Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's pretty obvious he means the province. They're the ones making funding contingent on a plebiscite, so he wants them to pay for the plebiscite. Is that a crazy position? I don't think so.
|
I know that. But in my opinion people in the City of Calgary want the plebiscite yet the mayor says we don't. He said in no uncertain terms people living in Calgary do not want to give an opinion on the issue and we're too uninformed to give an opinion. So it is exceedingly arrogant of an elected official to say that.
Quote:
|
Has he said this somewhere? Because he didn't in the statement you quoted. He's talking about scheduling - if the bid is going forward, the city's going to have to start working on it, probably before the plebiscite occurs. If they hold the plebiscite too early, there won't be enough time for people voting to inform themselves to make the right decision.
|
So there is enough information to go ahead with a bid on the Olympics, yet there is not enough information to have a plebiscite on it. And that doesn't seem a little arrogant? He said that a no vote would mean wasting all this money on a bid. Yet going ahead with a bid proposal without any information is not a waste of money. The '88 Olympics were a success because everybody was on board. It's silly to assume that is the case now.
If we have enough information to spend 30 million on a bid, then we have enough information to hold a plebiscite on it. People who want to spend money for a great party and the off chance that it "puts us on the map" seem to have enough information for their position. Vice versa should also be true.
We also have already spend a bunch of money and two years studying figuring out that it's going to cost 4.6 billion to hold the Olympics and that wasn't enough information to proceed to a vote for the average Joe. My argument is if you don't have enough information to proceed then don't proceed. If proceeding costs upwards of 50 million then pump the breaks a bit.