Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Wormius]

How is "break even" defined here? Even if you didn't recoup the entire expenditures, I would at least factor in any of the tangible infrastructure and improvements that remained after the games, that hopefully weren't built over budget.

[afc wimbledon]

Vancouver ran the Olympics on a shoestring, built almost nothing for the Games that hadn't already been in the budget anyway, there was always going to be a train to the airport, the highway was always going to get upgraded etc, we got no new stadium, in fact they decided to upgrade BC place but not until after the games which was just weird frankly but what ever.


It was a genius move and I think the cheapest Olympics in decades

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't know, maybe this is an unreasonable question, but isn't just about anything we spend here going to be subsidized by other orders of government to our advantage?

That is, let's say that because of additional infrastructure costs (roads, transit, whatever) an additional $2 billion is tacked on to the cost. Obviously, Calgarians will bear the brunt of that overrun. However, won't it be at least partially subsidized by the Province and the Feds (to a greater degree than if we just decided to build it, unattached to any Olympic budget)? And if it's stuff we want to build regardless, isn't that a win overall? Or is the problem that we'll end up spending so much money on stuff we don't actually want that it'll remove the benefit?

I guess, to put it another way, I'm wondering if the economic benefit - and there will be a substantial one, even if it doesn't get back to breaking even - covers the stuff we otherwise wouldn't have paid for if there were no Olympics, while the stuff we otherwise would have paid for, we end up getting for less than we would otherwise have paid for it.

That's what the suitability of this bid boils down to really, at least to me. These details pulled from me being a tentative Yes to an almost definite No at this point because there was no new infrastructure projects, at least not useful ones (which would be the "stuff we otherwise would have paid for" from your example, minus the fieldhouse but that's minor). There was supposed to be greater capital efficiency with getting higher levels of Government to chip in to projects they otherwise wouldn't have, that was the main advantage touted. I was looking for something, anything to get excited about. New arena, new stadium, LRT upgrades, regional trains, hell even a widening of Highway 1. We got nothing out of that. Instead we have upgrades to niche facilities, the promises of a fieldhouse and a new 6000 seat arena for some reason. I'm not against those things per se, but when you add all the externality costs of an Olympics, security being the main one, it seems we could just build all those things ourselves and have excess money left over. The advantage of higher levels of Government, specifically the Feds, chipping in is essentially negated.

Or, put another way: The city's contribution to this bid so far is in the neighborhood of 1B, likely to grow. For that B we get niche upgrades, field house, and small arena, plus Olympic exposure and two week event. I don't know, it seems like a bad use of money.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

This is a childish argument. Downgrading a comment because they don’t see it your way. Very childish. Childish would be Quebec saying if they don’t get what they want, they’re leaving. Check your definitions.

Weather the federal, provincial or municipal government pays for it it’s all out of our pockets.

The city of Calgary has a long list of infrastructure and service projects coming up. Example lrt and a field house. We can either pay for these projects with our municipal money, or we can use the 2.5 billion we receive from the IOC and games revenues.

Why would calgarians want to shoulder 100% of the tax burden when we can partially fund it through Olympic revenues.

I didn't call it childish because you don't see it my way. I called it childish because your reasoning is like that of a child. Our sibling got a toy and now we should get one too, even if it's a horrible financial decision.

That is childish.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by nik-

I didn't call it childish because you don't see it my way. I called it childish because your reasoning is like that of a child. Our sibling got a toy and now we should get one too, even if it's a horrible financial decision.

That is childish.

The sibling keeps getting toys while the other has received nothing.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The sibling keeps getting toys while the other has received nothing.

And how does a bunch of irresponsible spending make this better? It might make you feel a little better, sure, but that doesn't mean it's prudent.

[Ozy_Flame]

This is a window of opportunity to get federal and provincial support for funding a multitude of facilities, the least of which could include an NHL arena at the end of the day.

Rather than re-write what I wrote in the other thread, I'll just repost it:

Adjusted for inflation and at the current exchange rate for US bucks, Vancouver spent $9.62 billion.

A simple Flames arena can be built for about $400 million. Mosaic Stadium cost about $278 million. Calgary could probably have new pro sports stadiums with this bid for $6B CDN, possibly less given that CSEC would kick in as well, and efficiencies could be found doing combined Field House/sporting venue facilities. Also, spending on the Saddledome and MacMahon could also be removed/accounted for pending new facilities.

With the IOC kicking in 2.23, Assume the Flames kick in 200 mil, and public spending kicks in 3B, the City would be spending in the neighborhood of $750 million to get new facilities for the Stamps and Flames, a new field house, a new mid-sized arena, a dearth of upgrades to existing buildings, and likely a spike in immediate and long-term tourist dollar spending.

For reference, the new City of Calgary Central Library will cost $245 million.

Assuming new Flames and Stamps facilities are worked in, it doesn't seem like that bad of a deal, at least in my books. No opportunity is going to present itself in any other way. The City would be on the hook for most of that by itself.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by nik-

And how does a bunch of irresponsible spending make this better? It might make you feel a little better, sure, but that doesn't mean it's prudent.

How is spending money on an Olympics irresponsible when the Olympic committee would be doing everything possible to insure this is a good investment.

A boost to calgary’s economy, infrastructure built that’s only partially tax payer funded, job creation. Vancouver broke even and so did Calgary in 88. There’s a lot of people working to make sure this would be a success.

How do consider that irresponsible spending?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This is a window of opportunity to get federal and provincial support for funding a multitude of facilities, the least of which could include an NHL arena at the end of the day.

Rather than re-write what I wrote in the other thread, I'll just repost it:

Adjusted for inflation and at the current exchange rate for US bucks, Vancouver spent $9.62 billion.

A simple Flames arena can be built for about $400 million. Mosaic Stadium cost about $278 million. Calgary could probably have new pro sports stadiums with this bid for $6B CDN, possibly less given that CSEC would kick in as well, and efficiencies could be found doing combined Field House/sporting venue facilities. Also, spending on the Saddledome and MacMahon could also be removed/accounted for pending new facilities.

With the IOC kicking in 2.23, Assume the Flames kick in 200 mil, and public spending kicks in 3B, the City would be spending in the neighborhood of $750 million to get new facilities for the Stamps and Flames, a new field house, a new mid-sized arena, a dearth of upgrades to existing buildings, and likely a spike in immediate and long-term tourist dollar spending.

For reference, the new City of Calgary Central Library will cost $245 million.

Assuming new Flames and Stamps facilities are worked in, it doesn't seem like that bad of a deal, at least in my books. No opportunity is going to present itself in any other way. The City would be on the hook for most of that by itself.

Absolutely. This is what I’m trying to say. We won’t be saving any money by not having an Olympics. We’ll be funding neccessary and approved infrastructure 100% by calgarians.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

How is spending money on an Olympics irresponsible when the Olympic committee would be doing everything possible to insure this is a good investment.

A boost to calgary’s economy, infrastructure built that’s only partially tax payer funded, job creation. Vancouver broke even and so did Calgary in 88. There’s a lot of people working to make sure this would be a success.

How do consider that irresponsible spending?

CODA and VANOC broke even operationally. That's not the overall costs though. VANOC's stated revenue was 1.9 billion and a total GDP value of 2.6 billion. So they stated they were debt free. Actual total cost of those Olympics were estimated at over 6 billion.

Job creation is temporary, most of the workers at the Olympics are volunteers. Partially tax payer funded sounds nice, but is partially 80%? 90%? It's still a massive amount of tax dollars.

At 5+ billion just for the initial bid, there's no way this is thing ends up being a net positive if you want to break it down for value for dollar. You can argue your assigned intangible value to a community for infrastructure, that's valid, but the math is pretty clear.

[Muta]

This is a rare chance to have Quebec pay for our assets for once. We'd be fools to miss out on this opportunity!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Muta

This is a rare chance to have Quebec pay for our assets for once. We'd be fools to miss out on this opportunity!

Alberta hands Quebec money.

Quebec puts money in pocket

Quebec gives some money to Alberta for Olympics.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Alberta hands Quebec money.

Quebec puts money in pocket

Quebec gives some money to Alberta for Olympics.

I don't think you understand equalization payments lol

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't think you understand equalization payments lol

No one understands equalization payments.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by nik-

Alberta hands Quebec money.

Quebec puts money in pocket

Quebec gives some money to Alberta for Olympics.

Better than giving us the middle finger

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't think you understand equalization payments lol

Sorry, Alberta gives Federal government money, federal government gives it to Quebec.

Missed that step that makes it totally different in some way.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by nik-

CODA and VANOC broke even operationally. That's not the overall costs though. VANOC's stated revenue was 1.9 billion and a total GDP value of 2.6 billion. So they stated they were debt free. Actual total cost of those Olympics were estimated at over 6 billion.

Job creation is temporary, most of the workers at the Olympics are volunteers. Partially tax payer funded sounds nice, but is partially 80%? 90%? It's still a massive amount of tax dollars.

At 5+ billion just for the initial bid, there's no way this is thing ends up being a net positive if you want to break it down for value for dollar. You can argue your assigned intangible value to a community for infrastructure, that's valid, but the math is pretty clear.

Are you saying you would rather federal and provincial money go to something else other than the Olympics because I can assure you money not spent on the Olympics will definitely be spent on something else.

That money is already earmarked for Canadian events. If it’s not spent in Calgary it will be spent on something else like nicer fireworks for Canada day. The government won’t be using it to pay down debt and they most certainly won’t be reducing taxes if we choose not to have the games.

FYI volunteers don’t build arenas, ski jumps, lrt’s etc. The jobs are temporary and so is every construction job - example - ring road. What else is new?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry, Alberta gives Federal government money, federal government gives it to Quebec.

Missed that step that makes it totally different in some way.

Just so you know, you'd have to blame Alberta's low tax rate as one of the culprits as much as the Federal government for their distribution policy as well as Quebec's inability to meet fiscal capacity.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Are you saying you would rather federal and provincial money go to something else other than the Olympics because I can assure you money not spent on the Olympics will definitely be spent on something else.

That money is already earmarked for Canadian events. If it’s not spent in Calgary it will be spent on something else like nicer fireworks for Canada day. The government won’t be using it to pay down debt and they most certainly won’t be reducing taxes if we choose not to have the games.

FYI volunteers don’t build arenas, ski jumps, lrt’s etc

Yes, because that "something else" is not just going to get cancelled because they hosted some Olympics. They're still going to do that something else, except now there's a 5-8 billion dollar hole in the slush fund. I don't know if you pay attention to deficits, but it's pretty clear they don't zero sum these budgets. So it'll just all happen.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Just so you know, you'd have to blame Alberta's low tax rate as one of the culprits as much as the Federal government for their distribution policy as well as Quebec's inability to meet fiscal capacity.

Yeah, you're going to have to elaborate on that.