Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Please tell me you don’t actually believe this.

I believe it.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You sound so far removed from anything winter sport related. This is not a want for the many athletes that come to this city to train year round. If you care about Canadian winter sport at all, you would at least consider this. Most of Calgary's winter sport infrastructure and thus Canada's winter sport infrastructure is nearing the end of its life. Winsport needs significantly more money to maintain its level of training facilities, same as the Olympic oval.

For you to dismiss this shows that you have not looked at the pros and cons of the argument. For the record, I am still on the fence about which way to vote.

I’m pretty involved with winter sport.

Which boutique sport should I care about?

Originally Posted by Muta

It is. A healthy population becomes less of a burden on a nation's healthcare system. Indoor facilities are needed in Canada so that activity may be possible year-round.

Oh whew. Calgary is golden then, as our most popular, played indoor sports, indoor soccer and hockey are well accommodated.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Swarly

People keep talking about the boost we got to the city and our presence on the world stage in '88 and saying we should do that again, boost our city up and reap the benefits. Has none of these people heard of the law of diminishing returns? You can't say that we got X amount of benefit from the first Olympics so let's do it again and get another X benefit.

In '88 hosting made the world aware or us, if we do it again the world will just say "oh ya, Calgary, the hosts of the '88 games". The first time hosting we got a lot of facilities from hosting, I get that, it was a great deal. If we don't host again that legacy and those facilities don't go anywhere, we still have them. If there was any other added benefit from this bid, anything lasting like a facility or city infrastructure I would be a yes. But as it is, we are on the hook for outrageous costs to get a $200M field house and a few upgraded buildings? sorry, that won't change my life in any way so it's a no.

To your point about awareness - certainly that is true for people above 40 today (or 48 in 2026), but a lot of the world is too young to remember or wasn't alive in 88. As such, if you believe that it did have that impact in 88, there's little reason to believe it wouldn't have a similar impact for anyone under 48 or so year old in 2026.

As for venues - for sure, it's a re-up, not a whole whack of new venues.

[GullFoss]

The biggest argument for the yes side should be this: if we don't get the Olympics, the governments are just going to waste the money on something else. Either the money will be used to subsidize the poor decisions of poor people, stupid pet projects of politicians, fighting in vain to stop climate change, throwing more money at Aboriginal groups, throwing more money at retirees in Quebec, thowijg more money to unemployed able bodied folks in Atlantic Canada and increasing the rate at which we allow refugees. Or they'll use the money to give rich people tax cuts.

So pick you poison:

1) special interests of the left
2) tax cuts for the rich
3) Olympics

It's a great argument because it's true.

[nik-]

Except they'll just do the Olympics and then all that other stuff too.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Please tell me you don’t actually believe this..

Oh, please enlighten me

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The biggest argument for the yes side should be this: if we don't get the Olympics, the governments are just going to waste the money on something else. Either the money will be used to subsidize the poor decisions of poor people, stupid pet projects of politicians, fighting in vain to stop climate change, throwing more money at Aboriginal groups, throwing more money at retirees in Quebec, thowijg more money to unemployed able bodied folks in Atlantic Canada and increasing the rate at which we allow refugees. Or they'll use the money to give rich people tax cuts.

So pick you poison:

1) special interests of the left
2) tax cuts for the rich
3) Olympics

It's a great argument because it's true.

It’s not a great argument. It’s a hypocritical one. FYGM. I’m just amazed at how many people who espouse themselves to be fiscal conservatives and are anti-NDP will embrace the olympics because it’s our turn.

Even when you make the it’s our turn argument the spend of the provincie and city is at best equal to the infrastructure we are left with. At that assumes that the low income housing doesn’t get sold off to cover budget shortfalls. And it assumes that making infrastructure to the Olympic standard is a good use of funds.

We don’t need an ice plant in the field house. That’s 40 million wasted. We don’t need to upgrade Nakiska with a new lift for a private company. More Millioms wasted.

The myopic argument still doesn’t get you to the point where the Olympics are a good idea.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Yeah maybe awkward wording but I presume you know what I mean. Replace economy with civic finances.

The Mayor is one vote on a Council of 15. It’s not like Provincial or Federal party politics where the leader decides what the party does - he’s just one guy. I’m not partial to Nenshi one way or the other, but you can’t blame him for civic finances alone.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I’m pretty involved with winter sport.

Which boutique sport should I care about?



Oh whew. Calgary is golden then, as our most popular, played indoor sports, indoor soccer and hockey are well accommodated.

No kidding. Trying to pass off an oval and sliding centres that service as many people in a year as Jimmy Condon arena by itself as a prevatative health investment is stretching it.

[OldDutch]

I think we should park the money grab argument for a moment. The way I see it is this city is in the dumps. It should not be with $80 oil but it is. It needs to do something.

We obviously can’t build a pipeline. We can’t immediately attract new industries. What we can do is form a vehicle to showcase our city to the world. To show our little city that could story with the smart people that work really hard to create this awesome place people should come to.

Its global and it gets us a lot of attention we normally would not get. On top of it all it is subsidized.

To me it comes down to your opinion of viability of this business case. Is it worth it to do even at this massively subsidized price? What else could we do that is worth the money to achieve a better result if we don’t?

We should look at it as a pure business play for the city, nothing else. Worth it or not?

I personally think it is a no brainer with most of the IOC requirements removed.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

It should not be with $80 oil but it is

Someone is stuck in the glory days of early October, 2018!

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I think we should park the money grab argument for a moment. The way I see it is this city is in the dumps. It should not be with $80 oil but it is. It needs to do something.

We obviously can’t build a pipeline. We can’t immediately attract new industries. What we can do is form a vehicle to showcase our city to the world. To show our little city that could story with the smart people that work really hard to create this awesome place people should come to.

Its global and it gets us a lot of attention we normally would not get. On top of it all it is subsidized.

To me it comes down to your opinion of viability of this business case. Is it worth it to do even at this massively subsidized price? What else could we do that is worth the money to achieve a better result if we don’t?

We should look at it as a pure business play for the city, nothing else. Worth it or not?

I personally think it is a no brainer with most of the IOC requirements removed.

I'll play.

let's leave aside all financial concerns.

say the Calgary does do the Olympics and again increases Calgary's global visibility. then what? what does Calgary do with it? what do they have to offer to keep that momentum going?

some people say it will make Calgary more world class and not average. how so?

what is Calgary going to offer people around the world other than reminding them it's a gateway to visiting somewhere else that is nicer?
how would it spur investment? what does Calgary have worth investing in?

I hate the attitude, but I can at least understand the people who just want nicer things, a party, don't care about taxes and if money is going to be wasted, let it be on us.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

No kidding. Trying to pass off an oval and sliding centres that service as many people in a year as Jimmy Condon arena by itself as a prevatative health investment is stretching it.

I never said that. I just agreed that more recreation and sport facilities, in general, contribute to the overall health of the general population, which in turn, helps to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. I hope you believe that too, because it's true.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

I never said that. I just agreed that more recreation and sport facilities, in general, contribute to the overall health of the general population, which in turn, helps to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. I hope you believe that too, because it's true.

So we should spend 500 million on rinks and soccer centres rather facilities for elite athletes.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GGG

So we should spend 500 million on rinks and soccer centres rather facilities for elite athletes.

All of those facilities can be used, one way or another, by the general public. I've been to the Oval and WinSport several times before, and I'm not a professional athlete. Have you used them? Or have you just not tried?

Those venues can also host regular collegiate and professional training (and not just from Canadian or Albertan athletes), and most importantly, can regularly host world cups and other professional events which, in turn helps the service and tourism industries.

Your tax money is going to be going to a field house eventually, regardless of the Olympics. Why not do it in a way while securing a large returned investment in Calgary in the process?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s not a great argument. It’s a hypocritical one. FYGM. I’m just amazed at how many people who espouse themselves to be fiscal conservatives and are anti-NDP will embrace the olympics because it’s our turn.

Even when you make the it’s our turn argument the spend of the provincie and city is at best equal to the infrastructure we are left with. At that assumes that the low income housing doesn’t get sold off to cover budget shortfalls. And it assumes that making infrastructure to the Olympic standard is a good use of funds.

We don’t need an ice plant in the field house. That’s 40 million wasted. We don’t need to upgrade Nakiska with a new lift for a private company. More Millioms wasted.

The myopic argument still doesn’t get you to the point where the Olympics are a good idea.

That’s what governments do. They waste money. What would you rather they waste it on? Tax breaks for the rich? Subsidizing renewable power? Buying back coal plants just to moth ball them? Buying multimillion dollar homes on the river just to knock them down? New offices for the premier? A larger military budget that we’ll never need? Inflated public sector salaries? A bloated bureaucracy? A rediculously expensive refinery with carbon capture?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

That’s what governments do. They waste money. What would you rather they waste it on? Tax breaks for the rich? Subsidizing renewable power? Buying back coal plants just to moth ball them? Buying multimillion dollar homes on the river just to knock them down? New offices for the premier? A larger military budget that we’ll never need? Inflated public sector salaries? A bloated bureaucracy? A rediculously expensive refinery with carbon capture?

What a ridiculously slanted list.

How about we add:

-build roads and other infrastructure
-build schools and employee teachers
-build hospitals
-employee first responders
- and many more

I personally am on the fence still as I continue to gather facts, as are many others. One-sided propaganda like this doesn't help the conversation, it holds it back. There is waste in government and there is a huge bureaucracy in government but let's not pretend that there isn't a positive public utility from all levels of government. I don't mean to single you out as there are others on the other side that do the same thing. We can do better and have more meaningful discourse I think.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

All of those facilities can be used, one way or another, by the general public. I've been to the Oval and WinSport several times before, and I'm not a professional athlete. Have you used them? Or have you just not tried?

Those venues can also host regular collegiate and professional training (and not just from Canadian or Albertan athletes), and most importantly, can regularly host world cups and other professional events which, in turn helps the service and tourism industries.

Your tax money is going to be going to a field house eventually, regardless of the Olympics. Why not do it in a way while securing a large returned investment in Calgary in the process?

The argument that was made was that the Olympic facilities would promote a healthy public. Outside of the fieldhouse the facilities upgrades proposed will not increase the public’s ability to use recreational facilities.

Therefore the argument that the olympics will leave legacy facilities that will increase the general health is false as like you said the field house will likely be built with or without the olympics.

My position is exactly what you suggest. Spend the tax dollars on the facilities needed without securing the waste involved with hosting the olympics.

3 billion in public money for 1.5 billion of infrastructure for roughly 500-700 million of infrastructure we need is not a good deal.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

That’s what governments do. They waste money. What would you rather they waste it on? Tax breaks for the rich? Subsidizing renewable power? Buying back coal plants just to moth ball them? Buying multimillion dollar homes on the river just to knock them down? New offices for the premier? A larger military budget that we’ll never need? Inflated public sector salaries? A bloated bureaucracy? A rediculously expensive refinery with carbon capture?

If governments just waste money than this isn’t at OR statement it’s and AND statement.

The government will still waste money on your list above AND another 3 billion on the olympics. It’s odd to complain and support government waste in the same sentence.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GGG

The argument that was made was that the Olympic facilities would promote a healthy public. Outside of the fieldhouse the facilities upgrades proposed will not increase the public’s ability to use recreational facilities.

Therefore the argument that the olympics will leave legacy facilities that will increase the general health is false as like you said the field house will likely be built with or without the olympics.

My position is exactly what you suggest. Spend the tax dollars on the facilities needed without securing the waste involved with hosting the olympics.

3 billion in public money for 1.5 billion of infrastructure for roughly 500-700 million of infrastructure we need is not a good deal.

What makes you think a renovated Oval and sliding centre can't be used by the public? You seem to be condemning these sports facilities as not being useful; have you tried them? Have you tried luge, bobseld, etc. are you just against it because you've never tried them? Those facilities / organizations would love to have more people take up the sport at any level. You're totally able to do that if you want.

Also, where are you numbers from? By your reasoning, you need to remember that '$3B in public money' isn't just from Calgary taxpayers, it's from across Canada - we have a chance to have federal dollars invested in Calgary that originate outside of our own local tax base. This is also a chance to have your federal tax dollars come BACK to Calgary - taxes that you've paid, that in any other budget would likely go to other areas of Canada.

Don't forget that any federal Olympic contribution means that money is coming directly into Calgary from across the country. That investment is NOT happening otherwise.