We Built This City

Links (2)

Battling the building
Published 4/25/2007 by James Mirtle at james mirtle
... . Note this choice passage from Tuesday night's post: According to Lamphier, a new arena will also get rid of the "small army of panhandlers or even crack dealers" in the downtown area. He's totally right, of course. They won't stay because of the increase in traffic and public transportation, like on Whyte Avenue. No, no. They'll flee to West Edmonton Mall and St. Albert, and bug those people. Plus, why do something crazy like invest money in solutions to poverty or drug addiction when you can spend over $400 million throwing up a hockey rink for millionaires, and then just chase those disgusting poor people away? That's a much more ethical solution, if you ask me. I don't honestly think there's one, blanket statement that can sum up my general feelings on publicly funded arenas, but one thing's for sure: Debate on the issue is never a bad thing. Besides, for all of the genuine discussion of the need fo

Rink Rats
Published 4/25/2007 by Tom at Tom Benjamin's NHL Weblog
... April 25, 2007 Rink Rats As the EIG campaign to get a new arena picks up steam, Andy Grabia continues his series of posts that poke a sharp stick in the eye of anyone trying to trumpet the bogus benefits. I suspect he is fighting a losing battle, but good on him anyway, I say. I'm nearly beyond being surprised at how easily the public and public opinion can be manipulated by rich guys with an agenda. They should be opposed for that reason alone. A feasibility study? Of course it is feasible. The more money the taxpayer ponies up, the more feasible it becomes. The bottom line for me is that the Oilers don't need a new arena. If EIG wants to increase their revenues with a new building, they can build it themselves. Some Oiler fans will believe that a new building will lead to a better hockey team but that assumes that ownership will spend the additional revenue on player payroll. That's a dubious premise.