Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the second to last paragraph sums it up well: To avoid a financial debacle, you basically have to go poverty games. And poverty games means little to no infrastructure. People talking about "Well go for the LA deal" seem to be ignoring the LA deal has no meaningful infrastructure in their bid whatsoever. That's the thing about LA or Paris or London hosting, they're good for infrastructure, so they can do a poverty games. If we did it without infrastructure, it'd be a staggering waste of time that still comes with the billion dollar security black hole. .

Thus far, the skeptics have been the much louder and more ardent faction on both ends of the political spectrum, which bodes ill for when the bid proposal goes to civic plebiscite, either in late 2018 or early 2019. A referendum was a condition for the Alberta NDP government, and local politicians had touted a public vote as a way to kill it—until it seemed in recent days the dream may die by simple council vote, at which point the believers pleaded to let the idea live long enough to let residents render their verdict. (The believers won at council, but not by much: nine votes to six.)

The “No” side is shaping up to be an awkward consortium of right-wingers who deplore using taxpayers’ money on Olympic baubles and the lefties who deplore pledging scarce funds to one-off events and getting into bed with the monolithic and corruption-prone International Olympic Committee.

There isn’t much of a “Yes” side. Mayor Naheed Nenshi, who personally loves the Olympics, is putative leader of the Agnostics who like the potential but are wary the public gets hosed in a deal with the IOC; most of his council chose to argue Monday against euthanizing the bid, rather than for anything in particular.

And the clamour of public lobbying from athletic and business groups to keep alive a Calgary 2026 bid alive has been… well… suffice to say it’s not going to be stitched together to create modernized verses of “Can’t You Feel It”, David Foster’s so-very-1988 anthem of the original Calgary Olympics.

“We’re going to continue to be involved so that work is done, and when it is done, we’ll react to it and see what it is,” former Olympic luger Jeff Christie gushed (well, OK, that’s not gushing) after Calgary city council’s vote Monday.

“Even if there are understandable concerns about undertaking such a project, we’re having a conversation well worth having,” Canadian Olympic Committee president Tricia Smith said in a statement.

“Cutting the process short at this time would be counter-productive to good public debate,” said the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

And there’s this mighty vote of support for the Games and International Olympic Committee from Seyi Smith, a Pyeongchang bobsledder and Summer Games sprinting medalist: “I hope we’ve created a system that stamps out corruption and sweetheart deals.”

That’s about the closest thing to enthusiastic public cheerleading Calgary gets after nearly two years of public planning to bid for a Calgary 2026.

The pom-poms also come out when bid supporters talk rosily about extending Calgary’s stature as an amateur winter sports capital, and the potential to leverage hard-to-get federal and provincial dollars to maintain Calgary’s existing skate and ski facilities, plus build a new fieldhouse. It’s tough to convert all this into a winning argument for a $4.6-billion (at least) hosting opportunity: Extend! Leverage! Maintain! is a crummy stand-in motto for the Olymics’ citius, altius, forties (faster, higher, stronger).

The IOC has begun encouraging Olympic bid cities to employ reused, refurbished and pop-up sports venues in hopes of preventing another Sochi-style $50-billion excess or a landscape of useless stadiums. To keep Calgary’s potential costs down to a mere $4.6 billion, bid leaders have hived off much of the civic ambition—who needs a new arena when the one old Saddledome will do, and we can survive just fine without an airport rail link, and maybe we can farm out the curling competition to Edmonton and the ski jumping to Whistler, B.C. This has created a Calgary Olympic paradox: organizers genuflect to the gods of fiscal responsibility by making sacrifices of infrastructure legacy.

Consider that when Vancouver put its 2010 Olympic bid to a plebiscite in 2003, there were ample goodies to offer the public, including the Canada Line train to the airport and finally twinning the Sea-to-Sky Highway to Whistler. Calgary’s bid has no such lure. For the Vancouver Games vote, the “Yes” campaign included both the progressive mayor Larry Campbell and centre-right Liberal premier Gordon Campbell, and they prevailed over naysayers with 64 per cent

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/p...-what-exactly/

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Now they just need to draft the plebiscite question that guarantees a yes vote.

That's easy...

"Do you want The City Calgary to host the 2026 Winter Olympic Games? Y/N"

... the Olympics are an easy thing to want and I feel a straight up question (no additional context added) probably get's the yes unfortunately.

[Northendzone]

^ I feel that most people are in support of the games, it is the two billion dollar shortfall that is the scary thing.

And remember, there is no rail link to the airport, and no new arena for the flames for that price.

[CliffFletcher]

Most people are in support of pretty much anything until they see the price tag. A plebiscite question that doesn't include the financial cost to the taxpayers at all levels (we all pay provincial and federal taxes too) would be a farce.

[Ducay]

I would like to win, but I just hope this whole thing dies soon. I cannot imagine 8 more years of political back and forth. Municipal politics are so petty and insufferable.

[edn88]

I would love to see the Olympics in Calgary in 2026. Build a high speed rail line to Edmonton and let's share the games. Build a new rink for the Flames. Create some jobs by upgrading infrastructure. Continue the legacy of the 88 Olympics.

[Mathgod]

Not to be a wet blanket or to offend anyone but... I don't get the appeal of hosting the Olympics.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by edn88

I would love to see the Olympics in Calgary in 2026. Build a high speed rail line to Edmonton and let's share the games. Build a new rink for the Flames. Create some jobs by upgrading infrastructure. Continue the legacy of the 88 Olympics.

High speed rail to Edmonton? what the hell is the point of that? You'd still have to rent a car once you are in Edmonton since they only have like 5 stop subway ! hahaha

[Reneeee]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Not to be a wet blanket or to offend anyone but... I don't get the appeal of hosting the Olympics.

I'm the exact opposite. Would rather Olympics than any public art project or new community development that I will never use

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Weitz]

If there are no major infrastructure built there is ZERO reason to host the olympics.

No reason to pay off the IOC and pay for security.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by edn88

I would love to see the Olympics in Calgary in 2026. Build a high speed rail line to Edmonton and let's share the games. Build a new rink for the Flames. Create some jobs by upgrading infrastructure. Continue the legacy of the 88 Olympics.

I absolutely hate the "Let's hold the olympics so we can build XYZ infrastructure" argument.

If you are using infrastructure as your argument then be ready to answer the following questions:

1) Does this project make sense outside of an Olympic bid, or would it only be required if the Olympics were to be held in Calgary?

If it makes sense, then why pay the premium that comes with holding the Olympics. Just build it, and don't line the pockets of a corrupt organization, and pay hundreds of millions for security for a 2 week party.

If it only makes sense if the Olympics are held here, then why are we spending potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure that is only useful for a 2 week party.

High speed rail to Edmonton is the perfect example.
Either it's feasible/needed, in which case, the case should be made to just build it, or it's only useful if we get an Olympics, in which case, it's likely a waste of money.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If there are no major infrastructure built there is ZERO reason to host the olympics.

No reason to pay off the IOC and pay for security.

Exactly the point I was making.

If the infrastructure is needed, then why pay off the IOC and pay for security.
This is such a backwards argument.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Exactly the point I was making.

If the infrastructure is needed, then why pay off the IOC and pay for security.
This is such a backwards argument.

Well, there is the funding argument. Federal and provincial funding is more easily secured for these facilities when there's an engine driving their development, such as the Olympics. The facilities that Vancouver got out of the 2010 Games are being used to the fullest extent and have benefited the communities in which they are located, as the CBC link I provided several pages back has stated.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, there is the funding argument. Federal and provincial funding is more easily secured for these facilities when there's an engine driving their development, such as the Olympics. The facilities that Vancouver got out of the 2010 Games are being used to the fullest extent and have benefited the communities in which they are located, as the CBC link I provided several pages back has stated.

Yeah, but that's exactly my point.
Why do we need to have an Olympics to fund needed infrastructure projects.
Why is it easier to get that funding if we are tying it to an Olympics?
Why the hell are we happy with government at any level who is willing to pay such a premium for infrastructure so we can have a 2 week party.

If city council can't make a case that a particular project is needed without an Olympic bid, then it's either not that important, or they are terrible at their job.
If the Provincial or Federal governments won't provide funding for needed infrastructure projects without an Olympic bid, then they are simply wasting money.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, but that's exactly my point.
Why do we need to have an Olympics to fund needed infrastructure projects.
Why is it easier to get that funding if we are tying it to an Olympics?
Why the hell are we happy with government at any level who is willing to pay such a premium for infrastructure so we can have a 2 week party.

If city council can't make a case that a particular project is needed without an Olympic bid, then it's either not that important, or they are terrible at their job.
If the Provincial or Federal governments won't provide funding for needed infrastructure projects without an Olympic bid, then they are simply wasting money.

There are loads of projects that council has a case for(field house, full green line, for example), but they don't have a lot of ways of raising money. The province and the feds do. The Olympics are a good way to make the case for these projects immediately.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There are loads of projects that council has a case for(field house, full green line, for example), but they don't have a lot of ways of raising money. The province and the feds do. The Olympics are a good way to make the case for these projects immediately.

And right now those projects aren't funded because there is a finite amount of money available, and though they are important, they are not top priorities for funding, either provincially or nationally.
How does an Olympics change that?
They only become more important because they will be useful for the Olympics, but it doesn't change their overall priority once the games are over.
So yeah, we get those projects sooner, but where does the money come from?

The Olympic bid does 2 things:
1) Artificially inflate the priority of certain projects meaning projects that aren't being propped up by an Olympic bid get delayed
2) Inflate the cost of those projects because they come with the cost of hosting the games meaning other projects have to be canceled

How are either of those productive?
The infrastructure argument is a selfish argument, that ultimately boils down to saying "I'm willing to pay a premium to get projects done in my city at the expense of the rest of the province/country", or a plainly circular one that boils down to "An Olympic bid will let us build infrastructure that is needed to host an Olympics".

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most people are in support of pretty much anything until they see the price tag. A plebiscite question that doesn't include the financial cost to the taxpayers at all levels (we all pay provincial and federal taxes too) would be a farce.

... and then proponents of the games want their laundry list of what they think the benefits of the games included in the question (and dispute what opponents project the price tag as)... and then those opposed dispute the value or linkage of those benefits to the Games... and then... and then... and then... and then people understand how referendum questions end up as longwinded confusing cluster####s of a question.

[Fuzz]

It may inflate need for some projects, but those 2 specifically are needed right now. And yes, it is absolutely placing us before the rest of the country in the line for dollars. I don't have a huge problem with that, given how the rest of the country treats us. Call me selfish if you want. And it's not like other cities don't do the same thing.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It may inflate need for some projects, but those 2 specifically are needed right now. And yes, it is absolutely placing us before the rest of the country in the line for dollars. I don't have a huge problem with that, given how the rest of the country treats us. Call me selfish if you want. And it's not like other cities don't do the same thing.

I agree that those projects are needed right now.
But just because I need something right now doesn't mean I'm willing to pay such a high premium for them.

I wasn't saying you specifically were selfish for wanting the games, I just think saying an Olympic bid is the only and/or best way to get those projects done is pretty short sighted.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

I'm the exact opposite. Would rather Olympics than any public art project or new community development that I will never use

That might be a useful comparison if those other things cost billions and billions of dollars.

The government sometimes spends $10 mil or $100 mil on things I don't like. So they may as well spend $6 billion* on something which would be kinda cool.

Such a terrible argument.

* I really do think some of this attitude is because people don't really have a concrete sense of the difference between $100 million and $6 billion. To use a graphical aid, $6 billion is:

$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million
$100 million