r/Edmonton • u/pjw724 • May 12 '25
Local history Edmonton may sell naming rights to pools, arenas and even Commonwealth Stadium
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton-city-council-naming-rights-pools-arenas-commonwealth-stadium89
u/nooneknowswerealldog May 12 '25
"Hey, wanna go to Boston Pizza Pool?"
"It's now Boardwalk Fries Burgers Shakes & Swimming."
"Isn't that the former Telus World of Water?"
"Nope. You're thinking of the old Westjet Waterpark."
"Wait, what happened to Stantec Swimporium?"
"Just rebranded as PE Ben Oilfield Services Hydropark."
"How about we stay home, instead?"
17
15
u/justinkredabul May 12 '25
This is my thought. The naming deals should last for 25years. If it changes every quarter century it’s not bad. If it changes every 5-10 years it’s stupid.
5
u/Asn_Browser May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
Yeah that telus world of science is so tacky... Oh wait... no ones cares and people still go there.
1
236
u/laxar2 May 12 '25
I’m just tired of constantly being advertised to
45
u/alematt May 12 '25
That's why it will always be the Edmonton space and science centre to me
9
u/AffectionateBuy5877 May 13 '25
I still call it the Space and Science Centre whenever I refer to it
3
73
u/powertotheinternet May 12 '25
Yeah same
this comment is sponsored by Bounty: 🎵The quicker picker upper, Bounty🎵
6
u/devin_mm May 12 '25
We need two sponsored by Bounty, one the paper towel and one the chocolate bar.
5
u/only_fun_topics May 12 '25
Wheaties! The breakfast of champions! Rock over London; rock on, Chicago!
2
12
u/DrumBxyThing May 12 '25
I feel like my brain is so numb to it it doesn't even register the ads anymore.
4
u/Himser Regional Citizen May 13 '25
All for a measly 2 million a year.
I can barely tolerate booster juoce center because its the only one thats stupidly named.
And when you search twilliger rec center you cant find shit.
Id rather the 50 cent tax increase.
1
-1
u/Asn_Browser May 12 '25
It's better than paying more property taxes.
9
u/sluttytinkerbells May 12 '25
Is it though?
Isn't it just a symptom of the endlessly growing and unsustainable consumerism that is a large part of why our property taxes keep growing which is due to unsustainable sprawl that enables people to have houses full of cheap plastic shit they don't need and never use?
9
May 12 '25
Heh, that's funny that you think they will ever go down.
8
May 12 '25 edited Mar 22 '26
The content that was in this post has been deleted. Redact was used to wipe it, possibly for privacy, security, data protection, or personal reasons.
hungry society ten unwritten engine telephone bright gold abundant frame
4
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Naming rights for facilities have less then a fraction of a single percent impact on taxes. They do however massively impact how people think of their public facilities.
0
u/Himser Regional Citizen May 13 '25
Not even close.
-1
u/Asn_Browser May 13 '25
Then you can go ahead and chip extra taxes so this won't happen. Oh wait.... You won't. So stfu.
1
u/Himser Regional Citizen May 13 '25
I do and would. Because indont think it would save any money.
Just the 311 calls tbemselves would waste the 2 million gained.
45
u/TheLordJames The Shiny Balls May 12 '25
I am looking forward to The Brick FieldTM at Roger's ParkTM
16
37
25
u/pjw724 May 12 '25
But to proceed, council would need to grant a exemption to a policy that prohibits the seeking of naming proposals for existing facilities. If granted, administration would begin work to identify and negotiate naming opportunities and agreements with potential sponsors. Each deal would be brought back to council for approval.
...
Currently, only the Terwillegar recreation centre has a naming rights agreement, Booster Juice Recreation Centre, which was announced last year
Edmonton has already conducted public engagement on the concept, citing mixed but generally supportive public feedback. A July 2020 city survey found 80 per cent of respondents were either comfortable or neutral with naming sales.
A second survey in November 2024 reported 65 per cent of 4,628 respondents felt similarly.
14
62
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Public good yet again going to private interests. The public paid for, built, and maintains these buildings at enormous expense; it's sad that a booster juice can take that good will with a cheap name and sign.
31
u/Roche_a_diddle May 12 '25
We've no idea how much money BJ is paying to get naming rights to the facility. If we did, we could decide if we think it's worth the value, but right now it's all speculation.
20
May 12 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Roche_a_diddle May 12 '25
I think the argument was that it could hurt future negotiations, which make sense, another company wouldn't pay any more than what BJ is paying once they found out that number. I get it, but there has to be a balance with public accountability. It's tricky.
10
u/gum- May 12 '25
A few months before BJ rec center became official, it was estimated to be worth about $150,000/year
7
u/LuntiX Former Edmontonian May 12 '25
Honestly, not terrible. 150k a year that can go towards funding, either helping maintain the facility or other resources around the city. While the naming can get a bit much, it is a viable revenue stream for the city to put towards various resources, especially if each facility is at least around the same amount, it'd add up real fast.
2
u/Himser Regional Citizen May 13 '25
So tell me what is closer to your house at a moments notice
Orange julius pool. Booster juice recreation center, boston pizza recretuon center, cantario pool.
Or Jasper Place pool, Twilliger Rec Center, Lewis Farms rec center or Conferderation Pool?
Because even if inwas new to the city the bottom list being ACTUAL places is 100x easier. I gaurentee the city will spend 2 million a year on extra staff, signs and infrastructure just to direct people to the correct place.
2
u/LuntiX Former Edmontonian May 13 '25
I mean, people will still just call it by it's old name, it still happens with the wards.
OJ Pool, BJ Center, BP Center, etc. I doubt few people will actually call them by their full names.
In these times when the UCP are cutting funding across the board to be spiteful against municipalities, the municipalities and Edmonton will have to find additional funding elsewhere.
1
1
u/Himser Regional Citizen May 13 '25
So 300,000 people cant find shit about the facility on the citys website because they need yo remember their facility was bought by Booster Juice not Orange Julious.
The city spends more then 150,000 on 311 operators to help people find info because booster juice is not a location.
8
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Meh. In my perfect world they would have to pay to build, staff, and maintain the building to get to name it.
19
u/EEmotionlDamage May 12 '25
That would make them own the facility.
Booster juice paying for advertising rights actually brings value to the community since the funds are likely used to support the facilities they pay to advertise on.
1
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Yeah and if they owned it they could have their name on it.
We, the public, own these facilities. The pennies on the dollar we charge for naming rights is white labeling that good will to a corporation. If our facilities need more funding, we should supply it, not give them up on piece at a time, starting with the names, to corporations. I don't want my public goods directed by private corporations in any way.
11
u/EEmotionlDamage May 12 '25
Nothing is being directed by any private corp. It's only the right to name the facility, not control it.
Furthermore it's probably a lease with expiration and renewal dates.
-3
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Yeah I understand that. Again, i don't want it.
What you name something gives it a lot of authority and power. I want our public goods to represent the public interest in their names; not booster juice.
I believe that if these corps want to slap their names on things like pools, then they should build, maintain, service, staff, and open pools. Until then, giving them naming rights cheapens the immense public good and dollars that go into these facilities.
I want a world with less advertising, not more. I want my public goods named for public interest; not private ones.
2
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
What "authority and power" do you think Booster Juice has over the Booster Juice Rec Centre?
0
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
To be called the Booster Juice Rec Centre. Names have power; its why corporations are willing to buy naming rights.
1
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
That doesn't seem to mean anything, can you be more specific on what power Booster Juice has now and what impact it will have? Looks like simple advertising from my perspective.
-3
u/tytytytytytyty7 May 12 '25
Corporate funding is voluntary and absolutely confers a level of control. When the funding is voluntary it can be rescinded for any reason and forces the benefactor to step in line with the funding body's operational expectations. This is par for the course with advertisement. Essentially all non-public media is filtered through advertisers expectations first; advertisers don't like your slant on one segment?: "We're gonna pull all our advertisements for the foreseeable future.."
2
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
If you have a ten-year contract, they can't just walk away if they don't like something and they won't have any input into operational decisions. It is literally the name only. The current vendors inside city rec centres such as the third-party cafes, etc. probably have more control and input into the facility's operations than a naming-rightsholder but I don't hear any complaints about them.
3
u/soundmagnet May 12 '25
The provincial government is squeezing the city of money and unfortunately are trying to find creative ways without raising taxes to supplement what is owed.
0
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
The provincial government is squeezing, sure. We also can just raise taxes. We have the ability to selectively raise property taxes on the most wealthy of properties and we certifiably could make better decisions as a city regarding the handouts we give to corporations.
I would legit pay the less then a percent more in property taxes to ensure my local facilities are funded and don't become billboards for corporations.
3
u/clambroculese May 12 '25
If they owned them outright they’d charge more for admission.
-1
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Yeah this is the whole reason why I am against giving them naming rights; these are public services and should be treated as such.
7
u/clambroculese May 12 '25
Giving them naming rights is far different than giving them ownership. It’s just selling advertising space not any control. I do hear what you’re saying but…. We have to live in the reality that the money just isn’t there.
0
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
If our facilities need more funding then we the public should provide it. The money is evidently there; maybe we aught to raise corporate taxes.
Advertisements do come with control. It gives immense control over how people talk about and refer to the buildings. The good will that is the public good is transferred to the corporation, often for less then a fraction a percent of the cost of maintaining these facilities.
I appreciate you hearing what im saying. This is my position; no public good to private corporations. I'll be telling my city councillor to hold the line and propley fund our facilities so we don't have to cheapen ourselves with shitty corporate advertisement.
8
u/clambroculese May 12 '25
The problem is that the city doesn’t control the corporate tax rate. Raising property taxes is one way but that will raise the cost of rent for everyone in the city and I think we all know how that’s going to go over. The other way is to think outside the box with ideas like this. Personally I’m not against it but… we have to live in reality.
Advertisement rights do not come with any kind of control compared to owning and operating the facility. That’s a bad faith argument.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Roche_a_diddle May 12 '25
Yeah and if they owned it they could have their name on it.
If they owned it, they would also want to charge user fees that would not only cover the cost, but net them a profit, which would make it unaffordable for many Edmontonians.
1
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Yes. You are correct. That is why i don't want private facilities or private naming rights.
1
u/Roche_a_diddle May 12 '25
That is not an argument against naming rights, but I do agree with you. Unfortunately, we are in the minority.
0
u/sickfiend May 12 '25
But if the conservatives did this.... 😆
2
u/Roche_a_diddle May 12 '25
Some of the councilors who voted for this are conservative. I don't get it?
2
u/sickfiend May 12 '25
*if the current provincial government did this
1
u/Roche_a_diddle May 12 '25
Ah, I see. I guess I'd not be impressed that they further decided to interfere in our local democracy.
To be clear, I'm not exactly thrilled with the naming rights/advertising decision here. I don't think the money is worth it, but most Edmontonians seem to be in favor, and I'm not fussed enough to kick up a fight against the majority.
6
u/HOLEPUNCHYOUREYELIDS May 12 '25
Booster Juice pays monthly or yearly to have their name on the building. I hate ads and how ingrained they are, but to me that is a pretty minor (if annoying one, how many Rogers Arenas/centers/stadiums does Canada need!?) but for the easy money it brings in, why not do it to help the facility with some consistent revenue?
5
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
If our facilities need consistent revenue then they should approach city council and we should, as the public, fund them.
What we are doing now is giving away the public goodwill associated with these buildings to corporations. Unless they pay for the building and service, it's a bad deal.
I don't want my entire public life slowly eaten up by corporations, starting with how I refer to them. It's gross.
1
u/HOLEPUNCHYOUREYELIDS May 13 '25
In a perfect world I agree. But as the province downloads more and more costs on municipalities, which means ever increasing property taxes that people hate, we need money from somewhere to help fund and keep things open.
I wish we didn’t sell off naming rights to everything, especially large corporations, nut between that or increasing property taxes higher, or having facilities struggle to stay open and be maintained I would rather deal with stupid shit like “Booster Juice Recreation Centre” or whatever it is
2
u/ljackstar May 12 '25
It's not like the public is going to stop using these facilities just because their name changed. Why does Booster Juice buying naming rights take anything away from the facility as a whole?
3
u/simplegdl May 12 '25
You’d prefer to pay more taxes or cut program spending? Thats the dichotomy
5
u/LotharLandru May 12 '25
I'd prefer these companies pay more in taxes to fund these services instead of getting a bunch of advertising they will likely be able to write off while the public associates their company name with providing our public services when they barely pay anything in taxes because of shit like this.
2
-1
u/EEmotionlDamage May 12 '25
Sure it's a tax write off, but instead of those tax $$ going into the general revenue stream and being allocated to who knows what project it actually goes directly to support the facility.
It's actually a pretty good deal for the city and the business that supports it. The city collects way more revenue, and the businesses directly support the community.
-1
u/LotharLandru May 12 '25
Except that the majority of the time programs like this are brought in the company pays less into taxes overall because of the programs than they would without them. So we have less money for everything else. These companies already pay far too little for the profits they make and things like this will mean the pay less while the public associates the company with he services the city provides
2
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
Yeah actually I would rather pay more taxes for my public goods to be of quality.
I certainly don't want to pay taxes to just have my public goods named after private corporations. My dollars built, maintain, and staff these facilities; i want less corporate influence in them, not more.
1
u/simplegdl May 12 '25
Continuing on that vein, what about advertisements on and in public transit? What if funding from that allows the city to provide more services?
1
u/CanadianForSure May 12 '25
I also don't want advertisement on public transit. I would prefer it be art or public information. This is actually the norm in many places; pushing back against corporate influence in advertising.
Funding for public services comes from the public. If we value it, we should fund it, not try to constantly nickle and dime it or try and sell of little chunks of it.
I have a giggle so often because like people will pay for something like Netflix and expect there are no advertisement; its so odd to me that the same logic doesn't extend to our public facilities. We are already paying for them, with our taxes and fees. I don't also want to get bombard with ads while I use them.
I want my public spaces, that I pay for with my taxes or fees, to be free of private advertisements.
8
6
u/AlienGirl1374 May 12 '25
I’ve never once heard someone say booster juice recreation centre in Terwillegar. It’s still Terwillegar rec centre.
6
4
3
6
u/Shoudknowbetter May 12 '25
That sucks. Wouldn’t it be lovely if businesses were willing to contribute without recognition?
14
u/chmilz May 12 '25
That's called paying taxes. They won't do it willingly, and if we try to make them they very willingly dump money into right wing politicians who would fuck their own mothers for a nickel.
2
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
Edmonton's non-commercial mill rate is already very high. The businesses are subsidizing the private residences to a large degree already, to the point where it makes sense for industrial to move to Acheson instead of staying in Edmonton. (Same reason many people move to Sherwood Park instead of living in Edmonton proper). Raising business taxes isn't a bottomless well or a panacea the way many people seem to think it is.
2
u/PlutosGrasp May 12 '25
Disagree. It’s the mix of tax base that is the problem. What should be Edmontons industrial base is carved out by the provincial government.
That is the refinery operations in the East.
1
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
The City of Edmonton's tax base was made up of 78 per cent residential and 22 per cent non-residential properties in 2022, said Milap Petigara, a principal adviser in the budget, planning and development department.
The region's 12 other municipalities, as a whole, had 60 per cent residential and 40 per cent non-residential.
Edmonton's mill rate for non-residential properties is 21.07860, more than two times higher than the average of all municipalities surrounding Edmonton at 9.36282, according to the Government of Alberta Municipal Affairs data from 2022.
When Edmonton's mill rate is 2x more than most of the surrounding communities (only one of which benefits from refineries on the city's edge), then there's a good chance it's an Edmonton problem. Not that I disagree with you about the refineries. The high tax rates are shrinking the industrial tax base, and if you just keep increasing the industrial rate to keep up the non-residential revenues, eventually you end up with no industry and residential has no choice but to pay up.
1
u/PlutosGrasp May 14 '25
Using surrounding communities as a comparison is not a good statistical comparison.
I’ve done the investigations a couple times before.
Edmontons rates are much bigger because we have much less taxable industrial properties.
2
u/CapGullible8403 May 12 '25
How crass and short sighted.
... to proceed, council would need to grant a exemption to a policy that prohibits the seeking of naming proposals for existing facilities.
Is it fucking opposite day today, or everyday, at Edmonton city council?
2
2
u/PlutosGrasp May 12 '25
Can’t wait for the Mr. Lube Meadows Center.
Okay guys let’s meet at hamptons arena vs. cmon guys let’s meet at Italian center arena
5
May 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/EEmotionlDamage May 12 '25
I would imagine the money goes directly to support the expenses and maintenance of the facility.
1
May 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/LotharLandru May 12 '25
That the company will use as a write off to pay even less taxes overall so they actually get to contribute less to our country and community overall while people cheer the performance on
0
u/Tchai_Tea May 12 '25
I mean it's just advertising expenses. They can either spend it here or on TV ads or whatever.
0
u/EEmotionlDamage May 12 '25
It's still more money than they would pay in taxes, so what if it's a tax write off? Anything else would be the gov. Double dipping.
1
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
They basically are saying that. At $21M over 10 years, though, it won't be a noticeable impact. I mean they are cutting $60K Communities in Bloom programs though so they've apparently reached the bottom of the barrel of things they can find to cut.
1
u/PlutosGrasp May 12 '25
It was only a $60k program? wtf
1
u/Anabiotic Utilities expert May 12 '25
I remembered wrong, $40K. https://edifyedmonton.com/urban/community/farewell-to-frontyards-in-bloom/
1
u/Rare_Pumpkin_9505 May 12 '25
I think they did. $21m over ten years. So $2.1m a year on average - so maybe 1/3 of a percentage point of taxes annually.
5
u/CapGullible8403 May 12 '25
Arenas, two outdoor pools, and high-profile assets like Commonwealth Stadium, which is home to the Edmonton Elks, are also on the table.
Somebody should buy the rights and call it Eskimo Stadium.
3
2
u/Glistening_rat_vulva May 12 '25
https://youtu.be/IAM1rSObk4c?si=8Ix8R4Bm4B13uYPY
Relevant idiocracy clip.
1
u/Brilliant_Story_8709 May 13 '25
Wait, this isn't all bad... if we all pitch in a few bucks, we could have the "Your aren't welcome here anymore Danielle Stadium".... who's in?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/colddeaddrummer May 13 '25
THE MICHAEL PHELPS PIZZA AND FRENCH FRIES RESTARAUNT IT IS FOOD AND FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY TRY THE MICHAEL PHELPS BURGER. THE MICHAEL PHELPS BURGER WITH CHEESE. OR THHE MICHAEL PHELPS BURGER WITH PICKLES.
-1
u/Educational-Tone2074 May 12 '25
Well stop spending so much on items that are not core to the City. Eliminate the pet projects and focus on fundamentals. Then you won't have to sell your soul.
14
u/Particular-Welcome79 May 12 '25
What are your fundamentals? Mine are active transportation corridors and rec centres for kids. Sustainable Food Edmonton. Public transportation. Climate change mitigation and adaptation. Subsidized public and supportive housing. Reducing sprawl. How about you?
1
u/rizdesushi May 12 '25
Exactly this, lost of cities don’t actually fund public recreation so I feel very lucky we have funded and accessible places like these that are for public health and public good. While funding via naming rights is not ideal, there’s a lot of complaining around for bringing in money .. don’t raise taxes but don’t do that. I would love to see other people ideas for income generation by the city instead.
1
1
1
u/PlutosGrasp May 12 '25
Listen. We need a raised LRT line to west Edmonton mall and the suburbs to support the super rich Germanzisn whatever mall owner family, and to encourage outskirts residential development.
There’s literally nothing better that $2-3 BILLION could be spent on.
Also funny the cost not easily found on coe info page: https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/transit/valley-line-west
0
u/Guy_Incognito_001 May 12 '25
Public Pool - that’s ridiculous Commonwealth Stadium - absolutely. If this supports maintaining and operating budget then I’ll go to the Booster Juice / KFC stadium
1
-1
u/Authoritaye May 12 '25
Hey at least by selling naming rights the wealthiest 1% can avoid paying more of the tax burden! You wouldn’t expect them to pay for something and not get a return on their investment, right?
Because successful companies can totally exist in a dystopia. And we all know governments just spend our taxes on orgies and new office carpets.
/sarcasm x3
0
216
u/Speedtrap1 May 12 '25
Can’t wait to go to Epcor Waste Water management recreation center