[News] UPD: Calgary City Council approves exploratory bid study for 2026 Olympics

[powderjunkie]

Our Olympic big would not have to consist of "Hi IOC, here is a blank chequebook, now we will bend over and let you have your way with us."

The key thing will be include strict parameters to avoid the typical greasiness. Easier said than done, and it would not be without it's problems, but I see this as a negotiation between parties with fairly equal leverage (neither really needs the other, but there are many reasons that each would want to work together).

A failed bid would be some wasted money, but we would get some value out of it (a thorough evaluation of costs/necessity to upgrade various facilities, which would be useful in determining priorities regardless of Olympics).

[polak]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Building facilities and infrastructure for the Olympics seems far more grandiose and enticing a prospect than building for the Calgary Flames / Stampeders / Local athletes. But i agree with the above poster in saying that you're not the brightest bulb if you're very against one and supportive of the other, seeing as, beyond the spectacle, both are working towards achieving practically the same thing. And will help facilitate virtually the same things, long term. And hold a lot of the same positives and negatives. And both have money hungry organizations/individuals that will be behind them. So.. um, yeah. Pick your poison pretty much. But if you want the city to escalate its game on the world map, either/both are worth jumping on.

What. This logic only works if for some ridiculous reason you think CalgaryNEXT will have the same world recognition as the Olympics. If you believe that you must seriously overestimate how much recognition a fancy arena gets. Theres multiple Stadium/Arena mega projects already built in the world. Could you name one? I guarantee you're not naming one before CalgaryNEXT was announced.

To compare that to the Olympics is asinine

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by polak

What. This logic only works if for some ridiculous reason you think CalgaryNEXT will have the same world recognition as the Olympics.

The logic only fails if for some ridiculous reason you think the purpose of building new sports facilities is to gain world recognition. The new facilities provide amenities to the local population, whether or not anybody in Monaco or Mali or Malaysia ever hears of them.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The logic only fails if for some ridiculous reason you think the purpose of building new sports facilities is to gain world recognition. The new facilities provide amenities to the local population, whether or not anybody in Monaco or Mali or Malaysia ever hears of them.

How can you possibly compare the Olympics to an arena? There not even in the same stratosphere. The Olympics provides REAL benefits for a large variety of local athletes and creates facilities that would never have neen built otherwise. They bring the entire world to Calgary for 2 weeks which not only helps the economy during the games but putting Calgary back on the map will likely help tourism long term.

CalgaryNEXT will provide a YMCA and a bunch of millionares a new home for their sports teams with less seating so they can charge the people more money.

[iggyformayor]

Originally Posted by polak

How can you possibly compare the Olympics to an arena? There not even in the same stratosphere. The Olympics provides REAL benefits for a large variety of local athletes and creates facilities that would never have neen built otherwise. They bring the entire world to Calgary for 2 weeks which not only helps the economy during the games but putting Calgary back on the map will likely help tourism long term.

CalgaryNEXT will provide a YMCA and a bunch of millionares a new home for their sports teams with less seating so they can charge the people more money.

He's not....

[polak]

Originally Posted by iggyformayor

He's not....

Um he is if hes saying you cant be against taxpayer funds going to CalgaryNEXT if you're for an Olympic bid.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

How can you possibly compare the Olympics to an arena? There not even in the same stratosphere. The Olympics provides REAL benefits for a large variety of local athletes and creates facilities that would never have neen built otherwise. They bring the entire world to Calgary for 2 weeks which not only helps the economy during the games but putting Calgary back on the map will likely help tourism long term.

CalgaryNEXT will provide a YMCA and a bunch of millionares a new home for their sports teams with less seating so they can charge the people more money.

This historically has not been found to be true. The benefits touted for the Olympics are as dubious as the benefits touted for a new arena.

The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GGG

This historically has not been found to be true. The benefits touted for the Olympics are as dubious as the benefits touted for a new arena.

The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price.

Tell that to all of the athletes that trained in the facilities built for the 88 games.... Maybe in a lot of places the facilities end up not being used but when it done right like in Calgary and Vancouver, they do have uses.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

This historically has not been found to be true. The benefits touted for the Olympics are as dubious as the benefits touted for a new arena.

The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price.

Yeah, how many people are going to be vacationing in Brazil now because of the Olympics, or opening branch offices of software companies. And London - now that city is really on the map

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

Tell that to all of the athletes that trained in the facilities built for the 88 games.... Maybe in a lot of places the facilities end up not being used but when it done right like in Calgary and Vancouver, they do have uses.

I believe I addressed that in my second sentence. I'll repeat it for you since you chose not to read it the first time.

The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price.

- Also the ski jump is pretty sweet.

[Senator Clay Davis]

GGG is spot on here, there is very little difference between the arena and the Olympics when it comes to the general public benefit. The benefits of both are generally vastly overstated, almost always by the entities that benefit most from them. If anything I'm gonna slightly favor the benefits of the arena (even if I think both are bad ideas) for one crucial reason: The Olympic security cost. The security cost now is so high that it really makes hosting at best a minor money loser, but more than likely there will be at least a billion gone from the governments coffers that will never come back. Just to host the incredibly corrupt IOC. Purge the IOC and maybe there can be some worth there.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, how many people are going to be vacationing in Brazil now because of the Olympics, or opening branch offices of software companies. And London - now that city is really on the map

I don't know about that Cliff, there were as many negative as there was positive things about Rio in these games, and skilled labor(IT staff) is not really that cheap in Brazil, certainly not compared to low cost centers like Bangalore or San Jose(Costa Rica). London was already on the map.

That being said, Vancouver had the Sea to Sky twined by the feds and the provincial government helped with the airport LRT line. If Calgary can get stuff like that out of the deal it could work out.

[GGG]

i should clarify that I am pro olympics and anti Calgary next. I just think we should be real clear that we are spending money on infrastructure and to feel good for a few months and not fool ourselves into buying the false economics

I have to rethink why I have a different view point on be to but mainly it's because I think the stadium portion of Calgary Next is uneeded and the Arena can be built without as much subsidy as currently proposed.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't know about that Cliff, there were as many negative as there was positive things about Rio in these games, and skilled labor(IT staff) is not really that cheap in Brazil, certainly not compared to low cost centers like Bangalore or San Jose(Costa Rica). London was already on the map.

That being said, Vancouver had the Sea to Sky twined by the feds and the provincial government helped with the airport LRT line. If Calgary can get stuff like that out of the deal it could work out.

Yeah not to be a Debbie downer here but we don't have enough social license to have that kind of pull on the Feds or provincial MLA's.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by GGG

This historically has not been found to be true. The benefits touted for the Olympics are as dubious as the benefits touted for a new arena.

The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price.

I've never seen it put this way, but I like it so much. It sums it up so concisely. Kudos

I'd like to expand on the idea of price though (note, "+" means cash in, "-" means cash out).
Price=
- Infrastructure cash costs
+ Subsidies
+ Operating income of the Games themselves (Ticket revenue, TV revenue, labor costs, security costs, etc....note this could very possibly be negative so a "-")
+ Taxes from increased economic activity during the games in the city during the games (hotels, food, etc...i.e. likely positive)
+ Operating income of future events in those facilities (I.e. taxes I'd assume positive)
+ Taxes from increased economic activity during future events in the city during the games (hotels, food, etc...i.e. likely positive)
- Maintenance and sustaining capital of the infrastructure

Note that in all of those line items, we as citizens would not receive or spend all of that. It's more complicated that that. Especially the operating income line items. Let's say the games turn an operating profit, who gets that?

The point is really just to say that "Price" needs to consider many aspects and a long time frame. But I think that's a decent first pass at identifying the buckets associated with "price" in this discussion?

Originally Posted by polak

Tell that to all of the athletes that trained in the facilities built for the 88 games.... Maybe in a lot of places the facilities end up not being used but when it done right like in Calgary and Vancouver, they do have uses.

These would be examples that fits into GGG's
"The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price" bucket

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

That being said, Vancouver had the Sea to Sky twined by the feds and the provincial government helped with the airport LRT line. If Calgary can get stuff like that out of the deal it could work out.

Oh, I see. So it's bad if local taxpayers are taxed for infrastructure that many of them are actually going to use, but it's just fine if federal taxpayers are taxed for infrastructure that most of them will never even see?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

GGG is spot on here, there is very little difference between the arena and the Olympics when it comes to the general public benefit. The benefits of both are generally vastly overstated, almost always by the entities that benefit most from them. If anything I'm gonna slightly favor the benefits of the arena (even if I think both are bad ideas) for one crucial reason: The Olympic security cost. The security cost now is so high that it really makes hosting at best a minor money loser, but more than likely there will be at least a billion gone from the governments coffers that will never come back. Just to host the incredibly corrupt IOC. Purge the IOC and maybe there can be some worth there.

It's probably a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme, but lining the pockets and kissing the asses of IOC sleazes kind of turns my stomach and is a good enough reason to me to not get involved.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Oh, I see. So it's bad if local taxpayers are taxed for infrastructure that many of them are actually going to use, but it's just fine if federal taxpayers are taxed for infrastructure that most of them will never even see?

I get your point, but that's what we pay federal taxes for -- to pay for stuff all over the country. I don't begrudge the twinning of a highway in BC with federal dollars. It needed to be done anyway.

About a year ago the federal government promised 1.5 billion for the Green Line in Calgary, for example. Most people in this country are never going to see — let alone use — the CTrain.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I get your point, but that's what we pay federal taxes for -- to pay for stuff all over the country.

Well, er, no. We pay federal taxes to pay for the operations of the federal government. But because our actual working constitution (not the lovely piece of paper dated 1982) was written by Professor Fubar and the Buck-Passing Society, no level of government is capable of minding its own business and raising its own funds any longer.

So local governments spend provincial and federal money, often wastefully, and crow: ‘Look at us! We gave you all this free stuff and didn't raise local taxes!’ Provincial governments do the same thing with federal money; and the federal government pays the bill and laughs, because nobody is holding it to account in any meaningful way, and the only way to opt out of the bill is to leave the country.

It's a hell of a way to run a railroad. If I had my druthers, each level of government would be 100% responsible for funding projects in its areas of jurisdiction, and as far as humanly possible, there would be no overlap between them. Then voters would have a meaningful way of measuring the value that they get for their buck at each level.

In any case, it is highly disingenuous (for instance) to pretend that the Olympics are profitable, by counting federal and provincial subsidies as revenue. Properly speaking, those subsidies consist of the general public picking up the tab for the (massive) losses.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, er, no. We pay federal taxes to pay for the operations of the federal government.

Yeah, and the operation of the federal government includes paying for stuff in their jurisdiction, which is the entire country. You can give me another civics lesson if you like, but that's the deal.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by GGG

- Also the ski jump is pretty sweet.

Too bad it doesn't work anymore (and one reason why the Eddie the Eagle movie wasn't filmed here). Winsport barely scraped together enough funding to keep maintenance on the small ones going for a few more years. It's not bad though, considering the structures are almost 30 years old, expensive to maintain, and have marginal uses.