2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

Curious why non-property owners are allowed to vote in this?

Why wouldn't they be?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

Curious why non-property owners are allowed to vote in this?

Cause they pay rent which the property owner uses to pay property taxes. Tax goes up rent goes up. Do you mean why should homeless people be allowed to vote? They probably can't unless they have id with an address.



I can't find the link but I read a study about unemployment rates before and after the Vancouver olympics. The unemployment rate was basically unchanged. People simply switched employers. Similarly with tourism. There was a bit of a bump in 2010 but was essentially unchanged after. Calgary had a greater increase in tourism in 2010.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well looks like we get one last poll before tomorrow. Not looking good for Yes, but tomorrow is all that matters.



https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/uc...ind-his-party/

Been doing GOTV work and for me, so far, yes and undecided are leading.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

Curious why non-property owners are allowed to vote in this?

Everyone has the right to vote.. And that should always be the case, economic status shouldn't prevent that.

But funny enough in this case I am assuming a large percentage of the seniors are a NO vote, and majority of them have moved into assisted living or traditional senior living facilities which means they wouldn't own as well.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

Curious why non-property owners are allowed to vote in this?

Because do you do it by 1 vote per property owner, 1 vote per property, 1 vote per home, 1 vote per dollar spent? What's the fair way to break it down.

If it's by property owner then you're stacking the deck unfairly against people who could afford their property on their own. Why should the couple next to me get two votes because they share the title and I only get one when we own the same size of house? If it's by property then we are valuing all properties the same which doesn't seem any different than just giving every person a vote. Why is a property worth more than a person? Haven't we gotten past this kind of democracy?

If it's just by homes it ignores the majority of the property tax base, which doesn't seem fair if we're being exclusionary based on risk.

If it's by dollar value it means your say is only worth as much as you pay, which is kind of what we don't like to see in democracies, isn't it? But then it definitely puts a huge proportion of votes in the hands of people who don't live in the city so where's the benefit in that?

[craigwd]

What about non-property owners that also use (and pay for) city services, or students that also inhabit the city and use the services, or the temporarily homeless or the people that prefer renting rather than home ownership?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by craigwd

What about non-property owners that also use (and pay for) city services, or students that also inhabit the city and use the services, or the temporarily homeless or the people that prefer renting rather than home ownership?

Well obviously they can go #### themselves because they are just leeches who haven't ascended to the upper echelons of society by being property owners.

How can one expect to handle the responsibility of democracy if they haven't even gotten a bank to help them buy some property?

[Wormius]

If you do it by any other means than one vote per person, you start to run the risk of gerrymandering here. "Oh, the NW tends to vote mainly this way, lets increase their property taxes so their votes are worth more".

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Hackey

What infrastructure are we suppose to gain potentially?

- a new 5000 person hockey rink?
- renovation to the oval?
- renovation to McMahon?
- a field house?

That doesn't exactly get me excited.

- a new 5000 person hockey rink?
High chance that this turns into a full NHL arena with little to no extra money from tax payers.... I can't see a scenario where CSSC says no to taking the money for the 5,000 person hockey rink and doesn't build the new arena that they want.

- renovation to the oval?
Don't know enough about what the future plans would be so I won't touch on it.


- renovation to McMahon?
Is going to be done one way or another at some point in the near future. With the games, we see provincial, federal and IOC money contribute. Without the games, local tax payers fund the renovation.

- a field house?
This is being built regardless of the games. Again, let the federal, provincial and IOC accounts help build it and save us from having to build it.


Whether one is a no or a yes vote, we cannot compare what has happened with unemployment rates, budgets, etc to any other games. When you host the games in a low unemployment environment, chances are people are not looking for work. Calgary has a boatload of people looking for work that would welcome a new job. Unfortunately, it seems people I talk to who are looking for work are more concerned about the slight tax increase vs the job they could have for several years (temporary).
We also can't compare games that go way over budget building 90% new + adding in state of the art weather stations, alternative energy programs, etc which are really not a part of the games. We have 80%+ of the structures in place. Am I blind the to fact we could go over budget? not at all but I am also not buying that we could go over budget to the level of what some people want to think it could be.

Isn't the SW portion of the ring road coming in hundreds of millions under budget due to the current economic times? Tokyo has a 2.4 unemployment rate while Calgary has a 8% unemployment rate. If the games can temporarily reduce the unemployment rate until we get pipelines built, does the reduced unemployment not significantly help our city from multiple different angles including financial?

[Ozy_Flame]

Does Calgary Really Want the Olympics? Does Anyone?

Although I am firmly on the "Yes" side for various reasons, it is nice to see the NY Times cover the Calgary bid - even if it is cautionary in tale.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

- a new 5000 person hockey rink?
High chance that this turns into a full NHL arena with little to no extra money from tax payers.... I can't see a scenario where CSSC says no to taking the money for the 5,000 person hockey rink and doesn't build the new arena that they want.

- renovation to the oval?
Don't know enough about what the future plans would be so I won't touch on it.


- renovation to McMahon?
Is going to be done one way or another at some point in the near future. With the games, we see provincial, federal and IOC money contribute. Without the games, local tax payers fund the renovation.

- a field house?
This is being built regardless of the games. Again, let the federal, provincial and IOC accounts help build it and save us from having to build it.


Whether one is a no or a yes vote, we cannot compare what has happened with unemployment rates, budgets, etc to any other games. When you host the games in a low unemployment environment, chances are people are not looking for work. Calgary has a boatload of people looking for work that would welcome a new job. Unfortunately, it seems people I talk to who are looking for work are more concerned about the slight tax increase vs the job they could have for several years (temporary).
We also can't compare games that go way over budget building 90% new + adding in state of the art weather stations, alternative energy programs, etc which are really not a part of the games. We have 80%+ of the structures in place. Am I blind the to fact we could go over budget? not at all but I am also not buying that we could go over budget to the level of what some people want to think it could be.

Isn't the SW portion of the ring road coming in hundreds of millions under budget due to the current economic times? Tokyo has a 2.4 unemployment rate while Calgary has a 8% unemployment rate. If the games can temporarily reduce the unemployment rate until we get pipelines built, does the reduced unemployment not significantly help our city from multiple different angles including financial?

Excellent points, and please allow me to take the handoff on McMahon and the Oval. These are projects that should, and eventually will happen.

For those that haven't seen the plans and renderings for McMahon beyond the splashy images released last week.. I encourage you to find them online. (If I could embed a PDF file here, I would). Seeing these would immediately ease the concerns of 'putting lipstick on a pig'. McMahon will become a great stadium and much, much more accessible. For the Oval: upgraded ice plant, spectator areas (seating, access, concessions, facilities etc.) Perhaps most important, major deficiencies with accessibility will be addressed.

These projects are priorities. They will happen between now and 2026.

- Field house
- Upgraded McMahon, Oval, BMO Centre and endowments to keep them sustainable for another 30+ years.
- Affordable housing initiative.
- New arena. (Not a priority, but more about that below)

With a 'YES' vote, this costs the City of Calgary $390M

With a 'no' vote, the City is 100% responsible for all costs of:

- Field house: $320M
- Upgraded McMahon (Valued at $80-100M)
- Upgrades to current Olympic facilities and BMO Centre. (With no endowment). $$$
- Affordable housing. $$$

The City and Flames WILL come to an arena agreement in the next few months/years. It's easy to see how the City can roll the funds allocated to a new 5000 seat arena into their contribution to the new event centre. This actually eases the taxpayer burden on this project.

Putting aside all emotional attachments, a 'no' vote tomorrow makes me very concerned as a taxpayer.

[Hockeyguy15]

Why would the city be paying to upgrade McMahon with a no vote? Isn’t that something the Flames would have to pay for?

Same question for the Oval?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Also worth noting every Olympic bid since 2000 has said it will have affordable housing, and not one has actually delivered any. So another one of those things the Olympics claims it delivers, but the evidence says it does not.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Also worth noting every Olympic bid since 2000 has said it will have affordable housing, and not one has actually delivered any. So another one of those things the Olympics claims it delivers, but the evidence says it does not.

So we're going with the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' argument?

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Why would the city be paying to upgrade McMahon with a no vote? Isn’t that something the Flames would have to pay for?

Same question for the Oval?

The Flames don't own or operate McMahon Stadium - it's on University of Calgary land, and operated by the not-for-profit McMahon Stadium Society (similar to the Saddledone Foundation), of which the City of Calgary appoints some members. Essentially the same reason the City supports any not-for-profit facility in Calgary.

[tkflames]

All of this makes me regret on behalf of everyone the way CalgaryNEXT was presented and the fact that for negotiating reasons the two bids (Olympics and stadium) have been kept separate.

$300M by the Flames
$300M by the City
$700M by residential/commercial development, funds, community fundraising initiatives etc.

The Olympics legacy could have been a state of the art stadium, arena and field house. West village could have been an Olympic village type building setup similar to what Vancouver has and the Greenline could be built in such a way where both east and west village are well connected for commuters going to all quadrants. The only decision for all parties would have been whether the 2026 or 2030 time horizons would have been more appropriate. Instead we have seemingly isolated factions working in parallel with several synergies and no unifying vision. Shame on all those involved for putting a half baked proposal together rather than a unified vision.**

**the above is not meant to suggest that CalgaryNEXT is or was a great proposal, nor that the proposed funding model would actually work. Instead it is meant to illustrate that the inability of all parties working together in the spirit of building a better Calgary by using both public and private funding has led to a much worse outcome for all Calgarians and we are now voting on a half baked proposal with major unknowns. This Olympic proposal should have been a slam dunk, because if the Olympics cannot operate at a positive rate of return in a place like Calgary, then they cannot work at a positive rate of return.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by JBR

So we're going with the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' argument?

We're going with the "just because there's a claim that it will happen, doesn't mean that is will happen" argument. Prospective affordable housing is the easiest thing to sell off to make up for budget issues, whether with the games or with the host city itself. So it makes sense it doesn't ever get delivered on.

[Bunk]

For me it comes down to basically this: Is this something in March 2026 we're likely to regret? Or in March 2036? Although there are some risks, I just think we will not regret it. It'll be phenomenal for our city in many ways.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by JBR

So we're going with the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' argument?

Should come as no surprise.

Once again feeding off of negative and pessimistic outlooks. And trying to distract from good points being made by others showing the potential taxpayer benefits of a Yes vote.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by JBR

So we're going with the 'liar, liar, pants on fire' argument?

meh, while not a great argument it is preferable to the 'I live in magical fairy land where economics of the olympics don't matter to me and I fully believe everything being told to me by a highly biased BidCo, despite contradictory evidence going back forever, I believe they will deliver on this promise for the first time ever in recorded history' argument