2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by chemgear

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.

I've seen other polls that are resoundingly no. So who really knows.

[jeffporfirio]

Me and the wife voted NO, today in the advance polling.

As much as this is some non-sense power trip for some with made up numbers, I believe the YES will win.

Folks in Calgary have bought in the 10:1 , it's all smoke and mirrors.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

My old man is a staunch "no" voter.



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

That is way more likely than not though, and a perfectly reasonable aspect as to why to oppose.

The city will be on the hook for any overruns, and there hasnt been an Olympics in the 50 years that hasn't sustained those, and the money has to come from somewhere.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Anyway this article is a bit old now, but worth posting again

Column: Three reasons to vote No to 2026 Games

Myth No. 1: Calgarians will make lots of money.
Myth No. 2: The Olympics will leave an affordable housing legacy.
Myth No. 3: A plebiscite is a fair way to decide whether Calgary should host the Olympics.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-to-2026-games

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

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

https://globalnews.ca/news/4566104/c...ost-taxpayers/


So it’s safe to say the $2,000 number could easily be much higher, according to the CTF.

“If cost overruns are the same as Calgary’s were in 1988, the household will be paying $6,000.

“If cost overruns are the same as the average for the Winter Olympics, then households will be paying $11,000 each,” Terrazzano said.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

Regarding the housing...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059633259271712768

https://twitter.com/user/status/1059633139624988674

The mix market and attainable provide no public benefit to Calgary.

So we have 1100 units of housing for public benefit. This is down from 2300 implied by the original proposal. If you take the 490 million housing cost and factor it the Public Value of the housing is about 300 million. This assumes that the cost of each unit is the same and more dollars per unit aren’t spent on the resale units.

Also if you are looking at this as purely Calgary rather than as a province it’s about a 234 million benefit to Calgary.

[RM14]

Hoping the get going on the McMahon improvements asap.

Spoiler!

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://globalnews.ca/news/4566104/c...ost-taxpayers/


So it’s safe to say the $2,000 number could easily be much higher, according to the CTF.

“If cost overruns are the same as Calgary’s were in 1988, the household will be paying $6,000.

“If cost overruns are the same as the average for the Winter Olympics, then households will be paying $11,000 each,” Terrazzano said.

Hmm. Most of the structures have been built already so I'm not sure there will be cost overruns similar to past Olympics. They built a new arena, bobsled track, ski jumps, oval, etc in 1988.



If the property tax increase is spread over 10 years, I'm not sure the hit is that egregious.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Hmm. Most of the structures have been built already so I'm not sure there will be cost overruns similar to past Olympics. They built a new arena, bobsled track, ski jumps, oval, etc in 1988.



If the property tax increase is spread over 10 years, I'm not sure the hit is that egregious.

$1 billion contingency.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by getbak

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).

This is what I'm thinking also. Put the money for the new smaller arena and the Saddledome upgrades into play and suddenly a new arena deal with the Flames seems like a no brainer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

$1 billion contingency.

On a 5 billion dollar project that is at best +/-30% that just cut 180 million of that contingency and 125 million from the line item most likely to go over.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Speaking of property taxes going up, reading this feed today is rather sobering. Just reading that makes clear the Olympics are at the absolute best an economic band aid.

https://twitter.com/CBCScott

[RM14]

wasn't there also a "corral replacement" designed beside the new event center? for mid-scale events like Hitmen and middle sized concerts (ie. Jack Whyte the other night).

[WhiteTiger]

Just got back from the advance polls. Light crowds, in and out in about 10 minutes.

The longest part of the vote was waiting for the single machine at the voting station to accept the paper vote. If that station only has the one machine, I wonder how the lines are gonna get if/when it really gets busy, and isn't just the 15 people or so there when I was.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bunk

$1 billion contingency.

Which is about 20% of the current total being floated about in regards to costs.

What if it hits 30%? Or more? Who pays for it and how? Calgary 88 was nearly 60% over initial estimates albeit with many more capital projects being under taken.

With the history of cost overruns related to Olympic games, I simply cant "hope" that this BidCo group has its numbers in alignment with reality or that the contingency is anywhere near where it needs to be without fearing the fallout from those very cost overruns that are more likely than not.

I think the single biggest red flag was the last minute adjustment to security costs that left me thinking it was nothing more than a fudging of things to keep the bid process and plebiscite alive. Literally it all changed just hours before it had to in order to keep moving forward. Just a coincidence? That just doesn't sit well with me and i suspect quite a few others.

I guess it sits as "not enough return in regards to the amount of risk" for me.

Im going to vote this afternoon.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

This is what I'm thinking also. Put the money for the new smaller arena and the Saddledome upgrades into play and suddenly a new arena deal with the Flames seems like a no brainer.

The fact that this isn’t being announced today leads me to believe it never will. If the flames wanted the new arena and Bidco wanted the games there was a deal to be announced today to push the bid over the top. I was sure this was going to happen and bitter that it was such a transparent ploy to succeed in the plebiscite.

The fact that instead we hear spin how tying a new arena to the bid would have hurt the bids chances makes it seem that something happened behind the scenes that prevented this no brainer announcemment from being made.

You take the 150 million or so in the bid top it up with the land and demo costs you were previously willing to submit. Leave the tax arrangement the way it was before and the flames kick in 250-350 of ticket tax/real dollars and we are done. The Flames were willing to do 275 million before and the city was expected to contribute 225. This bid has a “free” 150 million in it. How did they screw this up?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Jacks

This is what I'm thinking also. Put the money for the new smaller arena and the Saddledome upgrades into play and suddenly a new arena deal with the Flames seems like a no brainer.

And yet there is nothing indicating BidCo is looking for a new arena deal.

I'm not voting on hopefully and maybe, I'm voting on the information BidCo has provided.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which is about 20% of the current total being floated about in regards to costs.

What if it hits 30%? Or more? Who pays for it and how? Calgary 88 was nearly 60% over initial estimates albeit with many more capital projects being under taken.

We build a couple billion of infrastructure every year. By the time 2026 rolls around we will have built about $12b in infrastructure. If we had this sort of approach to everything, literally nothing would happen. It's a prudent budget. There's always risk.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

And yet there is nothing indicating BidCo is looking for a new arena deal.

I'm not voting on hopefully and maybe, I'm voting on the information BidCo has provided.

Mary Moran is on record stating flat out that it would hurt the bids chances of being successful if an NHL sized arena were part of it all.

But they are building one about 40% of the size...something that is asinine.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bunk

We build a couple billion of infrastructure every year. By the time 2026 rolls around we will have built about $12b in infrastructure. If we had this sort of approach to everything, literally nothing would happen. It's a prudent budget. There's always risk.

And i would argue that most of that is required and much more cost controlled than security.......... as an example.