There’s no compelling argument for a public subsidy for a new downtown arena in Calgary. The stick and the carrot that drove Edmonton city council to become full partners with the multi-billionaire owner of the Edmonton Oilers simply don’t exist in Calgary.

In Edmonton, the fear of losing the Oilers to another market and the hope that a new arena would spur major development in Edmonton’s mediocre downtown pushed city council to invest public money and agree to build a new $480-million arena. Private dollars will pay off half the mortgage, with the city’s portion largely covered by property taxes from the new skyscrapers and buildings now planned or being built in the arena district.

The fear of Edmonton losing its NHL team weighed on city council. Edmonton almost lost the Oilers to Houston in 1998. But even in the worst days of the 1990s, when Winnipeg and Quebec City lost their NHL teams, Calgary, with its wealthy base of corporate season ticket holders, was secure.

When the Flames franchise was on far more shaky ground in the early 1980s, it made sense for three levels of government to kick in $100 million to build the Saddledome. But Flamenomics have evolved. The Flames are now ranked by Forbes as the 13th most valuable franchise in the NHL. There’s no other new North American hockey market where that value wouldn’t crash, along with the season ticket base.

The Flames franchise is rock solid in Calgary, just like the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver franchises were in their cities in the 1990s when their owners decided to invest their own dollars and build new arenas.

City council in Edmonton also made a deal because Edmonton’s downtown had been full of vacant gravel parking lots for decades. Edmonton was desperate for a catalyst project to help turn around its core. Calgary’s downtown needs no such boost. It has hummed along for decades.

Most crucially, public money is needed in Calgary for more important public priorities, such as rapid transit and roads.

The Saddledome is aging, but serviceable and already on the outskirts of downtown. Its main flaw? Flames boss Brian Burke complains the arena doesn’t have enough premium seats. “A building has … to generate NHL economics, which ours does not,” Burke said last June. “Lower bowl in a new arena, in the new generation of arenas, is 9,000 seats, minimum. Ours is what, 6,000?”

No doubt, the Flames would like to have more premium and costly seating, but that is surely the concern of Burke and his owners, not the public.

You can bet that the Flames owners will come out with a compelling vision of a public-private partnership to create a thriving sports and entertainment district, perhaps in the under-developed West Village along the Bow River.

The 45-hectare West Village area does indeed need work. Calgary council has looked at cleaning up polluted factory grounds and investing in roads and other infrastructure there, a public investment that may well have merit and would certainly kickstart private investment, including the building of a new private arena.

But there’s no need for massive public investment. North America’s best arena district in Columbus, Ohio, received only a $43-million public subsidy to build infrastructure. Nationwide Insurance came up with the business case for the project, then bought the land from the city, built the arena, the condos and the other amenities. With so much skin in the game, the company was driven to make a beautiful and welcoming development.

In Columbus, this excellent example of private enterprise only happened after five plebiscites over two decades, where the public voted down attempts to get a public subsidy for a downtown arena. Both council and the public had to repeatedly stand firm.

In Calgary, Mayor Naheed Nenshi has consistently been opposed to public investment in an arena. He’s got it right so far, but he’ll have to remain steadfast because NHL owners chasing the public dollar are relentless.

Journal city hall columnist David Staples covered the Edmonton arena debate.