2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What am i looking at here?

Bowen Group took Trevor Tombe’s quote about the 10:1 investment return and edited it to make it appear that he supported the statement instead of calling it out for the nonsense it was. Then they posted it to twitter to bolster their support for the game (which they’ll benefit hugely from)

Should also be noted that Bowen has a link to Calgary Economic Development, where Mary Moran worked prior to BidCo, and will presumably return to after

[Senator Clay Davis]

So let's just go ahead and ignore the financial arguments, shall we? I know that seems rich coming from my non-stop negativity about this thing, but I said this last week, and it's true, the financial arguments are in the eye of the beholder. If you love the Olympics and want Calgary to host, you will find a way to spin the numbers to show the Olympics are a financially prudent move. A lot of the benefits are impossible to calculate, so it makes it easier to spin. If you don't want the Olympics, then you will find ways to make the numbers seem catastrophic, even though this bid is mostly financial sound, albeit underwhelming.

So it will all come down to the emotional argument, and the Yes side clearly knows this hence why they're turning up the nostalgia to 1000 this week. Seeing as they have literally every single cent in this race, along with high profile backers with millions of social media followers, they certainly have the ground game advantage to try and drown us to death in it. So it seems there's nothing to debate anymore on the financial merits (or lack thereof) of this project. So I'm not going to anymore. I'll just stick to the emotional debates.

So here's my first emotional argument: The last two weeks. We've all been paying attention to this ever evolving bid that still somehow isn't a final pitchable product despite being promised to have enough time to review (30 days minimum, as I recall). Even right now there is still not absolute clarity on security cost funding, how the Whistler component will work, and one of the most touted legacies is already being cut in housing. It's also worth remembering that a majority of council voted to kill this bid, and they have access to all the information, including the plethora of closed door meetings. We elect these people to act in our interest, and a majority think it should be killed. Because they know the last two weeks have shown what a mess this whole thing has been from the start.

So, obvious question, but why should we trust the people involved in this process to be honest, trustworthy, and forthright when they transition from cheerleader to implementer? I know Yes backers will point to the library as proof we can believe they'll do well, but the library is actually a terrible argument IMO. The library is one of those big legacy projects and....it didn't need the Olympics. We can do big, meaningful projects without the Olympics, clearly. It's too bad we can't always show that ambition, because while the Yes side will say bidding is showing ambition, this is the least ambitious Olympic bid ever by a considerable margin. And I would hardly call hosting the Olympics actually ambitious, if anything it's a cop out because the IOC desperately need a non-dictator to host. This is a marriage of convenience more than a bold move.

Which leads into my second emotional argument: The legacy sucks. Sorry, but to all but the staunchest Yes supporter it does. The Yes backers can tout the legacy all they'd like, but I can kill the bid in one fell swoop: Take the fieldhouse out. Without that it's seriously nothing but refurbs, and none that are truly exciting, which sort of shows how lacking in ambition this bid is. And you can't even claim housing yet, because given that they've already slashed some, and given their massive budget issues upcoming, can we really rule out selling all units at market to generate desperately needed revenue? Especially when every Olympic bid since 2000 has promised affordable housing, and there currently exactly zero units of affordable housing from those bids. Do we really think a government that is drowning in the red is going to pass up the chance to cash in? Unless it is a legal guarantee those units will be affordable housing, perhaps the only meaningful legacy from this could easily become nothing.

Thankfully there's only one week left, I'm sure we're all sick of this #### and wished it would be over already. And maybe if the BidCo did a better job from the start, this would be a lot more cut and dry. Instead they've botched this entire process and are hoping that tugging the heart strings will be enough because their logic argument has failed. I still think No wins, the early voting numbers are apparently a record and I think there's no doubt No is more energized than Yes. But Yes has all the money (and for a rare once it can be said literally all the money), and dollars are still how elections are won. So we shall see.

[Nyah]

Nm, discussed above.

[transplant99]

OK so someone took a quote and changed the context completely.

Is the Bowen group a big player or something?

I guess im just wondering why this/they matters overall....or does it?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by cral12

Yes for me.

Muta in the another thread captured my line of thinking:


Agree?
Feel free to attempt to sway me to the no side...

I agree. I see this as an opportunity to build legacy infrastructure with dollars coming in from outside the city to defray some of that cost. And in many cases it's infrastructure we badly need.

I'm voting yes, even though I think:
1. the cost estimates are very uncertain and I doubt they are realistic;
2. it's way too soon to have a vote on this, as the details are far from clear;
3. no-one can accurately estimate the true cost of an Olympics event that will be held in this city 8 years from now.

To me a "yes" vote is just a vote to take this bid to the next step, and those details will become clearer as the bid materializes. I have to trust in our civic leadership that if things become unpalatable as the fog of war clears on this thing they will pull the plug if that is the right thing to do--but it makes no sense to me to stop this process now before it gets off the ground based on the assumption that things are going to go badly.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Bowen Group took Trevor Tombe’s quote about the 10:1 investment return and edited it to make it appear that he supported the statement instead of calling it out for the nonsense it was. Then they posted it to twitter to bolster their support for the game (which they’ll benefit hugely from)

Should also be noted that Bowen has a link to Calgary Economic Development, where Mary Moran worked prior to BidCo, and will presumably return to after

Ahhh....ok that explains a bit more. Thanks for this.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

...
Thankfully there's only one week left, I'm sure we're all sick of this #### and wished it would be over already. And maybe if the BidCo did a better job from the start, this would be a lot more cut and dry. Instead they've botched this entire process and are hoping that tugging the heart strings will be enough because their logic argument has failed. I still think No wins, the early voting numbers are apparently a record and I think there's no doubt No is more energized than Yes. But Yes has all the money (and for a rare once it can be said literally all the money), and dollars are still how elections are won. So we shall see.

Just curious, your location says US, yet you seem heavily invested in arguing against this. In the previous thread you have twice as many posts as the next closest poster. If you aren't in Calgary, how are you getting inundated with this, unless you click on this thread? Why do you care so much?

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree. I see this as an opportunity to build legacy infrastructure with dollars coming in from outside the city to defray some of that cost. And in many cases it's infrastructure we badly need.

I'm voting yes, even though I think:
1. the cost estimates are very uncertain and I doubt they are realistic;
2. it's way too soon to have a vote on this, as the details are far from clear;
3. no-one can accurately estimate the true cost of an Olympics event that will be held in this city 8 years from now.

To me a "yes" vote is just a vote to take this bid to the next step, and those details will become clearer as the bid materializes. I have to trust in our civic leadership that if things become unpalatable as the fog of war clears on this thing they will pull the plug if that is the right thing to do--but it makes no sense to me to stop this process now before it gets off the ground based on the assumption that things are going to go badly.

This.

[Northendzone]

i have been a hard no for quite some time, and i have to admit that i am wavering a bid, but then i slip back to no because there are still a number of big unknowns. and to expect us to vote, with these unknowns is dissapointing as we are indicating our agreement to something.

what if things really start changing if we prepared a formal bid that is accepted? Whom is held accountable? Nenshi will be long gone as mayor by then......

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just curious, your location says US, yet you seem heavily invested in arguing against this.

Sigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Davis

sheeeeeeeee-it

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just curious, your location says US, yet you seem heavily invested in arguing against this. In the previous thread you have twice as many posts as the next closest poster. If you aren't in Calgary, how are you getting inundated with this, unless you click on this thread? Why do you care so much?

It's kind sad that I have to say "Yeah I live by Southland and Clay Davis is a fictional State Senator from Maryland, thus making his residence the state capital of Annapolis", but here we are. Sheeeeeeeiiiiiiiiii......

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just curious, your location says US, yet you seem heavily invested in arguing against this. In the previous thread you have twice as many posts as the next closest poster. If you aren't in Calgary, how are you getting inundated with this, unless you click on this thread? Why do you care so much?

IMO I think the poster is just using Clay Davis's the wire location as it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's kind sad that I have to say "Yeah I live by Southland and Clay Davis is a fictional State Senator from Maryland, thus making his residence the state capital of Annapolis", but here we are. Sheeeeeeeiiiiiiiiii......

I didn't get the reference, never watched the Wire. You post a lot in the US thread, so I just took your location at face value.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I'm guessing Lethbridge gets the curling...which is fine as they have a shiny new facility that Calgary simply can't match, though seating is limited as it stands right now.

Red Deer would make more sense to me. 45 minutes closer to Calgary and the Centrium also has quite a bit larger capacity.

Although, I think the real reason they haven't locked down the curling venue is because they're expecting the Flames' new arena to get built. The new arena would be the main hockey venue, which would free up the Saddledome for figure skating and short track. That frees up the field house for curling (which was the original suggestion by the Bid Exploration Committee).

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I am sure there is good reason but why isn't winspprt a option for curling?

One thing is that it's a smaller capacity, only about 3000 seats. They could probably boost that a bit with some temporary seating around the rink, but it's still pretty small for a sport that could sell at least double that many tickets in Calgary.

The other issue is that COP will already be hosting a large number of events (which is another reason why it makes sense to have ski jumping in Whistler). Curling has 3 draws per day, every day of the Games (morning, afternoon, and evening). That's a lot of people coming and going, which puts a strain on the transportation and security infrastructure for COP.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I didn't get the reference, never watched the Wire. You post a lot in the US thread, so I just took your location at face value.

Yeah you can vote Yes on this and I'll forgive you, but the bolded is truly unforgivable. For shame.

[FLAMESRULE]

I was the first voter through at the advance station on 20th Ave NW. Huge turnout. Had to be at least 50 people waiting in line when they opened the door. Most were older folks and there was definitely a strong sense that most were voting no (to be expected at early voting IMO).

The new electronic counter was slick though.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

i have been a hard no for quite some time, and i have to admit that i am wavering a bid, but then i slip back to no because there are still a number of big unknowns. and to expect us to vote, with these unknowns is dissapointing as we are indicating our agreement to something.

what if things really start changing if we prepared a formal bid that is accepted? Whom is held accountable? Nenshi will be long gone as mayor by then......

I hope this will address your concern. Once a city is successful in winning the bid, they enter into a Host City Contract with the IOC. Things covered in the contract include responsibilities, financial commitments, properties, contracts, security, games execution etc. This will be written shortly after the city selection. Nenshi and the current council will still be in power. In Calgary's case, the contract will be based on the numbers, information and commitment provided by BidCo, the IOC, the Province (who may not be in power in June but have no real say in the planning and execution stages) and the Fed.

The information contained in the Calgary2026 bid contains more details, budgetary line items and contingencies than any other Olympic bid in history at this stage of the process. This puts me solidly in the Yes camp, which is obvious based on my posting history.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

From the talk around this place I thought the vote would be a blowout, with only 20% support. Interesting to see the yes side winning here. Might be closer than I thought.

I don't think it will be close at all, it'll be a yes. Nevermind mind all the cash they're throwing around to sell their vision. So many people are willing to ignore facts and throw in for the Simpson's monorail.

I can see how people voted Trump in, for Brexit, get themselves scammed or hopelessly into financial problems.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059578152148594688

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Bowen Group took Trevor Tombe’s quote about the 10:1 investment return and edited it to make it appear that he supported the statement instead of calling it out for the nonsense it was. Then they posted it to twitter to bolster their support for the game (which they’ll benefit hugely from)

Should also be noted that Bowen has a link to Calgary Economic Development, where Mary Moran worked prior to BidCo, and will presumably return to after

That's disgusting.

Spoiler!

And totally expected.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

I was the first voter through at the advance station on 20th Ave NW. Huge turnout. Had to be at least 50 people waiting in line when they opened the door. Most were older folks and there was definitely a strong sense that most were voting no (to be expected at early voting IMO).

The new electronic counter was slick though.

My old man is a staunch "no" voter.



He's afraid of his property taxes going up due directly to the Olympics.