2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[stampsx2]

Why I’m voting “YES!” to Calgary 2026

Federal government: $1.4 billion
Provincial government: $700 million
Games expected revenues: $2.2 billion
IOC contribution: $1.2 billion

That’s an over $5 billion dollar Olympic injection into Calgary. Money we won’t see if we don’t have the olympics. That comes with a big economic boost to our city. One we could use in our city since it isnt coming from oil.

Property taxes arent going up because of the Olympics. Property taxes are going up period, olympics or not.

Alberta pays billions in transfer payments to other provinces. An Olympics is a great way to get some of that money back.

Money from the federal government is already put aside for events. The money is assigned to sport Canada and will get spent on events weather we have an Olympics or not. If we don’t have an olympics the money won’t be used to pay down debts or lower taxes and it certainly won’t get refunded to Canadians. Why not have the money spent here in Calgary where we’ll get something out of it?

In 88 Calgary was in a worse economic situation than we are today. The Olympics were a success then and can be a success in 2026. The Olympics wasn’t the only factor but it helped pull Calgary out of a slump.

The federal and provincial government is not in the business of saving money or paying down debt. If we say no to an olympics, that money will not be used to pay down debt.

The argument that money would be better used towards healthcare:
Almost half of all taxes collected in Canada go towards healthcare. Not having an Olympics isn’t going to increase that spending.

If we want a new nhl arena, an olympic bid may re-ignite those talks.

No Edmonton is not getting any of our games. Whistler would get ski jumping and cross country only. That’s 155 athletes out of 50,000. Curling might end up outside of Calgary but still in Southern Alberta. I agree with those decisions as the costs for building those facilities is too high.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Advanced polls are usually a pretty good indicator of enthusiasm though, and given that as mentioned it was a predominantly older crowd, that certainly doesn't bode well for Yes.

Why is there so much complaining from the young crowd that it is the old crowd that gets out to vote and might skew the results?

Why isn't the young crowd getting out to vote? They talk a lot but don't walk the talk.

I have voted in each and every opportunity since I was eligible to vote. No reason what so ever that the youth of today can't do the same thing.

[Tyler]

Not making excuses, but in every major election I've witnessed, it's always difficult to get youth to vote. Whereas, the older demographics are consistent voters and tend to have much more impact on elections.

Probably a number of reasons for it (time, working hours, kids, fear, etc) that could influence that trend.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Not making excuses, but in every major election I've witnessed, it's always difficult to get youth to vote. Whereas, the older demographics are consistent voters and tend to have much more impact on elections.

Probably a number of reasons for it (time, working hours, kids, fear, etc) that could influence that trend.

I think that the moment you are eligible to vote, you are also less at the mercy of government. It took me 4-5 years to really even find a interest in politics. No kids, no wife, more focused on where I would enjoy legal drinking with friends on the weekends, etc.

I then find my current age group of 28-32 is either extremely interested in politics and enjoys a friendly debate or has absolutely no idea what is going on. I am not finding any sort of middle ground. The no idea crowd couldn't tell me who our current mayor is let alone what a rough estimate of the funding breakdown for these games is while the very interested party is happy to debate it until blue in the face which I have done with many friends.

I don't fault those who are not interested as it seems many of them are new parents or new families with a lot on their plate but at the same time, it blows my mind that someone would not want to know what is going on and have a view on the decisions made today that will be complained about one way or another in 5-10 years.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Not making excuses, but in every major election I've witnessed, it's always difficult to get youth to vote. Whereas, the older demographics are consistent voters and tend to have much more impact on elections.

Probably a number of reasons for it (time, working hours, kids, fear, etc) that could influence that trend.

Nope, think it is more of a "we started to vote at first opportunity and have continued to do so".

Youth almost need a jihad movement to get them out...like when Nenshi was first elected.

I think older people consider voting more as your duty to protect democracy and youth...I don't know, but they are very disinterested in the whole process. Schools do so much more now too, like holding mock elections along real elections, but it just does not continue.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Why I’m voting “YES!” to Calgary 2026

Federal government: $1.4 billion
Provincial government: $700 million
Games expected revenues: $2.2 billion
IOC contribution: $1.2 billion

That’s an over $5 billion dollar Olympic injection into Calgary. Money we won’t see if we don’t have the olympics. That comes with a big economic boost to our city. One we could use in our city since it isnt coming from oil.

You're ignoring that it is NOT a $5 billion injection into Calgary since all the money will not be staying here. Wages and construction spending won't only be contained to Calgary workers and companies. Not to mention the work we will be funding in other cities

The guaranteed cost overruns aside (which we will be on the hook for), the Olympics will essentially become our major project for the next 8 years and severely limit any other infrastructure spending. The provincial contribution is essentially what would have been given to us over the next 7 years had the MSI not been cut, so that's kind of a wash.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Why I’m voting “YES!” to Calgary 2026

Federal government: $1.4 billion
Provincial government: $700 million
Games expected revenues: $2.2 billion
IOC contribution: $1.2 billion

.

These numbers double dip the IOC portion. The IOC number is included in the games revenue number.

https://www.calgary2026.ca/wp-conten...sed.Sept27.pdf

Page 11

So it’s only 4.3 billion in non- City of Calgary money.

Also the IOC money is 925 million USD offer is cash and services and in 2026 dollars. From the breakdown in the bid document it appears that the City only sees 750 million CAD in 2018 dollars.

[Tiger]

I voted yes in advanced polling. This is a great catalyst to get things done in the city, and the complaints of all the infrastructure spending is mostly stuff that would be valuable to get done and will eventually get done out of our tax money anyway. not very scientific I just think the project is a good thing at a good time, but because of the conditions of the economy, I expect the no vote to win.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I can't get behind a corrupt event or organization such as IOC.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/t...ency-1.4825469



I have no interest in this and wonder if the Olympics haven't run their course.

WADA isn't the IOC.

[RM14]

Alberta Tourism trying to grow to $10BB in international tourists (from $8.5BB). Is Alberta Tourism involved in the bid at all? seems like a good opportunity to align with this whole thing...

https://www.rmoutlook.com/article/tr...n-gap-20181101

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You're ignoring that it is NOT a $5 billion injection into Calgary since all the money will not be staying here. Wages and construction spending won't only be contained to Calgary workers and companies. Not to mention the work we will be funding in other cities

The guaranteed cost overruns aside (which we will be on the hook for), the Olympics will essentially become our major project for the next 8 years and severely limit any other infrastructure spending. The provincial contribution is essentially what would have been given to us over the next 7 years had the MSI not been cut, so that's kind of a wash.

Tax breaks to businesses also don't have the entire investment go back into the same area... Or how many families would decide to go on a vacation if taxes were reduced... That is what we did as a family when we got our Ralph bucks.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You're ignoring that it is NOT a $5 billion injection into Calgary since all the money will not be staying here. Wages and construction spending won't only be contained to Calgary workers and companies. Not to mention the work we will be funding in other cities

You'd almost think that people are STILL falling for the blatantly wrong "10:1 Return on Investment"

Of course, they still haven't retracted or corrected that. And it's still up on their websites and media feeds for people to continue to see and share.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by getbak

WADA isn't the IOC.

Correct, but the IOC was silent.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...ullying-claims

The Canadian said that when she voiced her opinion at the meeting, she was treated in a way that left her feeling "that there is very little respect, there is very little appreciation and there is very little value" placed on the athlete voice.
"I would say I was treated with a level of disrespect and with comments and gestures that were inappropriate and indicative of a general attitude of dismissal," the cross-country skiing Olympic gold medallist said.
"That was behaviour directed at me from members of the Olympic Movement who are members of the WADA Executive Board."

USADA chief Tygart said it is "stunning" that the IOC have not addressed the claims of Scott, who used to serve on the IOC's Athletes' Commission

"The stunning failure of the current IOC leaders to condemn the serious allegations of bullying by its own officials shows their true colours and their misplaced priorities," he said in a statement sent to insidethegames.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by chemgear

You'd almost think that people are STILL falling for the blatantly wrong "10:1 Return on Investment"

Of course, they still haven't retracted or corrected that. And it's still up on their websites and media feeds for people to continue to see and share.

In the interest of keeping things accurate, he never mentioned a 10:1 return in his comment.

Yes, not all the money is going to stay in Calgary, I think thats pretty obvious. The point of the matter that cant be disputed is that there will be an infusion of Federal money coming into the city as part of this bid. Money that would not be seen in another form.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Yes, not all the money is going to stay in Calgary, I think thats pretty obvious.

He literally said: "That’s an over $5 billion dollar Olympic injection into Calgary."

Which is the exact same ridiculous people taking the total cost, dividing it by the lowballed City number to get a 10:1 return on investment.

It's not even a matter of staying or going. There isn't more than 5 billion dollars going into Calgary. That's the total cost.

If I have a birthday drinking party with my friends and we share the cost of $10,000 to drink our brains out, I haven't gotten an investment into myself of $10,000.

This has already been debunked and called out a long time ago.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1057696538586079232

https://twitter.com/user/status/1058246506866606080

What kind of financial decisions are people doing in their own lives based on this logic?!

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I haven't been following our flood mitigation plan that closely but remember that the number was around 366 million to get a system in place (coincidentally about the same as our Olympic tag). The province would cover some, the feds a tiny bit, but the city would pay the most. I know we have some flood benches in Eau Claire now but I don't think we've accomplished any of the larger damns, reservoirs or flood tunnels we were talking about.



I know for sure I would vote to spend that money on the biggest, baddest flood prevention model we could get. I don't think this is a case of "this money isn't meant for that and that money can come from somewhere else blah blah". I think it's 300 million and we're spending it on sports instead. Even if we get a bunch of cool stuff, we still need 300 million for future flood mitigation to protect our cool stuff. I would highly suspect that getting Olympic funding would preclude us from more federal/provincial money.



I'm asking more of a question than stating any facts. Do we still need flood mitigation? And do we still get money for that?

Interesting tweet.. I saw about this... Showing Vancouver didn't get any less funding after receiving Olympic funding.

https://twitter.com/sarahcrgr/status...67149153849344

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'm asking more of a question than stating any facts. Do we still need flood mitigation? And do we still get money for that?

We don't need flood mitigation. It isn't even raining!

[getbak]

Here's the full Ernst & Young Cost Benefit Analysis: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...g%20report.pdf

The presentation slide pack that was presented to the Olympic Assessment Committee yesterday: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...g%20Slides.pdf

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's the full Ernst & Young Cost Benefit Analysis: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...g%20report.pdf

The presentation slide pack that was presented to the Olympic Assessment Committee yesterday: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...g%20Slides.pdf

kind of unrelated, but is this true?(page 54, appendix f, table 9)

Average household income in Calgary, nominal dollars (CAD) Oxford Economics $180,646

maybe i'm reading that wrong, but unless the northeast where i grew up really is that poor, that seems extraordinarily high

**edit**

i see it has this below, i'm not sure what the difference is, but this also seems extremely high:

Average household income in Calgary, 2018 dollars (CAD) Calculation: [4] / ([5]/100) $151,381

[Wormius]

Going to the town hall session on the bid tonight at the library. Anybody else sign up for that?