northlands
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reaction score
- 11,790
- Location
- The trenches (Downtown)
Haven't read it, so maybe I'm about to spew a ton of nonsense, but ICE District is a great example to be used in the discussion of at what point does de-risking private sector projects via gov't subsidy make sense when considering the resulting externalities.Anyone read the Power Play book? Free at the library or on the Libby app.
Left me with a good mix of feelings. Probably the intention. It’s a complex question of what ifs and how things could have been done differently.
Hard to say it’s backfired. Also hard to say taxpayers didn’t get fleeced. It’s likely a net win for the city. And also a significantly bigger net profit for katz.
The City spent future increases in property tax gains to allow a private corp the confidence to redevelop a substantial amount of brownfield land in the core, and financially it's being indicated this is a net positive ROI to taxpayers even before considering other overarching benefits. For a different case analysis of another private corp subsidy: the City building an interchange on 23rd ave to reduce accidents after it was consistently one of the most dangerous intersections in the city, but way overbuilt the design until the cost ballooned to $253m, largely so drivers could have easier access to SEC (I bet the 102 st flyover probably added $40m to the project cost alone).
Ironically, in retrospect I actually think the worst aspects of the arena deal were not even the direct financial subsidy. It was the clause(s) that rendered Rexall useless for virtually any purposes that it was designed for, and then the lack of any real planning for what the City would end up doing with Rexall, despite knowing it'd cost tens of millions to demo. That's the real embarrassing legacy component of all of this and where taxpayers got fleeced.