Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I've made the analysis: It's a massive financial risk with dubious benefits. Nothing emotional about it. What's emotional is the BidCo saying they're sending out athletes and representatives to schools to pump up the bid. They're sending reps....to non-voters....because they have an analysis based case to make? Yeah I don't think so. Surely, you can admit that is a very poor look for such an "analysis" based case that they aren't going to voters to make the case, but to children. The Yes side came into chambers this week and played a video made up entirely of clips of 1988 and 2010. Does that sound like an analysis based case? Sadly you probably won't answer, but I would seriously love to hear your thoughts on that. Pretty tough to say they're not going to be making their push primarily on emotion. Because the financial case is mediocre, at best.
Of course I can admit Calgary is not on the hook for security overruns, that seems confirmed. And that's good. The other overruns? Yes they certainly are, unless you believe getting that insurance policy will be easy. Can they really get the insurance policy they say? Based off what I read, not really, or it will come with extremely restrictive terms and/or a high premium.
But this is an emotional debate. As I said the financial benefits are in the eye of the beholder, if you love the Olympics you will find ways to make the numbers seem great, and if you hate it you'll find reasons to tear the numbers apart. But the evidence is more on the against side, and surely you know that. And if you don't, then the age old question applies: If it's such a good financial deal, why are cities walking away more than ever?
|
And they also spent 7.5 hours on their feet presenting their case and answerinq questions about the bid in addition to the what, 9 hours on Sept 11 where they did the same thing in a presentation to council. Plus the info sessions they hold plus the bid presentation they gave at Jack Singer where they outlined the SWOT analysis of the bid.
Most people I know are voting yes based on the short term and long term benefits outweighing the costs. They see worth in a big investment in our community as well as an opportunity to showcase arts, sports and culture.
So it's pretty unfair to think that you are the only one that is thinking objectively when your only argument to that point is "your conclusion is different than mine".