Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Faust

Economic benefits of Calgary 2026 Olympic Games 'absolutely overstated,' say 2 economists

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...heck-1.4819731

this commentary makes sense to me. I'd love to see a list a government projects in this province over the last 5 to 10 yrs and one column of data could have the budgeted price and the second could have the actual and I'd assume that one average the over-run was probably in the 25% range - but that is a WAG.

Perhaps this has been dealt with somewhere else, but does anyone have any insight into how exactly the plebescite will work. If 40% of calgarians vote, and the vote is split 50/50 - then what? what if the vote is 70/30 one way or the other. Or how about 52/48 one way.

how do you deal with the large group that did not vote? do you just ignore them and work with the votes that were cast?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Yes please. That’s a great return on investment looking at it purely as a Calgarian. Hope people realize it.

Calgarians also pay provincial and federal taxes. So while it may or may not be a good return on investment, it's misleading to look at it as though the provincial and federal funding all comes out of other peoples' pockets. Roughly 35 per cent of the provincial funding and 5 per cent of the federal funding would also be paid by Calgarians.

[Senator Clay Davis]

If it was a good return on investment, or if the economic benefits were even half of what is claimed, why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid? Why have fewer and fewer cities bid as the years have gone on? This is where Olympic supporters have to inject things that are basically immeasurable to try and make the sell.

[stampsx2]

YES CALGARY!

Who here is looking to save the federal government money by not having the olympics? The government isn't going to save that money or invest it and they certainly aren't going to give you a cheque for the amount we didn't spend. Are we the province that only gives money in transfer payments then tells the government not to bother spending money on us?

If we don't have an olympics the federal goverment is going to spend that money on other events. They aren't going to thank Alberta for not having the Olympics.

Bombardier gets a bailout, dairy industry is getting 3.5 billion in subsidies coming up, the auto sector gets bailouts and protections, Vancouver get's an olympics., Winnipeg got a pan am games. What does Alberta get?

The government just spent 4.5 billion on a pipeline that's going nowhere.

Give it a rest people. The government isn't in the business of saving money.

Do you people honestly think if Quebec had an opportunity for a commonwealth games they wouldn't take government funding and not think twice?

IT'S OUR TURN ALBERTA

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

YES CALGARY!

Who here is looking to save the federal government money by not having the olympics? The government isn't going to save that money or invest it and they certainly aren't going to give you a cheque for the amount we didn't spend. Are we the province that only gives money in transfer payments then tells the government not to bother spending money on us?

If we don't have an olympics the federal goverment is going to spend that money on other events. They aren't going to thank Alberta for not having the Olympics.

Bombardier gets a bailout, dairy industry is getting 3.5 billion in subsidies coming up, the auto sector gets bailouts and protections, Vancouver get's an olympics., Winnipeg got a pan am games. What does Alberta get?

The government just spent 4.5 billion on a pipeline that's going nowhere.

Give it a rest people. The government isn't in the business of saving money.

Do you people honestly think if Quebec had an opportunity for a commonwealth games they wouldn't take government funding and not think twice?

IT'S OUR TURN ALBERTA

I agree with everything you said, but the Federal government isn't paying enough in to this for all those factors to negate the tax burden on the City and Province. If the Feds get up to 80% and agree to back stop any overruns I'd be with you and flip from No to Yes.

[nik-]

It's a childish way to look at it. We're not getting our fair share, so lets waste more. That money has to come from somewhere, and considering the disproportionate burden this province bears in the revenue stream, where do you think that's coming from?

[DiracSpike]

From Alberta, disproportionally yea you're correct. But currently that money is funding public transit infrastructure in Vancouver and an arena in Quebec City, places that hate our Province. So #### it.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

From Alberta, disproportionally yea you're correct. But currently that money is funding public transit infrastructure in Vancouver and an arena in Quebec City, places that hate our Province. So #### it.

Exactly. Let's have some money flow in to Calgary and Alberta for once instead of the other way around.

Yes, I get that a portion of the Provincial and Federal money is "Calgary money" as well, but the majority isn't and this time around my take is to say **** it and view it as free.

This is a good deal. The Herald article is not false propaganda. Please Calgarians, don't let the noisy "no" crowd lead you astray.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Exactly. Let's have some money flow in to Calgary and Alberta for once instead of the other way around.

Yes, I get that a portion of the Provincial and Federal money is "Calgary money" as well, but the majority isn't and this time around my take is to say **** it and view it as free.

This is a good deal. The Herald article is not false propaganda. Please Calgarians, don't let the noisy "no" crowd lead you astray.

Prove it please.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If it was a good return on investment, or if the economic benefits were even half of what is claimed, why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid? Why have fewer and fewer cities bid as the years have gone on? This is where Olympic supporters have to inject things that are basically immeasurable to try and make the sell.

Well, there are really only a limited number of cities capable of hosting the Winter Games.

First, you need a winter(ish) climate and close proximity to locales where the outdoor snow-based events can be held. On top of that, you need a mountain that's tall enough to host the Men's downhill.

Those two requirements eliminate the vast majority of cities worldwide. As great of a winter sports country as Canada is, because of the mountain requirement, Calgary and Vancouver are really the only cities in the country that are viable hosts.

Even in the US, there aren't that many more viable host cities. Salt Lake and Denver are the obvious ones. Seattle, Portland, Northern California, and Boston could all probably work as well.

Also, because the Winter Olympics are so big now, smaller cities like Lake Placid or Lillehammer just wouldn't be able to handle the crowds, so you need a relatively large city. This eliminates the winter resort type cities that used to be the go to for hosting the Winter Games.


Another big factor is the need to build arenas for the Games that may get limited use after the Games. That is much less of a factor in North America because we're much more into the arena sports like hockey and curling so those facilities are either already in place, or will get well-used after the Games.


When you add all those factors up (and I didn't even mention the broadcast rights revenue, which is higher for the games in North America), it's easier to see why hosting the Winter Games may not be a viable option for many cities around the world. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not viable for Calgary.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Doesn't explain why the summer Olympics are also getting fewer bids (like they didn't even have a bidding process for 2024/2028, they just gave them to Paris/LA). Also the last Winter Olympics were Sochi and Pyongchang, both resort cities.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's a childish way to look at it. We're not getting our fair share, so lets waste more. That money has to come from somewhere, and considering the disproportionate burden this province bears in the revenue stream, where do you think that's coming from?

This is a childish argument. Downgrading a comment because they don’t see it your way. Very childish. Childish would be Quebec saying if they don’t get what they want, they’re leaving. Check your definitions.

Weather the federal, provincial or municipal government pays for it it’s all out of our pockets.

The city of Calgary has a long list of infrastructure and service projects coming up. Example lrt and a field house. We can either pay for these projects with our municipal money, or we can use the 2.5 billion we receive from the IOC and games revenues.

Why would calgarians want to shoulder 100% of the tax burden when we can partially fund it through Olympic revenues.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Prove it please.

Haha ok

Vancouver Olympics break even in final ‘team effort’ budget

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...rt_budget.html




2010 Olympics: Vancouver Winter Games Gave Economy A $2.3 Billion Boost, Report

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/...n_1035427.html

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't know, maybe this is an unreasonable question, but isn't just about anything we spend here going to be subsidized by other orders of government to our advantage?

That is, let's say that because of additional infrastructure costs (roads, transit, whatever) an additional $2 billion is tacked on to the cost. Obviously, Calgarians will bear the brunt of that overrun. However, won't it be at least partially subsidized by the Province and the Feds (to a greater degree than if we just decided to build it, unattached to any Olympic budget)? And if it's stuff we want to build regardless, isn't that a win overall? Or is the problem that we'll end up spending so much money on stuff we don't actually want that it'll remove the benefit?

I guess, to put it another way, I'm wondering if the economic benefit - and there will be a substantial one, even if it doesn't get back to breaking even - covers the stuff we otherwise wouldn't have paid for if there were no Olympics, while the stuff we otherwise would have paid for, we end up getting for less than we would otherwise have paid for it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Doesn't explain why the summer Olympics are also getting fewer bids (like they didn't even have a bidding process for 2024/2028, they just gave them to Paris/LA). Also the last Winter Olympics were Sochi and Pyongchang, both resort cities.

The Summer Olympics are a whole different conversation.

The reason they awarded two games at once was because they were starting to see the frustration from big cities who were spending big money on losing bids and eventually giving up rather than re-bidding. Madrid is a good example, they lost out on 2012, 2016, and 2020 and finally walked away when it came time to bid for 2024.

There was a bid process for 2024 and it came down to LA and Paris. The IOC saw them as two very good bids and didn't want to lose one of them, so they offered 2028 to LA if they agreed to step aside for 2024.



Yes, Sochi and PyeongChang are resort cities, but they're not the same kind of resort cities that used to host the Winter Olympics.

Albertville has a population under 20,000. Lillehammer is under 30,000. Lake Placid's population is under 2,500.

Sochi has over 300,000 people. Gangneung, where the arena events were held in February, has over 200,000.

That's exactly the difference I was talking about when I said the small resort cities that used to host the Winter Games don't anymore. Now, a "small" host city has a population around a quarter million. Less than 30 years ago, it was 10-20% of that.

[OMG!WTF!]

Whenever someone says "it's like free money" I almost always believe them.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by getbak

Well, there are really only a limited number of cities capable of hosting the Winter Games.

I think the point is that even cities and countries that have traditionally hosted the games are backing out. A half-dozen European cities in places like Sweden and Austria have pulled out after losing plebiscites in recent years. Mature democracies with worrying public balance sheets (so pretty much all of them) don't want to host these things anymore. The cost is just too high relative to the benefit.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Whenever someone says "it's like free money" I almost always believe them.

So do dairy farmers in Quebec. 3.5 billion from the federal government, they didn’t earn.

[powderjunkie]

I'm really not sure how to feel about the process so far. Considering the complexity and number of stakeholders involved, I suppose it isn't surprising that so much seems half-baked and ambiguous, but at the same time, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be putting forward a 'shoestring' bid. If we can win the bid with both shoestring capital and operating plans, then hopefully we can target the most useful/appropriate enhancements on capital projects, but hold the evaporative operating expenses at the lower level (ie. allow for scope creep on capital, but not operations).

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think the point is that even cities and countries that have traditionally hosted the games are backing out. A half-dozen European cities in places like Sweden and Austria have pulled out after losing plebiscites in recent years. Mature democracies with worrying public balance sheets (so pretty much all of them) don't want to host these things anymore. The cost is just too high relative to the benefit.

So why do countries pull out if cities like Vancouver breaks even on the games? I think nimby’ism is a big part of it.

Vancouver Olympics break even in final ‘team effort’ budget

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2695994