Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Don't do it Calgary!

Personally, every time I'm waiting at a hospital or stuck in traffic I wish Sydney never hosted the 2000 Olympics. They ended up costing tax payers ~$2 billion with funds taken from health, education, and infrastructure. In return the city got a 2 week party that I wasn't even around for (my wife says it was pretty amazing though). The infrastructure improvements helped people get to the games but did nothing for the average commuter and there were no long term increases to the economy or tourism. The worst part is the white elephant Olympic stadium that less than 20 years later the government wants to replace for $1 billion.

Thats a good perspective, but I think this is the crux of the matter.

If its done well it can be beneficial. If its isnt its a boondoggle of epic proportions.

Right now I am very politically unhappy. With the exception of our Mayor. Which is pretty much the only reason I'd consider it.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Watch, Calgary will get the 2026 Olympics and it will be Chinook'ing the whole time and the big talk will be all of the artificial snow they have to make simply to hold the outdoor events.

In that case, I want to host an Olympics every year!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

In that case, I want to host an Olympics every year!

"The Olympics Sucked!!"

Yes.....but I didnt have to shovel, so its a win.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The problem is that this province could very well be 100 billion plus in debt by 2022. The debt servicing alone could be enough to pay for an Olympics each year. That is bad. I'd rather the province get the house in order so instead of paying billions to service the debt that money can be allocated to these projects.

The term legacy keeps being thrown out, but it doesn't make sense in the current economic state and climate for the province.

Do you really think without the Olympics the government will get their house in order? Give me a break.

I'm sure if the option was 1 billion for Olympics or 1 billion for debt, the tone might change.

But in reality it's 1 billion for Olympics or 1 billion ##ssed away somewhere else!

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Locke

"The Olympics Sucked!!"

Yes.....but I didnt have to shovel, so its a win.

Well, I kind of like the idea of the Olympics. But after returning from the beach to shovel, yet again, I am 100% behind any idea that will make the snow stop!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The problem is that this province could very well be 100 billion plus in debt by 2022. The debt servicing alone could be enough to pay for an Olympics each year. That is bad. I'd rather the province get the house in order so instead of paying billions to service the debt that money can be allocated to these projects.

The term legacy keeps being thrown out, but it doesn't make sense in the current economic state and climate for the province.

We're going to have the debt with or without the Olympics with the way the government functions. Since that's the case, I don't have an issue in investing money into infrastructure that we have a desire to build and refurbish anyway, that could yield more revenue and services than what we're getting presently.

[Wormius]

How much of the cost of the Olympics stays in Calgary and Alberta? I assume most of the work on infrastructure and buildings will be local, so at least the bulk of money spent by all levels of government will not be flowing outward from Alberta.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wormius

How much of the cost of the Olympics stays in Calgary and Alberta? I assume most of the work on infrastructure and buildings will be local, so at least the bulk of money spent by all levels of government will not be flowing outward from Alberta.

I don’t think it’s the infrastructure costs that will be the hang up for people. Even if there’s a lot of temp workers the infrastructure being talked about isn’t for stuff that would just sit and decay (ski jumps notwithstanding). People might not like the cost but there would still be tangible things remaining that employed a lot of people, that even if they were overpaid for and We’re just wants instead of needs, a lot of people would accept it.

It’s the security that will be the kicker. Because that is money that you won’t see even if t employs a lot of local people, but it’s stuff that wouldn’t linger around (or if it does, probably wouldn’t be welcome). It’s also the cost with the greatest chance to balloon because nobody wants to be the guy who didn’t spend money on something and then there’s a security incident. ‘Security spending should seem like a waste because if people didn’t think it was wasted then you didn’t spend enough’ kind of mentality.

[OMG!WTF!]

I think this is really awesome.....

A statement issued by the city just after 3:30 p.m. on Thursday confirmed the details in the twitter announcement, which also said the provincial funds would be contingent on the city holding a plebiscite.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ncil-off-guard

It's going to be interesting to see if the plebiscite really costs 2 million and takes six months. It should cost counsilors the difference in their salary and or vacation if it is in fact not up to those numbers.

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/981946205218390016

cue english_mother#$%!.jpg

If you are an elected official and choose to memorialize your stupidity in a tweet, at least TRY to get it kind of right.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm gonna assume the asking of "Are you confused yet" was meant to be ironic.

[GGG]

His position makes sense, he is voting against the Olympics at every opportunity.

[Fuzz]

It might help if he wasn't in a competition with Trump for the most misused words in a tweet.

[OMG!WTF!]

"I'm not at all opposed to a plebiscite; however, I do think we have to figure out how to pay for it — and the party requesting it should pay for it — that the timing has to make sense, that citizens have enough information to make an informed decision but we haven't wasted a lot of time and money on stuff that would be irrelevant if the plebiscite answer was no."

I've never really jumped on the Nenshi is arrogant bandwagon. But wow what an arrogant git. The party requesting the plebiscite is the city. He's not opposed to a plebiscite but doesn't want one in case it comes back as a no. And it's expensive. But it might mean they've wasted even more money exploring the bid. Geez. I guess you should have ponied up a bit sooner kid.

[Weitz]

Of course they don’t want a plebiscite. Because the answer will likely come back as no. Hence all this language about “informed voters”. When the plebiscite says no they can claim people weren’t informed enough.

It’s very telling some councillors are changing their tune now that a plebiscite is required for provincial funding.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I've never really jumped on the Nenshi is arrogant bandwagon. But wow what an arrogant git. The party requesting the plebiscite is the city.

It's pretty obvious he means the province. They're the ones making funding contingent on a plebiscite, so he wants them to pay for the plebiscite. Is that a crazy position? I don't think so.

He's not opposed to a plebiscite but doesn't want one in case it comes back as a no.

Has he said this somewhere? Because he didn't in the statement you quoted. He's talking about scheduling - if the bid is going forward, the city's going to have to start working on it, probably before the plebiscite occurs. If they hold the plebiscite too early, there won't be enough time for people voting to inform themselves to make the right decision. But if they wait too long, they'll have spent more time and money on a preparation process that could be moot if the answer from Calgary is "no". Which would be a waste. This, again, is 100% correct.

And it's expensive. But it might mean they've wasted even more money exploring the bid. Geez. I guess you should have ponied up a bit sooner kid.

This is silly. You're presupposing that your own political position - that a plebiscite always should have been assumed to be mandatory - is correct, and then getting angry at Nenshi for not sharing that assumption. His position is that the city didn't call for it, the province did, so the province should pay for it, not the city. So no, the city shouldn't have "ponied up" sooner, or at all, by his lights.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's pretty obvious he means the province. They're the ones making funding contingent on a plebiscite, so he wants them to pay for the plebiscite. Is that a crazy position? I don't think so.

I know that. But in my opinion people in the City of Calgary want the plebiscite yet the mayor says we don't. He said in no uncertain terms people living in Calgary do not want to give an opinion on the issue and we're too uninformed to give an opinion. So it is exceedingly arrogant of an elected official to say that.

Has he said this somewhere? Because he didn't in the statement you quoted. He's talking about scheduling - if the bid is going forward, the city's going to have to start working on it, probably before the plebiscite occurs. If they hold the plebiscite too early, there won't be enough time for people voting to inform themselves to make the right decision.

So there is enough information to go ahead with a bid on the Olympics, yet there is not enough information to have a plebiscite on it. And that doesn't seem a little arrogant? He said that a no vote would mean wasting all this money on a bid. Yet going ahead with a bid proposal without any information is not a waste of money. The '88 Olympics were a success because everybody was on board. It's silly to assume that is the case now.

If we have enough information to spend 30 million on a bid, then we have enough information to hold a plebiscite on it. People who want to spend money for a great party and the off chance that it "puts us on the map" seem to have enough information for their position. Vice versa should also be true.

We also have already spend a bunch of money and two years studying figuring out that it's going to cost 4.6 billion to hold the Olympics and that wasn't enough information to proceed to a vote for the average Joe. My argument is if you don't have enough information to proceed then don't proceed. If proceeding costs upwards of 50 million then pump the breaks a bit.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I know that. But in my opinion people in the City of Calgary want the plebiscite yet the mayor says we don't. He said in no uncertain terms people living in Calgary do not want to give an opinion on the issue and we're too uninformed to give an opinion. So it is exceedingly arrogant of an elected official to say that.

Can you quote where he said that? Because the above quote doesn't say anything remotely similar.

So there is enough information to go ahead with a bid on the Olympics, yet there is not enough information to have a plebiscite on it. And that doesn't seem a little arrogant?

... No? Not at all. It's the job of council to research, review and understand the bid process and what the pros and cons are. The public doesn't know yet, because much of that information isn't out. In the quote above, he's saying if you hold a plebiscite, it can't be, say, next week, because that's not enough time for the public to get up to speed or for the "pro" and "con" side to sell the public on why they should vote one way or another. But you also can't wait forever. That's totally reasonable.

He said that a no vote would mean wasting all this money on a bid. Yet going ahead with a bid proposal without any information is not a waste of money.

No, he didn't. At least not above. He's saying that pushing a plebiscite out for too long would result in a bunch of money being spent on this project that might be all for naught. If you hold it sooner, and the vote is no, you end up saving a bunch of money. That consideration is to be balanced with giving the public enough time to come to an informed conclusion.

If we have enough information to spend 30 million on a bid, then we have enough information to hold a plebiscite on it.

We don't have either. A plebiscite doesn't guarantee that you actually get an accurate sense of whether Calgary is for or against a bid. A lot of people are going to be lukewarm for or against and simply won't vote. Generally the loudest people, most willing to spend energy on an issue, are those pissed off by it. So there's a reasonable argument that a plebiscite is not an accurate barometer of support.

People who want to spend money for a great party and the off chance that it "puts us on the map" seem to have enough information for their position.

Most of the people who are pro-olympics are tentatively so in here, and are saying wait and see how the proposed numbers end up looking. So this doesn't reflect reality as far as I can tell.

My argument is if you don't have enough information to proceed then don't proceed. If proceeding costs upwards of 50 million then pump the breaks a bit.

By this logic, you'd never proceed with anything. You never have adequate information to start off with. That's what's currently being developed.

You're really trying hard to project negative, unwarranted interpretations onto what the Mayor's saying, obviously because you don't agree with his stance on this issue.

[CliffFletcher]

In recent years, many cities in democratic countries have held plebiscites/referendums around hosting the Olympics. Boston, Salzburg, St Moritz, Innsbruck, Munich, Hamburg, Budapest all failed to pass. The people who support hosting Olympics know this, which is why they don't like plebiscites.

[OMG!WTF!]

Can you quote where he said that? Because the above quote doesn't say anything remotely similar.

You're going to have to extrapolate here. Nenshi said that the party who wants the plebiscite should be the party to pay for the plebiscite..,the province. Ergo the party that does not want the plebiscite is the City of Calgary.

By this logic, you'd never proceed with anything. You never have adequate information to start off with. That's what's currently being developed.

Here's the issue. We've already studied this bid...for two years and ten million dollars. We have the answers we need to proceed with a 50 million dollar bid. Except we don't. And now we don't have enough time to get that information together.

Most of the people who are pro-olympics are tentatively so in here, and are saying wait and see how the proposed numbers end up looking. So this doesn't reflect reality as far as I can tell.

Wonderful. That makes perfect sense. Agree 100%. But that's not what you're getting. What you're getting is sorry, there is no time and no information for you. So away we go.

A plebiscite doesn't guarantee that you actually get an accurate sense of whether Calgary is for or against a bid.

It seemed pretty accurate in Vancouver. A plebiscite was a pretty easy under taking in Vancouver in 2010. Don't you even for a second wonder why it's so incredibly hard for Calgary to figure it out?