn’t “want to see any new taxes” and her “preference” would be to keep that commitment. She even pointed out to reporters how her government is hearing from Albertans who would like to see taxes raised.
True leadership means much more that telling Albertans that you “prefer” not raising taxes or cutting spending. She needs to articulate her vision for steering us through this crisis. If Redford is opposed to raising taxes, then she needs to be the one standing up to those pushing such an agenda, rather than passively noting their correspondence.
As the Tories pointed out last year, Albertans do indeed want to know where their leaders stand on the issues. Unfortunately, that statement, like so much else from this government, seems to have been empty election rhetoric.