Silver Nuggets: Scotiabank Place set to get new on-ramp; Impact of Calder Cup

I’m not suggesting anything different than a tax return—people’s taxes should be equal to the cost of their upkeep. I don’t see why rich people would benefit from that, unless they were already paying more to begin with. Obviously I don’t think wealthy people or companies should benefit disproportionally to their less wealthy counterparts.

What I am saying is that if it costs the City of Ottawa one dollar for upkeep of SBP, but the Senators are charged five dollars in taxes, that’s wrong, and the remaining four should be given back to the team. That would be equally true for a lemonade stand as well. A government doesn’t exist to make a profit off of its businesses or its citizens.

I don’t think your U.S. debt example proves that a government should have a surplus saved up, because it ignores the fact that the debt was accumulated by overspending in the first place. Our federal debt is the result of 40 years’ worth of deficit spending, not some overnight failure to have cash “saved up.”

No offense taken—obviously I know what I feel is wishful thinking. There’s never been a government in the history of the world that gave back something it no longer needed, and I don’t expect there ever will be.

why should the Senators be treated any different than any other business?

Really strong point here. I don’t have a good answer. I guess I would say if the city intends to make a profit via taxes (which, of course, they do—we know they probably earn more from taxes than the cost of upkeep) then I would expect them to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to projects. Would they earn enough from taxing my restaurant to make a profit from the ramp long-term? Probably not. Would they earn enough from a NHL team? Probably, so they should be the ones footing that bill—jointly, with the team, since the team is also going to be making money from the people being bussed in.

It’s like the taxpayers in Arizona who find themselves subsidizing a hockey team with tens of millions of dollars. Is that a proper function of government???

Now, this is a very unique situation. The City of Glendale made a significant financial investment in luring the NFL and NHL to their current location, which is pretty far from the Phoenix metro area. They built a huge shopping mall (Westgate) right next to the stadiums with the belief that a long-term investment in those three things would foster growth of the city from primarily farmland to something more valuable, like housing and businesses.

But the whole complex was built only after taxpayer approval. The taxpayers obviously believed that tying the city’s fortunes to professional sports was the best way to foster growth. Whether that’s true remains to be seen—I had my doubts before the Coyotes’ financial woes—but I think the key in this situation is that it was a taxpayer-supported investment. In that sense, the $25M Glendale is shelling out isn’t a subsidy, but a continuation of that investment—they’re pot-committed, to use a poker term.

The important distinction is that it’s only the taxpayers of Glendale, and not the taxpayers of Arizona, who are footing that bill. They’re the ones who voted to hitch their wagon to Westgate, the Cardinals, and the Coyotes. I’d argue that keeping the Coyotes afloat is a function of government, since the taxpayers told their government (by voting) to commit long-term to those three investments.