Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Red

Thats not how it works. I vote yes so everyone pays a little. Like we do for healthcare and roads etc.
If a pizza joint owner gets rich during the olympics then its good for him. Why does everything have to be about you?

It doesn't, but healthcare and roads are a worthwhile investment. The Olympics, not so much.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It doesn't, but healthcare and roads are a worthwhile investment. The Olympics, not so much.

Maybe not for you specifically. I know people that got a huge lift during the 88 games. They benefited and so have their kids and probably grand kids will too.

I also know healthy people that don't need healthcare. They dont feel like they should be paying for that either.

Look, i am not here to convince you. I just felt that some here could look at things other than money spent and slamming politicians and just look at it as an opportunity to help small businesses, promote the city and get some infrastructure with it for a fee, NOT FREE. It sounded reasonable to me.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Prediction: If Calgary hosts, the city will severely crack down on Airbnb's during that period to make sure hotels get filled.

How so? Ever looked at Airbnb's prices during a Super Bowl?

[Red]

Originally Posted by you&me

I'm in favour of the games, but I still think the yes side would have been better managed by a pack of dogs chasing cats. The real concern is if they can bungle it this badly when they're just trying to 'sell' it, what happens if they actually have to execute?

Have they bungled it? Or is it just regular negotiating between 3 levels of government and the IOC?

I honestly don't know. But i do know that we are very quick to criticize politicians.

Maybe they are not as dumb as a hockey message board makes them out to be?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Red

Have they bungled it? Or is it just regular negotiating between 3 levels of government and the IOC?

I honestly don't know. But i do know that we are very quick to criticize politicians.

Maybe they are not as dumb as a hockey message board makes them out to be?

No, I've met quite a few and they're dumber than what a hockey message board makes them out to be.

Most of your arguments are strawmen. Meh.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red

To me it's about the games. Sounds like we may have to pony up a bit in taxes, sure. But i am ok with that, because there will be tons of benefits. The infrastructure will be done at some point anyway surely it won't be free.

Can you elaborate on the tons of benefits?

My issue with the bid is that the benefits are not worth the combined provincial and city dollars being put in.

We get a field house, an upgraded oval, a community rink, the 800 units of affordable housing, a renovated McMahon, and a renovated big 4.

For 1.4 billion dollars.

Then you have the economic side which isn’t 0 but isn’t 10:1 either. And if you only count money that is spent in calgary which wouldn’t have been otherwise spent it drops significantly.

Then you need to look at multipliers and government taxation recovery which is well beyond my expertise but what I can’t find is an economist that isn’t working directly for a bid committee touting the economic benefits of the Olympics.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you elaborate on the tons of benefits?

My issue with the bid is that the benefits are not worth the combined provincial and city dollars being put in.

We get a field house, an upgraded oval, a community rink, the 800 units of affordable housing, a renovated McMahon, and a renovated big 4.

For 1.4 billion dollars.

Then you have the economic side which isn’t 0 but isn’t 10:1 either. And if you only count money that is spent in calgary which wouldn’t have been otherwise spent it drops significantly.

Then you need to look at multipliers and government taxation recovery which is well beyond my expertise but what I can’t find is an economist that isn’t working directly for a bid committee touting the economic benefits of the Olympics.

Benefits have been brought up many times. But no hard numbers so very easy to 'dispute'. Infrastructure, jobs, construction boom with trickle down etc. We got a lot from 88, no reason why we would not get lots now.

But again, who cares about that tile setter that will get a life time contract. Who cares about the restaurant owners, the cab driver and on and on. It's all about my few dollars tax every month.
Not talking about you specifically, just a general theme the 'no' crowd put forward. Me, me, me.

All i suggest is for people to look at it from a different angle. We all heard from the economists and professors. They say iphones are bad too.

Let me ask you this? Under what 'reasonable' circumstances would he Olympics be a welcome event for you?

Something tells me that there is no scenario where you would be fully satisfied. Which is ok BTW. We are all different people with different opinions.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Red

We all heard from the economists and professors. They say iphones are bad too.

What?

[Red]

Originally Posted by chemgear

What?

Nothing.

[Joborule]

The whole argument of the no crowd, and justifiable so, is the financial costs and risks that associated with the bid. We're putting in a lot of money into it, but the thing is, other levels of government, and the IOC is putting even more money into it.

For how much we put in, and what we get out of it overall, I feel like it's a good investment for the city. I'm not so worried about the costs getting out of control, and the city being on the hook for a significantly higher price tag since only a few new infrastructure is getting built, and everything else will be renos and upgrades. And this city has a good track record on getting things built on time, and within budget. So I feel this will carry true here as well. And even if somethings were to go over projected costs, I don't believe it would be in excessive amounts because of this cities track record. And is there a reason that it should go over? BidCo has done a lot of prepwork in planning here to get pretty everything we would need accounted for. This has to be one of, if not the most prepared bid done, and it still hasn't been formally submitted at this stage yet.

But ultimately, the reason the bid gets my support is I believe that the city would be better off with the Olympics coming here, and getting things that we need to get done, funded and built, that would be challenging to do otherwise on a individual basis. Along with the opportunity to have the world spotlight on us for a little bit. That's a lot to gain for the city only putting ~500M in total. When the province, federal, and IOC is throwing a lot of money for this event to occur in this city, it's an opportunity that shouldn't be passed up on lightly. And what's part of the bid currently, could lead to other projects we want being funded and developed in lieu of it. It's easier to gain north greenline support if we want to have a airport connection in time for the games.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Red

Let me ask you this? Under what 'reasonable' circumstances would he Olympics be a welcome event for you?

Originally Posted by chemgear

####, if we can have the Olympics with a reasonable understanding of the risk of overruns and financial risks and benefits, I'd look at it like any reasonable adult.

I believe it is reasonable for an organization bidding for something as large as the Olympics for billions upon billions of dollars to be transparent and provide a clear understanding to a potential city council of the realistic costs and risks associated with the process.

Not a last minute compilation of fudged numbers to save a bid on the day of its deathbed. Not claiming $200,000,000 in insurance that does not exist or have not even started to contact to partners necessary for the bid. Not a campaign that literally promotes a financially false metric that comes only from ponzi schemes and would get any other company in trouble with the Securities commission.

####, I saved up and blew more money than most people do on a car to go the Olympics in Beijing. Front row seats for dozens of medals, opening and closing ceremonies and watching Usain Bolt get a gold medal.

EDIT: (BTW https://www.cosport.com/ Though apparently things have apparently gone downhill in a bit in the decade since with them from what I read online. I literally got two of their biggest packages that were available back then.)

I'm not a no vote simply because of the fact that I don't believe or trust anything that the Bidco team have shown us based on their ridiculous sell job to date. Can they fix that and could I change my mind? Of course!

Will they bother to be transparent and provide such clarity before the vote? Shouldn't that have been their job in the first place?

[Travis Munroe]

I must say of all the debates about this, CP has a very reasonable debate.

Ive seen Facebook polls showing over 80% no with comments galore about how they vote that the pipeline needs to be built instead (as if the 2 have anything to do with each other).

The current financial position of the govt being in debt is irrelevant to me as we won't escape that debt until we escape the recession. The only way to escape the recession and red ink is to create jobs & increase migration. How is this going to be done? Sit on our hands and wait for trans mountain? We are getting nearly $7 for every $1 we (Calgarians) are putting in so why not roll the dice ... much of Calgary would most likely see their contribution offset by gains in one way or another should we get out of this downturn.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Red

Thats not how it works. I vote yes so everyone pays a little. Like we do for healthcare and roads etc.
If a pizza joint owner gets rich during the olympics then its good for him. Why does everything have to be about you?

And no, its not that I dont care. I just dont mind paying a little for this 'party'. Just like i did for the parties I organized.

It’s not just a little though. It’s just a little, forever. That was my point yesterday. So actually, it’s probably quite a bit.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you elaborate on the tons of benefits?

My issue with the bid is that the benefits are not worth the combined provincial and city dollars being put in.

We get a field house, an upgraded oval, a community rink, the 800 units of affordable housing, a renovated McMahon, and a renovated big 4.

For 1.4 billion dollars.

Then you have the economic side which isn’t 0 but isn’t 10:1 either. And if you only count money that is spent in calgary which wouldn’t have been otherwise spent it drops significantly.

Then you need to look at multipliers and government taxation recovery which is well beyond my expertise but what I can’t find is an economist that isn’t working directly for a bid committee touting the economic benefits of the Olympics.

Have you come across any economists trying to assess it strictly from a Calgary perspective? i.e as if the IOC and Fed’s contributions are “free”, and maybe a portion of the Province’s contribution (though I know we disagree on that so we can set it aside for the sake of the conversation for now).

[Red]

If it is forever then I am a "no" vote too. But I don't believe that it is.


Anytime there is a big and expensive proposal we have a large debate and lot's of "no" people trying to show how it is the end of the world. Yet, it never is.


When was the last time that an event like this "ruined" a city? And I don't mean that it gave the opposition party things to whine about. When did it actually hurt a city and their citizens long term?


What were the talking points of the opposition to the Vancouver games?

[chemgear]

Hmm, I assume this directed at me so . . .

Originally Posted by Red

Who the heck cares if there is a profit? It is not a question wether we profit or not, its about having the games here and what it will cost.
For a small hit on my taxes its a no brainer to me.

It's not whether there is a profit or not, it's that the Olympics are prone to overrun. And our budget is banking on "overrun" insurance that does not exist.

Do you know the scale of the hit on your taxes for the Olympics? That they are going to be "small"? I don't, have they estimated or presented that yet? Honest question, have they shown that publicly say like through property tax increases until 2026?

Originally Posted by Red

The no crowd is vocal because it's cool to be the guy that 'can see through the BS' and not be a sheep or whatever. These r the same ppl that end up getting their grossly overpriced iphones, cars and houses they dont need. But they will tell me that olympics are a waste of money. Whatever.
To me it's about the games. Sounds like we may have to pony up a bit in taxes, sure. But i am ok with that, because there will be tons of benefits. The infrastructure will be done at some point anyway surely it won't be free.

Eh? Is this directed at me? Like I said, I saved up and spent tens of thousands of dollars just to go a single Olympics.

Frankly, the nebulous dismissal of determining the actual size of costs and benefits seems like a good way to end up with a lot of debt and grossly overpriced items you don't need; as you say.

Originally Posted by Red

Flame away.

Why? Ummm, okay. I don't know what you have against iPhones. Or are you for iPhones? I have no idea where you were going with that. But anyhow, go Android! Pew Pew!

[Red]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Hmm, I assume this directed at me so . . .



It's not whether there is a profit or not, it's that the Olympics are prone to overrun. And our budget is banking on "overrun" insurance that does not exist.

Do you know the scale of the hit on your taxes for the Olympics? That they are going to be "small"? I don't, have they estimated or presented that yet? Honest question, have they shown that publicly say like through property tax increases until 2026?



Eh? Is this directed at me? Like I said, I saved up and spent tens of thousands of dollars just to go a single Olympics.

Frankly, the nebulous dismissal of determining the actual size of costs and benefits seems like a good way to end up with a lot of debt and grossly overpriced items you don't need; as you say.



Why? Ummm, okay. I don't know what you have against iPhones. Or are you for iPhones? I have no idea where you were going with that. But anyhow, go Android! Pew Pew!

My post wasn't directed at you, it was a response to an article about profiting from the olympics.


I know about the real cost as much as you do about the overruns, we just put faith in our gut feeling. No right or wrong answer.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Hmm, I assume this directed at me so . . .



It's not whether there is a profit or not, it's that the Olympics are prone to overrun. And our budget is banking on "overrun" insurance that does not exist.

Do you know the scale of the hit on your taxes for the Olympics? That they are going to be "small"? I don't, have they estimated or presented that yet? Honest question, have they shown that publicly say like through property tax increases until 2026?



Eh? Is this directed at me? Like I said, I saved up and spent tens of thousands of dollars just to go a single Olympics.

Frankly, the nebulous dismissal of determining the actual size of costs and benefits seems like a good way to end up with a lot of debt and grossly overpriced items you don't need; as you say.



Why? Ummm, okay. I don't know what you have against iPhones. Or are you for iPhones? I have no idea where you were going with that. But anyhow, go Android! Pew Pew!

I haven't seen any figures on what it will do to property taxes but let's say we are on the hook for 800m (high figure), and that the population was 1m (low figure) then we are looking at about $8 per month per person for the next 7 and a half years. That is based on an average so a house bringing in $90,000 with 4 people (2 kids, 2 adults) would pay $32 a month between now and the Olympics (0.0042% of the household income spent on hosting the Olympics).

Whether you can afford to attend or not, you will 100% be able to soak in a ton of free (paid for via taxes) entertainment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red

Benefits have been brought up many times. But no hard numbers so very easy to 'dispute'. Infrastructure, jobs, construction boom with trickle down etc. We got a lot from 88, no reason why we would not get lots now.

But again, who cares about that tile setter that will get a life time contract. Who cares about the restaurant owners, the cab driver and on and on. It's all about my few dollars tax every month.
Not talking about you specifically, just a general theme the 'no' crowd put forward. Me, me, me.

All i suggest is for people to look at it from a different angle. We all heard from the economists and professors. They say iphones are bad too.

Let me ask you this? Under what 'reasonable' circumstances would he Olympics be a welcome event for you?

Something tells me that there is no scenario where you would be fully satisfied. Which is ok BTW. We are all different people with different opinions.

My argument on the economic end is that you could provide economic stimulus in another manner that would provide greater benefit than the olympics to the tile setter. How many jobs could 1.2 billion in start up money for business create vs the 5.5 spent on olympics? The argument that the no side makes isn’t that there are no economic benefits it’s that the economic benefits seen are not sufficient for a 3 billion dollar investment. Should Canada spend 3 billion to get an addition 2.5?

For me to back the Olympics the useful infrastructure remaining after the games would have to at a minimum have a value greater than the provincial and city contributions. I define useful a little differently than the bid document. For example the sliding center upgrades I don’t include because funding already exists to keep the track at an international standard. Only about half of the oval money is necessary. Nakiska upgrades are not necessary, a big 4 Reno is a poor investment and so on.

My view of the Olympics has always been that a good bid you get infrastructure you need at a discount, A bad olympics is you get infrastructure you don’t need at an inflated price.

So when I break down the numbers for benefits I get somewhere between 500-700 million of money the city needs to spend anyways. So if at the same city and provincial spending level the Feds through in an extra 1 billion for transit and the city and the flames got an arena deal together I would vote yes in a second.

The other part I think people miss about the No side is that if the Olympics get awarded to Calgary many would get fully onboard with the games. If the games go ahead I will be taking two weeks of work to volunteer and go to as many events as possible. Attending the Olympics is Awesome, Salt Lake and Vancouver were awesome to attend and I plan on going to LA for the summer Olympics. I’m just not interested in Canada, Alberta and Calgary subsidizing that experience for everyone.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Prediction: If Calgary hosts, the city will severely crack down on Airbnb's during that period to make sure hotels get filled.

Read the report. The report is touting that Airbnb is encouraged and helps reduce the requirements for hotel rooms. They want you to rent your house. For anyone that's a no, could simply leave town, rent their house and easiy cover any tax increase + profit.