Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Missing from the Calgary contribution is 180 million in contingency for the insurance policy they cannot purchase. This increases the Calgary Contribution to 570 million. The federal contribution will likely be spent on an international sporting event regardless of if Calgary bids or not. The provincial Money is money that won’t be spent if the Olympics aren’t held therefore comes from tax dollars which means between 1/3 and all should be counted when assessing the costs of the Olympics.
Legacy
Mcmahon - 80 million (from estimates around the time of Calgary next)
Oval - 30 million (CBEC bid report)
Sliding Center - 9 million (CBEC bid report)
Nakiska - ????? - they had 45 million in CBEC report but that didn’t include a new lift on a new peak.
BMO/Big 4- ??? CBEC included 80 million for just BMO
Nordic Center - 9 million (CBEC)
Whistler - ?????
Winsport - ????
Saddledome - 10 million (CBEC)
Note I am using Capital maintenance requirement as opposed to the Olympic requirement for the which likely makes up some of the difference between the CBEC final report vs the bidco report.
I certainly do not feel we are getting good value for that 500 million. The Saddledome, Whistler, Nakiska and the Big 4 upgrades are complete wastes of money with no justification outside of the games
For housing the budget is now 490 million for 1800 units with 500 units of market housing. 800 are committed as low income / senior so really only half of this spend is public benefit. So 217 million. If the remaining 500 units are also low income this rises to 350 million
400 million in a new field house and new 5000 seat arena. Around the time of Calgary next the field house was estimated by the city to be 202 million (2017 dollars). We don’t need a 5000 seat arena. So for new facilities the Olympics brings 200 million in value.
180 million in Legacy funding for venue maintenance. This is an important contribution that often gets missed.
Risk. - City is on the hook for all risks including security. An estimate at this stage is likely a +30% estimate. This bid has 20% contingency so the risk is 10%. This project will be considered within the margin of error of the estimate if it goes 500 million over the current budget. Given the history of the Olympics it’s reasonable to add in this risk money.
So when I add up the infrastructure I believe will be spent with or without the games I get 850 million in benefit (high end of housing estimate). The cost I include all the provincial contribution and the 180 million so get 1.27 billion in costs plus 500 million in risk.
About two years ago I said that the best case of Olympics is we get a reduced cost on infrastructure we need, the worst case is you get an inflated cost for infrastructure we don’t need. In this case we come out in the middle and pay 1.27 billion for 850 million worth of stuff and risk another 500 million. This is not good enough.
There is No C-Train to the airport, No new Stadium and a ton of risk to the city. No credible economist believes the 10-1 benefit, we are being misled about the insurance product and the cost over runs.
Despite all the above the Olympics would be awesome to host so I understand why people would vote yes, just own it and say the two week party is worth it.
I’m unfortunately voting with my head and not my heart. So it’s a no.
|
Great post and really boils it all down. Well done.
The bolded is exactly where i am at as well. Two of the most fun weeks of my life were in February of 1988, and more than anything i would love to re-live that as well as see so many who weren't around get to experience the same thing. It really was magical time for this city.
It would be irresponsible though IMO, as the return we are getting for taking on a giant risk with years of potential tax increases to cover said return, just isn't worth what has been proposed. No new stadium and no new arena, simply means this is a non-starter for me. Building another small arena is just ludicrous and a total waste of money and opportunity to truly make the legacy part of this thing a selling point. Who is going to occupy it after it's built?
There are so few guaranteed benefits for the money being sunk into it, that im surprised so many are supportive.
I still wish something tangible would come out and allow me to change my mind, but at this point that's not happening.