[Senator Clay Davis]

So let's just go ahead and ignore the financial arguments, shall we? I know that seems rich coming from my non-stop negativity about this thing, but I said this last week, and it's true, the financial arguments are in the eye of the beholder. If you love the Olympics and want Calgary to host, you will find a way to spin the numbers to show the Olympics are a financially prudent move. A lot of the benefits are impossible to calculate, so it makes it easier to spin. If you don't want the Olympics, then you will find ways to make the numbers seem catastrophic, even though this bid is mostly financial sound, albeit underwhelming.

So it will all come down to the emotional argument, and the Yes side clearly knows this hence why they're turning up the nostalgia to 1000 this week. Seeing as they have literally every single cent in this race, along with high profile backers with millions of social media followers, they certainly have the ground game advantage to try and drown us to death in it. So it seems there's nothing to debate anymore on the financial merits (or lack thereof) of this project. So I'm not going to anymore. I'll just stick to the emotional debates.

So here's my first emotional argument: The last two weeks. We've all been paying attention to this ever evolving bid that still somehow isn't a final pitchable product despite being promised to have enough time to review (30 days minimum, as I recall). Even right now there is still not absolute clarity on security cost funding, how the Whistler component will work, and one of the most touted legacies is already being cut in housing. It's also worth remembering that a majority of council voted to kill this bid, and they have access to all the information, including the plethora of closed door meetings. We elect these people to act in our interest, and a majority think it should be killed. Because they know the last two weeks have shown what a mess this whole thing has been from the start.

So, obvious question, but why should we trust the people involved in this process to be honest, trustworthy, and forthright when they transition from cheerleader to implementer? I know Yes backers will point to the library as proof we can believe they'll do well, but the library is actually a terrible argument IMO. The library is one of those big legacy projects and....it didn't need the Olympics. We can do big, meaningful projects without the Olympics, clearly. It's too bad we can't always show that ambition, because while the Yes side will say bidding is showing ambition, this is the least ambitious Olympic bid ever by a considerable margin. And I would hardly call hosting the Olympics actually ambitious, if anything it's a cop out because the IOC desperately need a non-dictator to host. This is a marriage of convenience more than a bold move.

Which leads into my second emotional argument: The legacy sucks. Sorry, but to all but the staunchest Yes supporter it does. The Yes backers can tout the legacy all they'd like, but I can kill the bid in one fell swoop: Take the fieldhouse out. Without that it's seriously nothing but refurbs, and none that are truly exciting, which sort of shows how lacking in ambition this bid is. And you can't even claim housing yet, because given that they've already slashed some, and given their massive budget issues upcoming, can we really rule out selling all units at market to generate desperately needed revenue? Especially when every Olympic bid since 2000 has promised affordable housing, and there currently exactly zero units of affordable housing from those bids. Do we really think a government that is drowning in the red is going to pass up the chance to cash in? Unless it is a legal guarantee those units will be affordable housing, perhaps the only meaningful legacy from this could easily become nothing.

Thankfully there's only one week left, I'm sure we're all sick of this #### and wished it would be over already. And maybe if the BidCo did a better job from the start, this would be a lot more cut and dry. Instead they've botched this entire process and are hoping that tugging the heart strings will be enough because their logic argument has failed. I still think No wins, the early voting numbers are apparently a record and I think there's no doubt No is more energized than Yes. But Yes has all the money (and for a rare once it can be said literally all the money), and dollars are still how elections are won. So we shall see.