2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

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 consider myself very practical and fiscally conservative, that being said I'm undecided how I'd vote at this point even if I could. The false, incomplete and mis information going around is something that should certainly be made very clear to all eligible voters.

Fair enough, sorry if I put words in your mouth.

I do think, based on what we DO know and even the things we don’t (but given the general range of what is possible), that categorising any impact of these games as a potentially life-long (70+ year) burden just really has no basis in reality.

I think the fact that the information is incomplete is well established. I also think that if people are expecting any bid to have complete information before they vote, then they’ll be forever left waiting.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

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

You basically offer the flames ownership the money you were going to use on the 6,000 person arena and maybe another 25m and toss in a couple incentives and tell them that's it. It's very close to what they were asking for anyway and ties the flames hands giving them a firm deadline.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

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.

$2000 per person and 5 live in my home so $10k. Dividing the cost by 1.2MM people is idiotic because the pool of people paying is not 1.2MM people, unless you're expecting babies to receive invoices.

Also, again, and this seems to be constantly glossed over by everyone but the tax increase will be permanent. So, indefinite. As in- forever. It's not like hey guys can you all chip in 10k and help pay for the Olympics and then we'll go back to our regular scheduled tax plan. Yeah okay that's one thing to which this is not.

This is justification for the easy rise in taxes that will be permanent that otherwise would receive some significant public backlash and which, again and also glossed over- we are already going to be subject to very near-term just to cover existing projects and operating expenses.

This is not "just $2,000" per person. And no JBR I'm not going to go waste my time and create a massive spreadsheet because I don't have actual data to do the math that BidCo or the City have. What I do have is common sense and judgment based on previous games, so no I'm not going to "go work the math" for you. Vote however you want I'm just saying- this is going to be a mistake for Calgarians in general. I'm not saying this is going to like economically ruin the city but it does have train wreck all over it.

[JBR]

Not asking you to create a spreadsheet and do the math... that's been done for us already.

Whether you choose to see and hear everything with cynical eyes and ears is your choice. I tend to look at this as a great opportunity. Our economy, office vacancy crisis, unemployment issues won't be solved entirely by the 2026 Games.. but they will certainly contribute positively to the recovery.

If you are looking at the possibility of the 2026 Games having an impact on your property tax burden, that question was answered (yet again) at tonight's town hall. Worst case scenario, if the entire City contribution to the Games was allocated to expected property tax revenue, the average residential property tax bill would rise 1-1.5% or approximately $25.00 annually. Good news is.. the $370M contribution will be funded by other income sources other than residential taxes.

I encourage everyone, YES vote, NO vote, undecided to get online and watch tonight's CBC town hall.

[Mr.Coffee]

Thanks I’ll check that out. 1-1.5% annually for how many years?

[getbak]

Here's the CBC Town Hall: https://www.facebook.com/cbccalgary/...1194728893210/

[Cappy]

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.

I would love for this to be the case. That council would kill the bud if things get too costly etc. But given a yes win on the plebiscite I can’t see council killing the bid after that stage barring a complete change to the agreements and numbers. The risk to their professional reputations (to oppose the will of the people) would be a tough pill to swallow. I feel like a vote for the Olympics sets us on the path for good

[N-E-B]

I’m against it. I do want the Olympics, but without a new arena (and I mean a 100% guarantee) I just can’t get behind it. That’s one of our cities biggest needs and we aren’t even guaranteed that? Nope.

Could a yes vote lead to a new arena deal? Absolutely. But it might not.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I’m against it. I do want the Olympics, but without a new arena (and I mean a 100% guarantee) I just can’t get behind it. That’s one of our cities biggest needs and we aren’t even guaranteed that? Nope.

Do you see talks restarting on a new arena without the Olympics? At least with an Olympic announcement talks may re ignite.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Do you see talks restarting on a new arena without the Olympics? At least with an Olympic announcement talks may re ignite.

Yep. For sure I could see it happening. But without a guarantee I just can’t get behind it. Like many other no posters, I could get behind an Olympic bid but this one just isn’t the right one to get support in my opinion. I don’t think we’d be spending the money properly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Do you see talks restarting on a new arena without the Olympics? At least with an Olympic announcement talks may re ignite.

Talks are currently ongoing and have been for a little while now. Literally have nothing at all to do with the Olympics. If anything passing the plebiscite gives huge leverage to the CSEC to demand more public money. This is where Olympic supporters lie to say that money is secretly embedded in the bid, but it's not.

[Calgary14]

The revised security plan is expected to go over budget.

"Proposed $495M budget is being questioned since average security cost is $1.3B"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...dget-1.4893885

[Red]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Talks are currently ongoing and have been for a little while now. Literally have nothing at all to do with the Olympics. If anything passing the plebiscite gives huge leverage to the CSEC to demand more public money. This is where Olympic supporters lie to say that money is secretly embedded in the bid, but it's not.

I have not seen that, can you find a link or two?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Talks are currently ongoing and have been for a little while now. Literally have nothing at all to do with the Olympics. If anything passing the plebiscite gives huge leverage to the CSEC to demand more public money. This is where Olympic supporters lie to say that money is secretly embedded in the bid, but it's not.

Where are you getting this information? In what way?

[Red]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

The revised security plan is expected to go over budget.

"Proposed $495M budget is being questioned since average security cost is $1.3B"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...dget-1.4893885

I don't disagree that this may happen, but this article is an opinion piece from one person. Michael Heine, the director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies at Western University. Take it from what it's worth.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

The revised security plan is expected to go over budget.

"Proposed $495M budget is being questioned since average security cost is $1.3B"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...dget-1.4893885

Well considering the rcmp, calgary police service, calgary emergency response, provincial security and safety group - 40 people working for five months came up with that $495 million dollar budget, i’m inclined to believe them over a journalist pr single proffessors skeptical opinion.

Also, it’s a good thing security is a national matter not a municipal one. I can’t imagine Calgary declaring an international response to a bombing at the olympics.

There’s also only been two cases of security threats during the olympics, munich in 74 and Atlanta.

[Red]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Where are you getting this information? In what way?

It's an opinion. He is just spreading wild speculations that fit his narrative.

For someone who preaches logic he fails short in using it when it comes to the arena.

• The arena can't be part of the bid because its main tenant is a private entity.
• The city won't include the arena as part of the plan because they would be tipping their hand while trying to negotiate with the Flames.
• The arena is a contentious topic. Most outside of CP don't want to publicly fund the arena. If the City added it to the plan, they would get more backlash.

If the Olympics are a go, the arena deal will be reached with the City offering more than originally offered with the Olympics as a justification. This way the City saves face and Flames get what they want. The timing of arena talks and olympics is not a coincidence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red

It's an opinion. He is just spreading wild speculations that fit his narrative.

For someone who preaches logic he fails short in using it when it comes to the arena.

• The arena can't be part of the bid because its main tenant is a private entity.
• The city won't include the arena as part of the plan because they would be tipping their hand while trying to negotiate with the Flames.
• The arena is a contentious topic. Most outside of CP don't want to publicly fund the arena. If the City added it to the plan, they would get more backlash.

If the Olympics are a go, the arena deal will be reached with the City offering more than originally offered with the Olympics as a justification. This way the City saves face and Flames get what they want. The timing of arena talks and olympics is not a coincidence.

However the Arena deal would make the referendum pass and the this Arena Can’t be part of the bid Narritive wasn’t mentioned at all when the bidco report was produced. This naritive was only introduced recently. This logically means that something happened

It was clearly in everyone’s interest for the Arena to have been announced last
Tuesday a week before the vote. That it didn’t happen and instead we get this late Narritive about “can’t” and it would “hurt the bid”

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Red

I have not seen that, can you find a link or two?

Read this thread, read the last thread. Several posters seem to think there are items in the current budget that are actually meant to be rerouted towards a new arena.

Originally Posted by Red

It's an opinion. He is just spreading wild speculations that fit his narrative.

For someone who preaches logic he fails short in using it when it comes to the arena.

• The arena can't be part of the bid because its main tenant is a private entity.
• The city won't include the arena as part of the plan because they would be tipping their hand while trying to negotiate with the Flames.
• The arena is a contentious topic. Most outside of CP don't want to publicly fund the arena. If the City added it to the plan, they would get more backlash.

If the Olympics are a go, the arena deal will be reached with the City offering more than originally offered with the Olympics as a justification. This way the City saves face and Flames get what they want. The timing of arena talks and olympics is not a coincidence.

The arena can't be part of the bid because its main tenant is a private entity? Unless this is some new thing (and it's not), this is a lie. How is Staples Center hosting events in 2028? How did Rogers Arena host in 2010? They can't be called by their corporate names in the Olympics, they get renamed...but this is a remarkably strange and dishonest claim.

As far as tipping their hand, we have many posters here who are voting no who would switch their vote if an arena was included. Perhaps they should tip their hand? And if you think it's going to be a problem for the public to include the arena with more public funding, you think the public is going to not care if they do it separately? The backlash isn't going away if the city gives up more than it's previous deals.

As far as the bolded, this is literally my claim. The CSEC gains the upper hand in negotiations because the dynamic changes when city needs the arena as much or more than the CSEC. Now the CSEC can (and will) demand more public money because there has to be two arenas for the Olympics. So they can play hardball and demand the Edmonton deal, or even more. Can't imagine anyone at city hall wants the Flames leaving being on the 2021 ballot.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Well considering the rcmp, calgary police service, calgary emergency response, provincial security and safety group - 40 people working for five months came up with that $495 million dollar budget, i’m inclined to believe them over a journalist pr single proffessors skeptical opinion.

Also, it’s a good thing security is a national matter not a municipal one. I can’t imagine Calgary declaring an international response to a bombing at the olympics.

There’s also only been two cases of security threats during the olympics, munich in 74 and Atlanta.

Actually they came up with 625 million, then in the following month cut 125 million right before the bid was going to fail. The second part that appears to be implying that the feds will pay for security overruns is still ambiguous.