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

[GirlySports]

i think we could do it like Vancouver. debt free and most facilities being used well into the future. Lots of volunteers and lots of federal money tax may not go up that high. Governments piss away money anyways.

[Flash Walken]

You can say Vancouver's olympics was debt free or profitable until you're blue in the face, but it simply is not true.

The City of Vancouver took a $300 million loss on the athletes village.

[Tacoman]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually it's mostly the question is poorly phrased and leading. If you asked the question the way it should be asked...

"Would you be willing to have your property taxes and other taxes increased to host the Olympics"

....it would likely be 28% at best that approve. Ironically, you now have to root for the NDP and Nenshi to be in power in 2019 for it happen. Which is hilarious to me.



My point of course is they will be getting voted out and won't be around to make the debt $100 billion. Election is in 2019, same year the bid is due. And this poll was taken before the NDP budget came out, I suspect that 62% would be at least 10% lower after people saw the budget.

Why do you feel that you know how the rest of us think? Almost everyone I know would absolutely love the Olympics to come back. It was one of the greatest things to ever happen to this city. And yes...I would be fine having my taxes in one form or another go up in order to improve our city and sports infrastructure. Our city is embarrassingly behind in those categories.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You can say Vancouver's olympics was debt free or profitable until you're blue in the face, but it simply is not true.

The City of Vancouver took a $300 million loss on the athletes village.

IIRC, it ended up being 100 million because the builder went bankrupt. Still that was poorly planned.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You can say Vancouver's olympics was debt free or profitable until you're blue in the face, but it simply is not true.

The City of Vancouver took a $300 million loss on the athletes village.

Would you be against the city losing $300 million dollar on the Olympics if that's all it cost them to get everything else built and the jobs it would create and the short term boost for small businesses?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by polak

Would you be against the city losing $300 million dollar on the Olympics if that's all it cost them to get everything else built and the jobs it would create and the short term boost for small businesses?

A project is not good or bad depending on how many jobs it may generate. Its public worth depends on the value of the infrastructure or service the project provides and the costs that must be incurred for it. The employment impacts may offer some benefit, but that will depend on the nature, duration and location of the jobs; the potential supply of workers with the requisite skills; and the ‘incremental’ income the jobs offer relative to what those hired could otherwise do. It is a complicated issue – one that economic impact studies seldom address.

There is no greater frustration for economists engaged in public policy analysis than the use and abuse of economic impact analyses to justify major public and private projects. That the big numbers the analyses generate are wrong and in any event largely irrelevant to the issue of whether a project is in the broad public interest is somehow lost.

The 2010 Games have clearly left a legacy of facilities and infrastructure. And for some the contribution to community spirit, sports and culture offered great value in itself. But the Games also entailed a very significant opportunity cost. The issue is whether the financial and other resources dedicated to the Games were put to their highest priority use.

Government resources are limited and public needs are great. The Games didn’t pay for themselves in any meaningful sense and they weren’t justified by the jobs they were said to create. Whether the allocation of in excess of $6 billion for the Games and related infrastructure was justified was never properly addressed. However, that is the economic question that should have been asked and debated, and is what other jurisdictions would do well to consider before they bid on future Olympics or other mega-sporting events.

- See more at: http://www.policynote.ca/looking-bac....LsHwsHOD.dpuf

http://www.policynote.ca/looking-bac...-winter-games/

[polak]

Opportunity costs assume that Calgary would get equivalent funding from other levels of government should it not bid.

Doubtful.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by polak

Opportunity costs assume that Calgary would get equivalent funding from other levels of government should it not bid.

Doubtful.

Not at all. When other levels of government pay for the Olympics, they incur the opportunity costs. That money would not just have been stuffed in a chest and left unspent.

Perhaps you don't give a damn about the province or the country and how much debt they run up. Most of us pay provincial and federal taxes, and do give a damn.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You can say Vancouver's olympics was debt free or profitable until you're blue in the face, but it simply is not true.

The City of Vancouver took a $300 million loss on the athletes village.

They did not execute the village properly, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

My company did the majority of the Toronto pan am games village, and it was very successful for all involved.

[chubeyr1]

I would love to see Calgary get the olympics again.

I do not think we would turn a profit but could be wrong. I actually think all future olympic cities will lose money.

With that said the jobs that are created would be huge, great boost to the economy for sure. It would definately employ some albertans for a couple of years during an economic downturn.

We always hear about government job creation, and that always costs millions and never works. We basically spend $1 and get a return of a penny when it comes to government job creation! This job creation would return alot more bang for our buck.

With the olympics new structures will need to be built, old ones reno'ed. This was and is gonna happen anyways. Difference is being on the hook for billions of dollars of tax money or being on the hook for a few hundred million. Yet there is still a chance that all of this gets done and we are actually ahead of the game. I doubt it but it is possible.

End of the day the infrastructure left over might be paid for in complete by having the olympics here. Maybe there is a debt from the games? How much? How much will we have to spend cause of olympic overruns for a new arena, stadium, ski facilites, bobsled tracks etc?

How much would this cost us to do without the olympics coming here? That would be all tax payers money.

I do believe tax payers will end up on the hook for olympic debt. Yet I also believe that it would be far less than what it would be if tax payers end up paying for all that infrastructure without the olympics.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I would support bringing in the Olympics for no other reason than to really be a motivator for infrastructure that we could all benefit from.

It is one thing if Calgary is going to start from scratch, but there is a lot of infrastructure already in place that could be upgraded. I am looking forward to stuff like a C-Train connection for the airport, some development in certain areas of the city, maybe even a tie-in with the west village remediation somehow.

I think we as Calgarians benefited well from the first Olympics here. I think having a second Olympics would be of some benefit too.

The one area that does concern me greatly is the cost of security. That will be a hefty price-tag. Sure, Canada is not 'at war' right now, but there is a whole lot of stuff happening and Canada is providing support, and also being a target. Lots has changed since Vancouver hosted it.

With that being said, I do think that ideally, if Calgary is going to bid on the 2026 Olympics, it would be smart to bid on the 2038 games as well (if not sooner, though you really have to hope that there are no serious bidders at the time). You touch-up the existing infrastructure, and the sum of those games would probably end up considerably in the positive. Fat chance of it happening, but that would be ideal IMO.

If the Olympics incurred a loss (which is likely) then for me, that is ok too - dependent on how big of a loss. You at least hope that the games have subsidized NEEDED infrastructure in the city, not just stuff for the games + security. That is a win in my mind.

I hope the study actually goes about this with an open mind either way, and aren't just trying to figure out a way to prove that it CAN be profitable. I will not support throwing money away, or having the above subsidy on the infrastructure fall very short. I am not just talking about getting federal dollars vs provincial dollars vs City of Calgary. I am referring to the total spent vs total earned, and having that number at least make the infrastructure a bargain, even if it doesn't quite pay the total bill. What percentage would make me happy, I don't really know, but it has to at least be a significant amount, and that infrastructure (roads, rail, facilities, etc) has to be long-lasting like most of the 1988 Olympic infrastructure turned out to be.

[CliffFletcher]

If we're going to spend hundreds of millions to put people to work and build infrastructure, maybe it should be towards the billions in unfunded roads, hospitals, bridges, airports, transit lines, schools, etc. that we've already identified as necessary, rather than ski jumps and skating tracks.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we're going to spend hundreds of millions to put people to work and build infrastructure, maybe it should be towards the billions in unfunded roads, hospitals, bridges, airports, transit lines, schools, etc. that we've already identified as necessary, rather than ski jumps and skating tracks.

Roads, transit, bridgets, etc. are usually things that the Olympics helps get funded as well (i.e. Canada Line and Sea-to-Sky Highway for the 2010 Olympics). Federal and provincial infrastructure dollars that might be pushed elsewhere tend to find their way to the place that will put the country on the international stage.

Hell that's the main reason I'd support an Olympic bid. Jump-start some projects.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we're going to spend hundreds of millions to put people to work and build infrastructure, maybe it should be towards the billions in unfunded roads, hospitals, bridges, airports, transit lines, schools, etc. that we've already identified as necessary, rather than ski jumps and skating tracks.

Come on dude. Like the creosote cleanup most of those projects will never get done unless there's something like CalgaryNEXT, Olympics, or some other major development spearheading them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Reminder of the likely scenarios for 2019, where there will be a provincial and federal election, and when the bid is due:

Alberta: NDP likely to be defeated, with the Progressive WildConservative party or whatever it'll be called to be the new government. They will of course be running on an agenda of massive spending cuts and some tax cuts as well.

Federal: Liberals looking at losing their majority at the very least, will not give the slightest #### about Alberta and their four seats, will focus extensively on doing things to benefit Ontario, Quebec and probably BC.

So where exactly is this federal/provincial money for a bid coming from? People's hopes and dreams aren't going to help create the money that almost certainly does not exist. Calgary4Life said bidding on 2038, and that to me is a lot more viable, especially since by that point we'll see if the IOC and the 2020 Agenda is real or whether it was a bunch of crap. That way we're not the guinea pig for one of the most corrupt organizations on earth.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Reminder of the likely scenarios for 2019, where there will be a provincial and federal election, and when the bid is due:

Alberta: NDP likely to be defeated, with the Progressive WildConservative party or whatever it'll be called to be the new government. They will of course be running on an agenda of massive spending cuts and some tax cuts as well.

Federal: Liberals looking at losing their majority at the very least, will not give the slightest #### about Alberta and their four seats, will focus extensively on doing things to benefit Ontario, Quebec and probably BC.

So where exactly is this federal/provincial money for a bid coming from? People's hopes and dreams aren't going to help create the money that almost certainly does not exist. Calgary4Life said bidding on 2038, and that to me is a lot more viable, especially since by that point we'll see if the IOC and the 2020 Agenda is real or whether it was a bunch of crap. That way we're not the guinea pig for one of the most corrupt organizations on earth.

Aren't you gonna tell us who the politicians in power in 2038 will be as well? Two years out from those 2015 elections Trudeau wasn't the leader of the Liberals and the Alberta NDP was an afterthought. A lot can change in two years.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Liberals focusing on Ontario and Quebec for the election (or the CPC for that matter) is a given. I don't need to be Nostradamus to know that, we all pretty much know that. No party has ever won a federal election by trying to vote buy Alberta. Only way the Liberals offer anything to Alberta is if they are a shoo-in to win, which they won't be given how disappointing they've been so far. The NDP losing is obvious as long as the right gets it together. That whole $70+ billion in projected debt makes it a rather easy prediction.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Liberals focusing on Ontario and Quebec for the election (or the CPC for that matter) is a given. I don't need to be Nostradamus to know that, we all pretty much know that. No party has ever won a federal election by trying to vote buy Alberta. Only way the Liberals offer anything to Alberta is if they are a shoo-in to win, which they won't be given how disappointing they've been so far. The NDP losing is obvious as long as the right gets it together. That whole $70+ billion in projected debt makes it a rather easy prediction.

This is a better discussion for the politics forum. That said, my faith in anything involving Wild Rose to implode is fairly substantial.

[Gaudfather]

The one budget area where Olympics could see massive cost overruns is security. With the craziness in the world today the IOC will require a host city to overdue it on security, and there is no legacy benefit to the City from a massive security budget.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Gaudfather

The one budget area where Olympics could see massive cost overruns is security. With the craziness in the world today the IOC will require a host city to overdue it on security, and there is no legacy benefit to the City from a massive security budget.

Just think of it as a $1.5 billion wealth redistribution to security guards, police, and army reservists.