2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[Lubicon]

Crap, I didn't realize you could vote at any of the advance polling stations. and assumed it would have to be the one assigned to my home address. Now I'm stuck having to brave the masses on Tuesday. My son voted for the first time yesterday, there was a station set up at UCalgary.

[llwhiteoutll]

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.

If it takes 40 people 5 months to come up with a budget that has enough fat built in that it can be cut by 20% on a moments notice and still be presented as viable and reasonable, then there is an issue. Especially when that budget comes in so much lower than previous costs for the same kind of activity. There were no threats in 2010 and it still cost a billion for security, so it would seem that a security incident actually happening isn’t the main driving force behind the costs

Not sure about your comment about security being a national matter, but the federal government has already addressed the issue of cost overruns and been pretty clear about it. Calgary is on the hook for anything over the $495mm security budget, even if BidCo feels that they should pay it.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.



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.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Funding to build a new NHL arena cannot be part of the plan because in essence the 3 levels of government + IOC etc would be giving money to the Flames. They have to dance around this somehow to not make it look like it. Even though, it will in the end be exactly that. We just don't know to what degree.



As for your other point. I already said that we shouldn't look at posters opinions here about the arena funding. They will pay for it because they are a fringe minority, fans of the team. Overall, Calgarians were very clear how they want the arena funded. Just go back to when both sides released their proposals.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Red

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Funding to build a new NHL arena cannot be part of the plan because in essence the 3 levels of government + IOC etc would be giving money to the Flames. They have to dance around this somehow to not make it look like it. Even though, it will in the end be exactly that. We just don't know to what degree.



As for your other point. I already said that we shouldn't look at posters opinions here about the arena funding. They will pay for it because they are a fringe minority, fans of the team. Overall, Calgarians were very clear how they want the arena funded. Just go back to when both sides released their proposals.

Oh I get that, but we have to remember it's about perception. It's easier to sell the (false) perception that "the feds and province" are helping to pay for the arena then it is with "the city alone is helping to pay", since arguably the crucial argument for the bid is getting sports infrastructure funding that we normally can't. This is still politics after all, it's always about the sales job.

[transplant99]

I cant decide if what i am reading all over the place is misinformation or disinformation, but there is definately some 3 card monte happening and its unfortunate.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Funding to build a new NHL arena cannot be part of the plan because in essence the 3 levels of government + IOC etc would be giving money to the Flames. They have to dance around this somehow to not make it look like it. Even though, it will in the end be exactly that. We just don't know to what degree.



As for your other point. I already said that we shouldn't look at posters opinions here about the arena funding. They will pay for it because they are a fringe minority, fans of the team. Overall, Calgarians were very clear how they want the arena funded. Just go back to when both sides released their proposals.

If this is actually true today then it won’t change tomorrow. You can’t take the community arena money in the bid out to fund an arena. If you can’t do that then the city is paying full cost of the arena. If the city is paying the full
Cost of their contribution then why do we need the Olympics. The Edmonton deal is still on the table.

If it can happen later then nothing is stopping from it happening now.

The goal of the Olympics is to get funding for things that couldn’t get funding from other levels of government.

[puckedoff]

There have been all sorts of articles lately about how downtown vacancies are about to wreak havoc on property taxes, City has been using reserve funds just to lessen the increase on property taxes etc.... How is this a good time to spend millions on an Olympic bid?

When my credit card is maxed out, I'm not buying new clothes even if they are 'on sale' (i.e. subsidized by other levels of government), because then I'm even further in the red. Especially if the salesperson is using shady tactics / misrepresenting facts.

[GullFoss]

A counciler asked the CFO what would happen if the bid went over budget by $4b. The CFO of Calgary replied that taxes would go up by 20% for 20 years.

That is point, match and game. The risks associated with cost over runs are too high.

[Arsenal14]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

A counciler asked the CFO what would happen if the bid went over budget by $4b. The CFO of Calgary replied that taxes would go up by 20% for 20 years.

That is point, match and game. The risks associated with cost over runs are too high.

Sure, but you might as well ask what happens if they go over by $40B if we're just pulling numbers out of nowhere. This isn't Sochi where there were massive infrastructure projects tied to the Olympic budget. With the scale of the projects being included in the Calgary bid I don't see any risk of going $4B over. If the scale expands to include LRT expansions or high speed rail then maybe that risk exists, but it isn't part of the current bid.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Arsenal14

Sure, but you might as well ask what happens if they go over by $40B if we're just pulling numbers out of nowhere. This isn't Sochi where there were massive infrastructure projects tied to the Olympic budget. With the scale of the projects being included in the Calgary bid I don't see any risk of going $4B over. If the scale expands to include LRT expansions or high speed rail then maybe that risk exists, but it isn't part of the current bid.

Its a ~100% cost overrun which isn't crazy to consider given how shoddy and biased the budget is.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

A counciler asked the CFO what would happen if the bid went over budget by $4b. The CFO of Calgary replied that taxes would go up by 20% for 20 years.

That is point, match and game. The risks associated with cost over runs are too high.

Why stop at 4B? How about 10B? 20? It's even scarier.

We often talk about overruns without looking at why they happened.
Just look at the locations. 3rd world or eastern block. Do you think Putin worked with a budget to show the world how great Russia is? How about China and Brasil? They used the Olympics as propaganda tools.
Calgary doesn't have to prove anything to the world. Just like Vancouver did not. And incidentally they did well financing their games.
Food for thought.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Red

Why stop at 4B? How about 10B? 20? It's even scarier.

We often talk about overruns without looking at why they happened.
Just look at the locations. 3rd world or eastern block. Do you think Putin worked with a budget to show the world how great Russia is? How about China and Brasil? They used the Olympics as propaganda tools.
Calgary doesn't have to prove anything to the world. Just like Vancouver did not. And incidentally they did well financing their games.
Food for thought.

Maybe we should just lump all City projects into one big bucket and assume that cost overruns are going to be $100 billion on EVERYTHING!

[CaptainCrunch]

That's fine Red, and I partially agree with you.


But do you trust the budget in its current form?



I think it comes down to credibility

[chemgear]

I'm amazed (and horrified) at the financial illiteracy of people these days. I shouldn't but I can see why so many people get into financial trouble and we see so many "Concrete Equity" scenarios.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

There have been all sorts of articles lately about downtown vacancies

The athletes can stay downtown in vacant offices. No athlete village required.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

The athletes can stay downtown in vacant offices. No athlete village required.

Then where are we going to play laser tag?

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Its a ~100% cost overrun which isn't crazy to consider given how shoddy and biased the budget is.

Excluding security.. What other part of the bid do you think is under budgeted?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[nik-]

I think the 11th hour "10% savings" from BidCo and the fact that it ended up being reduced security costs, which really no one should be naive enough to believe would actually happen, kind of showed how this was going to go.

The attempt to mislead is really too bad.

[Red]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's fine Red, and I partially agree with you.


But do you trust the budget in its current form?



I think it comes down to credibility

No. I don't trust the numbers. It's very hard to predict costs that will occur in 7 or 8 years. But I trust that our politicians will not "ruin" us with the costs. I trust that the cost to the public will be negligible.
From day 1 I was a yes vote but that's because I assumed that there will be a cost to me personally and that our politicians wouldnt let things get out of hand.

I was also aware of bumps on the road and some political wrangling that such event would expose. And the Rick Bell type fear mongering etc.

From day 1 I accepted there will be a dirty fight from both sides and some costs to me. I looked past that as it is just noise, part of life in democracy where everyone has a voice.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Red

No. I don't trust the numbers. It's very hard to predict costs that will occur in 7 or 8 years. But I trust that our politicians will not "ruin" us with the costs. I trust that the cost to the public will be negligible.
From day 1 I was a yes vote but that's because I assumed that there will be a cost to me personally and that our politicians wouldnt let things get out of hand.

I was also aware of bumps on the road and some political wrangling that such event would expose. And the Rick Bell type fear mongering etc.

From day 1 I accepted there will be a dirty fight from both sides and some costs to me. I looked past that as it is just noise, part of life in democracy where everyone has a voice.

Im just not understanding how you can reconcile the first bolded part with the second one.

I understand the emotional reason to vote yes and even tried to talk myself into it that way, but the whole financial aspect is way way to shady to allow emotions over logic in regards to this for me.