Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I’m saying they are being built at a premium because they are being built along with an Olympic bid. That’s the premium, putting on the games, not that contractors are going to collude with each other and bid higher.

My point has been pretty clear. If the infrastructure is important enough, and needed, then just build it, don’t use the Olympics as an excuse to build something. We can spend money on the needed projects, or we can spend money on the needed projects AND pay the IOC and all the other costs that come with hosting the games.. One is substantially cheaper.

I'm not sure your point makes sense, frankly. Cities, such as Calgary, and stakeholder groups, such as WinSport, have lots of wants and needs in terms of community, recreation and high performance facilities and programs. They do not have unlimited budgets for all the projects they want to do.

While they have capital plans for these facilities and programs, funding becomes available - that otherwise wouldn't - for some of these facilities when an appropriate engine, such as the Olympics, helps to propel these projects forward. The sources of these funds are usually from governments at the provincial and federal levels.

The City of Calgary and WinSport don't have unlimited money to play with; the Olympics helps to find that funding in a more streamlined fashion, thus making it more probable to build those facilities. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm not sure your point makes sense, frankly. Cities, such as Calgary, and stakeholder groups, such as WinSport, have lots of wants and needs in terms of community, recreation and high performance facilities and programs. They do not have unlimited budgets for all the projects they want to do.

While they have capital plans for these facilities and programs, funding becomes available - that otherwise wouldn't - for some of these facilities when an appropriate engine, such as the Olympics, helps to propel these projects forward. The sources of these funds are usually from governments at the provincial and federal levels.

The City of Calgary and WinSport don't have unlimited money to play with; the Olympics helps to find that funding in a more streamlined fashion, thus making it more probable to build those facilities. Why is this so hard to understand?

And why is it so hard to understand that I'm making the case that the Olympics is a wasteful way to get those projects funded?
I know what you're saying, and I'm saying I think it's incredibly financially irresponsible to hold a 2 week party, at the expense of City, Provincial, and Federal tax payers as an excuse to accelerate funding for needed infrastructure projects.

The Province and Federal Governments don't have unlimited money to play with; the Olympics would draw on that funding in an incredibly wasteful fashion, thus ensuring other capital projects that are required here, or elsewhere don't get built. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Reneeee]

Toronto received 500 million dollars from the Feds for the Pan Am Games. Personally, I'd rather see that money come to Calgary than go anywhere else.

With that being said I'm pretty sure Toronto is still receiving funds for other capital projects. It's not as if the tap is turned off until the 500 million they received for the pan am games is evenly distributed to other cities first

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

No respect to the great athletes, but attendance at Oval events is pretty much friends and family, and people from the Netherlands?

Is't that the reality of elite winter sports in general - they're the hobbies of well-heeled families who travel the world supporting their children? Which is fine and all. Just not something I feel the government should subsidize when there are so many more basic social needs being unmet.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Reneeee

Toronto received 500 million dollars from the Feds for the Pan Am Games. Personally, I'd rather see that money come to Calgary than go anywhere else.

With that being said I'm pretty sure Toronto is still receiving funds for other capital projects. It's not as if the tap is turned off until the 500 million they received for the pan am games is evenly distributed to other cities first

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

That's the point though.
That $500 million could have gone to those other cities instead of paying for the Pan Am Games.
So instead of Calgary, or some other city getting $500 Million for a new overpass, or say a new LRT line, Toronto threw a 2 week party and gave out some medals.
Doesn't exactly sound like a great use of funds to me.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And why is it so hard to understand that I'm making the case that the Olympics is a wasteful way to get those projects funded?
I know what you're saying, and I'm saying I think it's incredibly financially irresponsible to hold a 2 week party, at the expense of City, Provincial, and Federal tax payers as an excuse to accelerate funding for needed infrastructure projects.

The Province and Federal Governments don't have unlimited money to play with; the Olympics would draw on that funding in an incredibly wasteful fashion, thus ensuring other capital projects that are required here, or elsewhere don't get built. Why is this so hard to understand?

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics debt-free, VANOC final report says

Furlong said all the buildings and infrastructure are currently in use and board chairman Ken Dobell said the Games left a debt-free legacy for the country.

"First of all, it cost what it was supposed to cost," Dobell said.

Significant capital upgrades were made that had to happen sooner or later, and the host communities now have recreation and community facilities for residents.

"Was it a worthwhile endeavour? The way Vancouver did it, for sure," he said.

"financially irresponsible to hold a 2 week party" - Bring_Back_Shantz

You can suggest it's a "two week party", but Vancouver, as a community and as a city, is reaping the benefits of the facilities TODAY that otherwise may have not have been possible anytime soon, thanks to hosting the Olympics.

Complain about funding all you want, my point still stands, with examples.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics debt-free, VANOC final report says





You can suggest it's a "two week party", but Vancouver, as a community and as a city, is reaping the benefits of the facilities TODAY that otherwise may have not have been possible anytime soon, thanks to hosting the Olympics.

Complain about funding all you want, my point still stands, with examples.

They spent something like 7 billion rather than the 1.8 billion they broke even on. And everyone would have been better off if instead they just spent 5 billion on the same infrastructure. (numbers are approximate but can be found by following the links in the article you reference or in a previous post I made in this thread.)

The proposal currently out there for Calgary is a net loss of 2 billion while gaining 400 million in infrastructure. Even you attract 4 billion in other infrastructure its still 6 billion for 4.4 billion in infrastructure. We as citizens should not support those kinds of ridiculous economics even if we lose out on the 4 billion in other funds that could have been generated from the province and feds. Especially when no money for these ancillary projects has been committed by anyone. Its wishful thinking we get any of the infrastructure benefits people are touting outside of an Arena and a Fieldhouse identified in the current proposal documents.

So then it becomes a 2.7 billion investment for 1.1 billion in infrastructure.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics debt-free, VANOC final report says





You can suggest it's a "two week party", but Vancouver, as a community and as a city, is reaping the benefits of the facilities TODAY that otherwise may have not have been possible anytime soon, thanks to hosting the Olympics.

Complain about funding all you want, my point still stands, with examples.

And my point stands with many, many more counter examples.
I'll grant that Calgary and Vancouver are good examples of how to host a games, but those are definitely not the norm, and there are no gaurantees that the 2026 games would go as well as those other games.

If there were assurances in place that the IOC would make up the difference should the games run a deficit, then great, but until I see that, I'm not going to support a bid for what could be a very costly event.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's the point though.
That $500 million could have gone to those other cities instead of paying for the Pan Am Games.
So instead of Calgary, or some other city getting $500 Million for a new overpass, or say a new LRT line, Toronto threw a 2 week party and gave out some medals.
Doesn't exactly sound like a great use of funds to me.

Well Toronto got a revitalized waterfront neighborhood, high performance training centre, the national swimming centre, transportation upgrades, Hamilton got their new football stadium, among other things.

Reducing the money spent to a "2 week party where they gave out some medals" is ridiculous.

Similarly Vancouver got the Canada Line, Sea-to-Sky Highway, and the Convention Centre as a part oft their 2 week party. Sure they needed them anyway, but the only reason they got them when they did was because there was now a deadline for when they needed them, so they got funded.

Vancouver needs the UBC subway as much as they needed the Canada Line, but that isn't getting funded by the looks of things (I mean, what's the rush?).


I get you have an idea of how things should be, but there is a different reality. Sometimes you need a catalyst to actually get things done.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics debt-free, VANOC final report says





You can suggest it's a "two week party", but Vancouver, as a community and as a city, is reaping the benefits of the facilities TODAY that otherwise may have not have been possible anytime soon, thanks to hosting the Olympics.

Complain about funding all you want, my point still stands, with examples.

And my point stands with many, many more counter examples.
I'll grant that Calgary and Vancouver are good examples of how to host a games, but those are definitely not the norm, and there are no gaurantees that the 2026 games would go as well as those other games.

If there were assurances in place that the IOC would make up the difference should the games run a deficit, then great, but until I see that, I'm not going to support a bid for what could be a very costly event.


Edit: Upon further thought, and review of the article, it actually makes my point exactly.
It's the Olympic Committee corporation that broke even.
That's great, but Governments at different levels pitched in ~$363 million bucks, and they sure as hell didn't get that money back.

That "Broke even" part, doesn't include the major infrastructure, the Highway, the rail line, and the convention center, which amounted to a few billion.

All great projects, and all needed, but the infrastructure that was left after the games was paid for, plus an extra $363 million on top of that (contributions by different levels of Government that went into running the games)
So great, they got some great infrstruture projects, and they/we got to pay an extra $363 million to get it done.

Just because the Vancouver games (the VOC Corporation) broke even, doesn't mean the Government didn't spend a bunch of money it saw nothing for.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Well Toronto got a revitalized waterfront neighborhood, high performance training centre, the national swimming centre, transportation upgrades, Hamilton got their new football stadium, among other things.

Reducing the money spent to a "2 week party where they gave out some medals" is ridiculous.

Similarly Vancouver got the Canada Line, Sea-to-Sky Highway, and the Convention Centre as a part oft their 2 week party. Sure they needed them anyway, but the only reason they got them when they did was because there was now a deadline for when they needed them, so they got funded.

Vancouver needs the UBC subway as much as they needed the Canada Line, but that isn't getting funded by the looks of things (I mean, what's the rush?).


I get you have an idea of how things should be, but there is a different reality. Sometimes you need a catalyst to actually get things done.

And in the case of Vancouver, sometimes it costs an extra $363 million bucks to get it done. But at least we got a party out of it.

[Fuzz]

It's not like those expenditures on infrastructure/convention centre/athletes village etc are wasted though. They are economic drivers. They bring in future dollars, in many forms. It's fairly myopic to view it as a 2 week expenditure.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And my point stands with many, many more counter examples.
I'll grant that Calgary and Vancouver are good examples of how to host a games, but those are definitely not the norm, and there are no gaurantees that the 2026 games would go as well as those other games.

If there were assurances in place that the IOC would make up the difference should the games run a deficit, then great, but until I see that, I'm not going to support a bid for what could be a very costly event.

What counter examples though? Sochi? Rio? Athens? Those are government bodies with absolutely no fiscal responsibility and absolutely no vision in how to fund the Games / build these facilities for legacy purposes in a sustainable manner. They should never be used an an example of how to host an international event. Vancouver and Calgary hosted financially successful Olympic Games which benefited the communities they were held in.

Calgary going forward, in particular, does not need to build a brand new highway (on a difficult coastal terrain, no less), and does not need to build a completely new rail / underground train system. The most critical piece of civic infrastructure will be an LRT airport connector, and that's likely it (plus the Green Line, is already being funded outside of any Olympic funding). That cost will be less than what Vancouver spent. The link I provided had VANOC state they came out debt-free. Why can't Calgary do that?

Admittedly, one thing I would like the IOC to cover in the cost of security. That's one area of spending that they should be taking on the full risk.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And in the case of Vancouver, sometimes it costs an extra $363 million bucks to get it done. But at least we got a party out of it.

If Calgary could pay $363M to get $3.5B of extra federal and provincial infrastructure spending in the next 8 years, and get a two week party out of it, there isn't any rational way any legislator or administrator could say no.

[Reneeee]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And in the case of Vancouver, sometimes it costs an extra $363 million bucks to get it done. But at least we got a party out of it.

I think you're battling spending in general. This front of being anti Olympics turns to being anti any capital projects as well as mentioned by others. Calgary has some things which would greatly benefit and speed up their build time by being tied to this "party". Saying no because you're anti government expenditures or any expenditures in general is very short sighted.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

What counter examples though? Sochi? Rio? Athens? Those are government bodies with absolutely no fiscal responsibility and absolutely no vision in how to fund the Games / build these facilities for legacy purposes in a sustainable manner. They should never be used an an example of how to host an international event. Vancouver and Calgary hosted financially successful Olympic Games which benefited the communities they were held in.

Calgary going forward, in particular, does not need to build a brand new highway (on a difficult coastal terrain, no less), and does not need to build a completely new rail / underground train system. The most critical piece of civic infrastructure will be an LRT airport connector, and that's likely it (plus the Green Line, is already being funded outside of any Olympic funding). That cost will be less than what Vancouver spent. The link I provided had VANOC state they came out debt-free. Why can't Calgary do that?

Admittedly, one thing I would like the IOC to cover in the cost of security. That's one area of spending that they should be taking on the full risk.

As I added to my post VANOC came out debt free, but that's because various levels of Government pitched in >$300 million.
Just because VANOC broke even doesn't mean a whole lot of money wasn't given to them, by various levels of government, that wasn't spent on infrastructure projects.
Sure they got the major infrastructure built, but they spent an extra >$300 million to do it.

[Weitz]

Why would a pared down bid even win anymore? Now that there are what 6 other places bidding now too?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Why would a pared down bid even win anymore? Now that there are what 6 other places bidding now too?

They're all going to be pared-down bids.


I've only seen numbers from the proposed Innsbruck bid (which was voted down and replaced at the last minute by Graz) and the Swiss plan, but they were both looking to be significantly cheaper than Calgary's.

If Calgary has a bargain-basement plan, the Swiss have a second-hand store plan and Innsbruck had a garage sale plan.


If Italy submits a bid, it will be looking to reuse as many facilities from 2006 (and possibly 1956) as possible.

I doubt the Swedish bid will ever gain the political will to get it to the finish line, but they're looking at using a sliding track in Latvia rather than building their own to keep costs down. The Austrian bid will likely see them using a speed skating oval in Germany, and possibly other facilities in Germany. One cost-cutting option for the Swiss bid included using the speed skating track from Turin, but that likely wouldn't fly now with Turin putting together its own bid.

The Turkish and Japanese bids are likely to be the most-expensive with new facilities, but they're also the biggest long-shots.



I think the lack of interest in bidding for 2022 showed the IOC that if they want the Winter Games to continue, they need to make sure that host cities aren't burdened with white elephant infrastructure and massive long-term debt. 2026 needs to be a model to showcase to other potential host cities that hosting the Winter Games is actually something desirable.

[Northendzone]

fools - if the Austrians ever do a google search on speedskating ovals this thread will pop up and they will learn that speed skating ovals generate untold riches in terms of world events and whatnot

Originally Posted by getbak

..... The Austrian bid will likely see them using a speed skating oval in Germany.....

[getbak]

Yesterday, Council voted on a bunch of stuff related to the bid and public engagement process.

There will be a plebiscite, date to be determined (October at the earliest, but that might be too early). The date, question, and funding of the plebiscite will be determined no later than June. Strangely, Farrell was the only member of Council to vote against holding a plebiscite.

Prior to the plebiscite, there will be a public engagement process. The "no" votes against the public engagement process were Chu, Farkas, and Magliocca. I believe their opposition was to the structure of the engagement process that was proposed, rather than being opposed to holding public engagement.

Finally, they also formed a Council committee to oversee the process.

https://twitter.com/user/status/988646216555794432


The four Councillors will join the Mayor on the City's Olympic Committee. Of the five members, Demong is the only one who voted against continuing the bidding process last week.