2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Is there any chance the proposal will change to include a new arena?

That's basically the main reason I'm against it. I want a new arena baked into the deal, not renovations of the Dome/McMahon.

If there is a new arena, it will happen outside the bid. However a successful would probably give the negotiations currently happening between the city and the Flames a bit of a nudge, so I assume if they can come to a deal, it would happen by 2026. Obviously the Olympics would use the venue if it was there (and sell 20,000 tickets to figure skating instead of 5,000).

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Oh good, the no side has moved to this rhetoric.

Yeah it's not like he was responding to two posts citing children as the reason to vote Yes or anything. It's definitely the No side using "think of the children" rhetoric.

[kermitology]

I've been on the no side of things for most of the discussion, and I think I've switched to a yes (but).

Basically it boils down to this: we have an opportunity to inject some infrastructure capital into our city and draw some attention here. It's not going to improve things right away, and it's not going to help our greatest unemployed sector immediately, which sucks. But the risks probably aren't as bad as we're imagining.

My concerns with a bid reside with the federal and provincial governments. It's almost certain that if we do bid that this is the only money we're getting from the province for a long time. But that's probably inevitable with the UCP expected to take power. They'll just shut down all social spending and reduce taxes but we're screwed either way. Kenney and his band of Neo-cons aren't going to save us. The dedication of the federal government is probably the biggest concern. I get the sense from several councillors that they don't think the federal government is dedicated to this process, which is a concern, but not a concern that should stop my from voting yes on the plebiscite.

Basically, the deal isn't great, but it's not bad. It's okay - voting yes isn't a commitment that the bid goes ahead, if the feds pull something shifty then we're out - same thing with the province.

[monkeyman]

Can Calgary afford a new arena after incurring so much debt on an olympics?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Yeah it's not like he was responding to two posts citing children as the reason to vote Yes or anything. It's definitely the No side using "think of the children" rhetoric.

You should probably brush up on what “think of the children” refers to, as it’s not literally any decision made referencing children in any way.

It’s a logical fallacy meant to substitute emotion for reason. “Think of the burden you’ll put on them for their entire lives” is very much a “think of the children.” Saying “I’m voting against my better judgement because I want to share the experience with my children and don’t mind the extra finances” is not.

One is a debate tactic, trying to convince someone else to think a certain way. One is someone literally just expressing why they’re making their choice, and trying to convince nobody.

The difference is almost impossible to miss. So, I assume you’ll figure it out

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s a logical fallacy meant to substitute emotion for reason. “Think of the burden you’ll put on them for their entire lives” is very much a “think of the children.” Saying “I’m voting against my better judgement because I want to share the experience with my children and don’t mind the extra finances” is not.

I hope you realize how hilarious this is. You're pointing out the wrong one as emotion over reason.

[DiracSpike]

Exactly what I was going to say. It's hilarious.

Bonus points for being smug while also stupid.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

I hope you realize how hilarious this is. You're pointing out the wrong one as emotion over reason.

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Exactly what I was going to say. It's hilarious.

Bonus points for being smug while also stupid.

Both are emotion over reason, neither have a solid footing in any defined reality. Both are playing entirely on emotion.

The difference is that one is being made as part of an argument, the other is not.

Again, it’s straightforward.

[nik-]

Not wanting to incur tangible tax burdens is not emotion. You can call it extreme austerity, but it's not emotion.

You're still wrong.

[Wormius]

Explain this extreme tax burden on a population of 1.2 million people amount to? Even if $2 billion over budget that works out to almost $2000 per person. That could probably be capitalized over a number of years. It’s not a crippling burden, at least in my opinion.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Explain this extreme tax burden on a population of 1.2 million people amount to? Even if $2 billion over budget that works out to almost $2000 per person. That could probably be capitalized over a number of years. It’s not a crippling burden, at least in my opinion.

Where did "extreme" and "crippling" come from?

[Wormius]

Responding more to the rhetoric of children suffering the financial burden of these games for the rest of their lives.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Not wanting to incur tangible tax burdens is not emotion. You can call it extreme austerity, but it's not emotion.

You're still wrong.

Go back and re-read the posts, it ain’t hard.

“I don’t want to incur a tax burden” < not an appeal to emotion

“You should think about the burden your children will bare for their entire lives” < appeal to emotion, a literal “think of the children”

“I’m making my decision because I want to share it with my kids and don’t mind the tax burden” < not part of an argument (maybe an internal one, at worst)

“You shouldn’t think about that, you should think about burden your children will incur their entire lives!” < part of an argument

Are we getting it?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Is there any chance the proposal will change to include a new arena?

That's basically the main reason I'm against it. I want a new arena baked into the deal, not renovations of the Dome/McMahon.

I think Moran said the bid cant propose that, but should the dome collapse under mysterious circumstances... that’s another story.

I believe she explained that infrastructure building that isn’t for public use can’t be part of the bid.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Go back and re-read the posts, it ain’t hard.

“I don’t want to incur a tax burden” < not an appeal to emotion

“You should think about the burden your children will bare for their entire lives” < appeal to emotion, a literal “think of the children”

“I’m making my decision because I want to share it with my kids and don’t mind the tax burden” < not part of an argument

“You shouldn’t think about that, you should think about burden your children will incur their entire lives!” < part of an argument

Are we getting it?

Except one is tangible and one is pure emotional in spite of reason.

Are we getting it? You hilariously attempted to mock a poster for something the original comment he responded to was explicitly doing and now you can't just accept it.

It's fine.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Oh good, the no side has moved to this rhetoric.

such a lame over-played image.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Except one is tangible and one is pure emotional in spite of reason.

Are we getting it? You hilariously attempted to mock a poster for something the original comment he responded to was explicitly doing and now you can't just accept it.

It's fine.

I think you’re missing the part where one is meant to be part of an argument, and the other isn’t, which is pretty crucial to grasping the point.

But you’re right, it’s fine.

[OldDutch]

Just activating the zone block the Feds are running on this one. Passive-Agressive at its finest.

They can fluff all they want, but if the RCMP give the security cost and BidCo budgets, then due to a jihad attack weeks before the Olympics causes a need for further security by the national police the Feds will pick up the bill.

Imagine if Calgary says “Hey we can’t afford overruns we are just a city, so no suge in police because the Fed said no 8 years ago”

How does that even play out? It doesn’t. This is an international event. It is square in wheelhouse of the Fed.

It is too bad the Province NDP and Fed Liberals give two squats about Calgary and are allowing this to even be talked about. Its a non issue.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-cost-overruns

[OMG!WTF!]

Explain this extreme tax burden on a population of 1.2 million people amount to? Even if $2 billion over budget that works out to almost $2000 per person. That could probably be capitalized over a number of years. It’s not a crippling burden, at least in my opinion.

It wouldn't even be that much because of business tax. But the issue is our ability to secure financing for large projects. We already have 2 billion in debt being carried by the city. We carry it well because our revenues are in line. Doubling that over night would without question effect our ability to borrow and manage future projects. Like Montrealers, you won't notice it until hunks of bridge start falling on your car.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Oh good, the no side has moved to this rhetoric.

I really hate when someone puts words in my mouth, what makes you think I'm voting no? Especially since I don't even get to vote. I'm undecided how I'd vote at this point even if I was eligible. And all the incorrect, in accurate and incomplete information floating around certainly wouldn't be much help had I be forced to make a decision.