Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There are very good reasons to bid on the games, but kickstarting the economy is not a valid one.

So Vancouver had a 17% cost overrun. Calgary would be run under a "budget" bid and has 18% contingency built in. Seems like a pretty safe bet.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Would you say on balance Calgary 88 and Vancouver 2010 were negative impacts?

I'm far, faaar to lazy to try and figure out what the true opportunity cost for either was. Without knowing that, can't honestly say. I would guess that on balance 88 was probably positive, 2010 totally negligible, and the 2026 would be negligible at best since the infrastructure legacy is so underwhelming and any notion of "increased profile/investment" because of hosting is such a humiliatingly bad point to try and make people should really stop making it. It's not 1988, and that is most definitely a 1988 argument.

[Northendzone]

i found other estimates that suggest the cost
for the g7 security was $650; however, i can use your number as well:

$395 m/ 2 days = $197.5 m per day

olympic bid $610 m/14 days = $43.6 m per day

i'd like some insight into how security can be provided for so much less in the future? Are robots going to save us $150 m per day?

I am trying to think of other products that have seen the price decrease by such a large amount over the past 15 years. TV's/PC's maybe. Nothing else is coming to mind.

Just strikes me that there is the real chance here that 1/3 or more of your contingency is likely gone, before you have put a shovel in teh ground, or opened up an electrical panel in mcmahon.

Originally Posted by gasman

Don't mistake this as being Pro-Olympics, I am am adamantly against this Olympic bid, but misinformation kills me, and I haven't seen anything that alludes to a $700MM budget for the G7 security costs.

The G7 Security budgets looked like this:

The RCMP had a budget of $259MM
National Defense $35MM
Public Safety Canada $99MM
CSIS: $2MM

source: Global News

Total $395MM

If there are actuals released already somewhere I couldn't find them.

We don't need to use hyperbole to know that this is a terribly executed bid.

[Lubicon]

I'm not sure it is valid to compare security costs for a G7 to the Olympics, they are vastly different events. Olympics are spread over a large area geographically and would present a large number of targets of low importance (relatively). The G7 is the 7 most powerful government leaders in the world but concentrated in a smaller footprint. To me those are very different things.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

So Vancouver had a 17% cost overrun. Calgary would be run under a "budget" bid and has 18% contingency built in. Seems like a pretty safe bet.

And Calgary 88 had a 59% over run. So which one do we beieve that this one wil be closer to?

That bid's budget accuracy and realism is very very much the problem though.

They can't even tell us who would cover overruns that may be 18% or could be far far more by the time 2026 rolls around.

Not to mention that the infrastructure proposed to be the "legacy" of spending 6 billion dollars, doesn't address 2 of the biggest things this city needs in regards to sports facilities. That's asinine to me.

Though even knowing ALL that, I am still hoping there is true clarification by BidCo on the known issues that allows me to change my mind.

[transplant99]

For those who want/need advanced voting opportunities, type your address in the search box on this link and you can go tomorrow or Wednesday.

https://thecityofcalgary.maps.arcgis...69b6bd1d839d9e

[Senator Clay Davis]

Interesting of Nenshi to admit the Yes side is losing right now. I mean it was kind of obvious when they resorted to the desperation of bringing in the guy Hugh Jackman plays in the movie, but still interesting admission

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059539075277905920

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by transplant99

And Calgary 88 had a 59% over run. So which one do we beieve that this one wil be closer to?

That bid's budget accuracy and realism is very very much the problem though.

They can't even tell us who would cover overruns that may be 18% or could be far far more by the time 2026 rolls around.

Not to mention that the infrastructure proposed to be the "legacy" of spending 6 billion dollars, doesn't address 2 of the biggest things this city needs in regards to sports facilities. That's asinine to me.

Though even knowing ALL that, I am still hoping there is true clarification by BidCo on the known issues that allows me to change my mind.

Well a few things. I would say neither 88 or 10 would be close to the reality of the budget games they want to put on combined with the fact that the bulk of the facilities exist. So you're renovating which is much easier to cost estimate.

Also, it's 4.3 Billion and does include some much needed facility upgrades, a field house, and also leaves the door open to getting a new rink built.

[OMG!WTF!]

The funniest thing the "yes guy" said on the radio today was his comparison of all the troubles Vancouver ran into that were previously unforeseen like the global economic crisis and lack of available capital, increased financing costs, the war on terror adding to security concerns and so many other things that will never effect Calgary 2026. That's funny.



We don't even know if Whistler or Canmore will let us use their stuff. But no way will there be any challenges to this iron clad budget.

[Weitz]

Where does the Yes side get all their money from? Company donations? BidCo?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Where does the Yes side get all their money from? Company donations? BidCo?

YesCalgary is totally funded by private donations...according to the guy on the radio. He was pretty clear about that. And good for them. It would also explain why their website doesn't work.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If the Olympics were the fast track to economic success, once again, cities would be tripping over themselves to bid instead of fleeing en masse as they currently are. The Olympics are a gamble that history tells us is far more likely to have no impact or negative impact than being some kind of financial windfall. I get the argument "Well if not this, then what is the plan", but perhaps the better question is "Why is this, as its proponents claim, the only plan that will work?".

There are very few examples to compare this too. I have said before that I may be less likely to vote yes should we be rolling along right now in a good economic climate. Fact is, everyone around us is not only doing good but many places are booming. Just about anything right now would help give us a boost and the example of comparing this to other games in cities that are not facing tough times is a comparison that can't hold much weight.

I guess the 1 thing we can agree on although worded differently is that "something" has to be done. Sitting on our hands and waiting this out isn't going to work. I see that something as a higher risk/higher reward Olympic bid that involves billion in outside money but also the potential of much of our own money while I assume you would like to see a much smaller risk taken but still something that involves pushing the economy up.

The bid for the 88 Olympic games came in the early 80s when the price of oil came crashing down and interest rates were sky high and all I ever hear people talk about was how it helped boost the city, morale was high and the games turned out to be great.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

The Calgary jumps are a no-go. Both because the big jump isn't suitable for competition anymore (landing area not sufficient, as well as the exposure to the crosswinds), but also because the setup for moguls and aerials would use the landing area and amphitheatre which would be a much more lucrative event anyway.



If there isn't a Whistler option and they had to start from scratch, finding an option at the Canmore Nordic Centre (unlikely) or Nakiska would be the only ones.

Interesting, if you read the bid it does not really specify exactly what they are going to do, just 75 if its in Calgary, 35 million for Whistler. So its a 40 million savings and would come out of the federal money not yet allocated if they have it in Whistler.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Interesting of Nenshi to admit the Yes side is losing right now. I mean it was kind of obvious when they resorted to the desperation of bringing in the guy Hugh Jackman plays in the movie, but still interesting admission

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059539075277905920

If Nenshi could get Moran under control, stop BidCo’s lying and actually present an honest platform; the yes side would probably do a lot better

[Bunk]

We definitely need a new poll.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If Nenshi could get Moran under control, stop BidCo’s lying and actually present an honest platform; the yes side would probably do a lot better

Yep.

Everything i've seen from BidCo is all smoke and mirrors. Numbers changing constantly over night, zero concrete ideas.

They've shot themselves in the foot with the entire process.

[Bunk]

I do not blame BidCo for the late breaking deal and some of the resulting numbers. The feds and province were very late to commit. For security numbers, it was at the recommendation of the RCMP and CPS. Some of the City's capital commitments like the Vic Park money were necessary to meet the matching fund requirement. Should these things been resolved earlier? Yes, absolutely. Is BidCo primarily responsible? No. They absolutely would have preferred all this to be locked down by June, when other orders of government had originally agreed.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

There are very few examples to compare this too. I have said before that I may be less likely to vote yes should we be rolling along right now in a good economic climate. Fact is, everyone around us is not only doing good but many places are booming. Just about anything right now would help give us a boost and the example of comparing this to other games in cities that are not facing tough times is a comparison that can't hold much weight.

I guess the 1 thing we can agree on although worded differently is that "something" has to be done. Sitting on our hands and waiting this out isn't going to work. I see that something as a higher risk/higher reward Olympic bid that involves billion in outside money but also the potential of much of our own money while I assume you would like to see a much smaller risk taken but still something that involves pushing the economy up.

The bid for the 88 Olympic games came in the early 80s when the price of oil came crashing down and interest rates were sky high and all I ever hear people talk about was how it helped boost the city, morale was high and the games turned out to be great.

The world is so much different now from 2008, or 1998, let alone 1988 (or 1981 when the bid was accepted). The Olympic boost here is minimal at best because in order for the finances of the Olympics to work anymore, it's gotta be a poverty games. So the days of bid spending on big projects is over (unless you're living in a dictatorship), because it's political suicide to do so. It's funny cause I can buy into a high risk project if the reward is worth it. The rewards from hosting the Olympics are staggeringly overstated by it's proponents. Because, once again, if the rewards were so robust, why is the IOC staring at zero bids this time next Wednesday?

The Olympics are effectively a construction project, and like a lot of construction projects when it's done there might be a handful of permanent jobs created, but not all that many. There seems to be this utterly insane notion that somehow hosting the Olympics is going to bring new companies and industries to town, but I'm guessing even the proponents of such a take know that's a lie. If there's any economic recovery between now and 2026, the Olympics are likely to have little to nothing to do with it. More to the point, if that's what we're relying on to save us economically....we're already ####ed.

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by Bunk

We definitely need a new poll.

Agree.
Something along the lines of ..."If you plan to vote on the plebiscite, how are you going to vote?"

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I do not blame BidCo for the late breaking deal and some of the resulting numbers. The feds and province were very late to commit. For security numbers, it was at the recommendation of the RCMP and CPS. Some of the City's capital commitments like the Vic Park money were necessary to meet the matching fund requirement. Should these things been resolved earlier? Yes, absolutely. Is BidCo primarily responsible? No. They absolutely would have preferred all this to be locked down by June, when other orders of government had originally agreed.

The BidCo is responsible for putting out a "bid" that it did not have confirmed numbers for. You can say the BidCo had "agreements", but clearly those were tenuous at best, if they were even real. It should have waited until it did have confirmed numbers, no matter how long that took. Instead they rushed, and now they look disorganized and unprepared, which is devastating when you're pitching a huge public investment. That falls 100% on them, not the feds or province.