2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[marsplasticeraser]

This is what I feel many of the NO voters don't get, or choose to ignore.

The facilities being built or renovated need to be built or renovated anyways.

So Voting No doesn't mean we don't spend that money, it just removes the funding and probably changes the timing for those investments.

Doing it now as part of olympics means:

1. We get some help with costs from Feds, Province, IOC

2. We get it cheaper than during a boom (full employment pushed up rates and greatly reduced productivity between 2003 and 2016)

3. Helps put Calgarians to work who are unemployed. The Olympics will create good jobs for people impacted by O&G slowdown. Specifically there are lots of jobs for PM's, Procurement, DC, Project Controls, construction. I'm sure there will be some more Mech and C/S engineering jobs as well, but not in the same numbers.

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?

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Swarly

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

You don't even have to leave the realm of "Winter Olympics hosted in Calgary" to find a counterpoint to that.

Here's Wikipedia on the '88 Olympics:

The Calgary games were at the time one of the most expensive Olympics ever held, but the organizing committee turned record television and sponsorship revenue into a net surplus that was used to maintain the facilities built for the Olympics and develop the Calgary region into the heart of Canada's elite winter sports program. The five purpose-built venues continue to be used in their original functions, and have helped the country develop into one of the top nations in Winter Olympic competition.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser

This is what I feel many of the NO voters don't get, or choose to ignore.

The facilities being built or renovated need to be built or renovated anyways.

So Voting No doesn't mean we don't spend that money, it just removes the funding and probably changes the timing for those investments.

This is what pushed me to the yes side. In the next 10-20 years we will have to pay for a lot of things.
- Building a fieldhouse
- Doing something with McMahon
- Doing something about an arena
- Upkeep on existing olympic facilities

Even if you are a pessimist and say that no affordable housing will get built the items above add up to a lot more than $400 million or so. If we also end up with the housing then that is a big win.

There are surely a lot more benefits that will also come from 3-5ish billion coming into our economy. Will all of that money stay in Calgary/Alberta? of course not but a heck of a lot will and that money gets taxed and respent. It's not 10-1 but it's a lot. We could certainly use the investment right now when our economy and downtown core are taking it on the chin.

I'm against the government spending money that we don't have but when it's going to cost a lot more in the long run it makes sense to get a bunch of the money coming from sources outside of the province.

[Manhattanboy]

Interesting that the announcement will be the final result as opposed to coverage of the count.

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Interesting that the announcement will be the final result as opposed to coverage of the count.

Watch for the white or black smoke coming from the top of the Calgary Tower? No matter what side you support, you can't argue that wouldn't be cool.

[killer_carlson]

vote yes!

[octothorp]

Here's where I'm at: (still undecided)

The biggest issue facing the province is that our economic engine is an industry that is unsustainable long-term, and may become unsustainable much more quickly depending on factors beyond our control. Economic diversification should be our biggest priority. And hosting the Olympics is a short-term bump to that - some added tourism, some short-term construction jobs created - but it doesn't remotely begin to address the long-term problems facing the province, which is where we should be spending money on. If the worst-case scenarios hit, no new pipelines get built, the price of gas drops further, and the Olympics go significantly over budget, etc.... we're going to be in a world of hurt.

That said, it's not like there's any proposal of an alternative way of spending this money, and maybe this very short-term, inefficient approach to economic diversification is better than nothing. Maybe I'm underrating the long-term tourism industry effects. But it also might be worse than nothing if there's a massive debt load.

I don't think I've ever been as split on a voting issue as I am on this.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by tkflames

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.

Just to put things in perspective, the Green Line is a bigger public funding commitment than both the Olympics and CalgaryNEXT combined. It doesn't get a major multi-billion dollar re-route to accommodate a bid or an arena or stadium.



$1.5B from each level of government for the Green Line right now, and that's it not even complete.

[Slava]

I’ve gone back and forth on what to vote and that’s part of why I didn’t vote in the advance polls. I just feel like both sides have been disingenuous here. The “yes” side and the 10x your money is just insulting. The “no” side and their “we can do this and this instead of the Olympics” is just a complete false dichotomy.

Earlier today though I listed to the podcast from bunk with Mary Moran and I think I will vote yes. She’s a good advocate and made some great points. At the end of the day though, I just feel like it’s easy to be a naysayer and against things. It’s easy to find reasons to be opposed because if things don’t go as hoped you can always say “I told you so”. Being optimistic is harder. People are always going to complain about something and clearly not everyone will be happy. In the case here though, I just feel like we have an opportunity to put our city on the map, again. It’s not free, but it’s worth something as well. And to me there’s an even bigger positive than the legacy, showcase to the world and all those immense positives. We are a city of volunteers and the community spirit from an event like this is something that can’t be measured in dollars, but it definitely makes this a better place to live.

[Baron von Kriterium]

The mere fact that Hutcheson is a Goldman Sucks alumnus is enough reason for me to vote 'no'.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Here's where I'm at: (still undecided)

The biggest issue facing the province is that our economic engine is an industry that is unsustainable long-term, and may become unsustainable much more quickly depending on factors beyond our control. Economic diversification should be our biggest priority. And hosting the Olympics is a short-term bump to that - some added tourism, some short-term construction jobs created - but it doesn't remotely begin to address the long-term problems facing the province, which is where we should be spending money on. If the worst-case scenarios hit, no new pipelines get built, the price of gas drops further, and the Olympics go significantly over budget, etc.... we're going to be in a world of hurt.

That said, it's not like there's any proposal of an alternative way of spending this money, and maybe this very short-term, inefficient approach to economic diversification is better than nothing. Maybe I'm underrating the long-term tourism industry effects. But it also might be worse than nothing if there's a massive debt load.

I don't think I've ever been as split on a voting issue as I am on this.

Good points, but I think something people are fundamentally misunderstanding here is how the games help to renew and optimize Calgary’s geography wealth.

I moved here 2 years ago after living in Saskatchewan for 35 years & Toronto for 2.

The quality of life here is second to none in part because of the cultural and physical legacy of the 88 games (Nakisha & the Canmore Nordic centre for example). The place is a play ground with geography that the rest of the country can only navel gaze at.

The point being is that there is an existing outdoor industry and culture here that is one of the region's greatest assets to diversify the economy.

Tech firms and entrepreneurs can startup and locate anywhere.

What gives Calgary an advantage over places like Toronto and Vancouver, not to mention Winnipeg, Saskatoon, southern Ontario or Quebec is the proximaty and affordability of this playground.

I can be in the mountains in 40 minutes from my house.

It’s an ace up our sleeve that other places do not possess. It’s also one we should take full advantage of and not squander. Provided housing can stay affordable it only enhances our economic competitiveness.

If people in Calgary haven’t lived elsewhere or haven’t for a long time, I can see how this perspective fades because it’s the normal they have become accustomed to. My kids will probably grow up with this. My son's school playground has a panoramic view of the Rockies.

My jaw still drops when I see a morning view of a sunrise on the eastern slopes of the rockies.

This is why I find people on the NO vote frequently can not see the forest from the trees. The seem to confuse finance and economics, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

What makes the Olympics even more attractive is that it also unites us as a City/Province/Country while providing attention to the rest of the world that we couldn’t purchase even if we wanted to.

[GGG]

I wish information was better communicated it’s been very disappointing the quality of discourse by the Yes and No campaigns. I will say that CP did a pretty good job with people on both sides keeping each other honest to ensure argument for fact based or if they were emotion based were clearly labeled as suchZ

I watched a thing on the news last night and listening to both speakers was so annoying. Both just intentionally misleading and exagerating. From impact to property taxes on cost over runs, economic benefits of the games, risk, etc it was just political talking points that have previously been debunked.

I hope that the outcome of tomorrow is taken as final provided the deal doesn’t materially change and if it does get approved that everyone rally’s behind the games. I think one thing that both yes and no can agree with is that the games themselves will be awesome.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

What makes the Olympics even more attractive is that it also unites us as a City/Province/Country while providing attention to the rest of the world that we couldn’t purchase even if we wanted to.

That seems like a reach. The Vancouver Olympics united us as a country? I don't think it really changed anything. And the impact it has to the outside world I'm skeptical on as well. Do you look at Pyeongchang or Sochi or Turin any differently?

The infrastructure argument sells me a bit. While I don't really care about any of it on a personal level beyond a new arena for the Flames, I do realize that facilities are important for a large city to have.

I do think the games as a whole are a massive scam though. The IOC rolls in with a rider crazier than any rock band in history, has no risk, takes a huge percentage of the profits. The fact that so few country's even want the games is telling. To me that is the part that should be debated. The city should be saying sure will host but under these conditions.

[14]

I am pumped to vote Yes tomorrow morning.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Here's where I'm at: (still undecided)

The biggest issue facing the province is that our economic engine is an industry that is unsustainable long-term, and may become unsustainable much more quickly depending on factors beyond our control. Economic diversification should be our biggest priority. And hosting the Olympics is a short-term bump to that - some added tourism, some short-term construction jobs created - but it doesn't remotely begin to address the long-term problems facing the province, which is where we should be spending money on. If the worst-case scenarios hit, no new pipelines get built, the price of gas drops further, and the Olympics go significantly over budget, etc.... we're going to be in a world of hurt.

That said, it's not like there's any proposal of an alternative way of spending this money, and maybe this very short-term, inefficient approach to economic diversification is better than nothing. Maybe I'm underrating the long-term tourism industry effects. But it also might be worse than nothing if there's a massive debt load.

I don't think I've ever been as split on a voting issue as I am on this.

I feel much the same way. In the end, I think I’ve decided to vote yes—basically because a yes vote means the Olympics MAY happen, and a no vote means they definitely won’t. Because I don’t know if i want them or not yet, a yes vote makes more sense to me. Not sure how logical that is, but there you have it.

I’ve talked to a lot of late breaking yes voters in the last day actually. Tomorrow will be interesting, especially with so little polling. If I were a betting man I’d bet on the no side tomorrow—but truthfully I have no earthly idea what will happen.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Good points, but I think something people are fundamentally misunderstanding here is how the games help to renew and optimize Calgary’s geography wealth.

I moved here 2 years ago after living in Saskatchewan for 35 years & Toronto for 2.

The quality of life here is second to none in part because of the cultural and physical legacy of the 88 games (Nakisha & the Canmore Nordic centre for example). The place is a play ground with geography that the rest of the country can only navel gaze at.

The point being is that there is an existing outdoor industry and culture here that is one of the region's greatest assets to diversify the economy.

Tech firms and entrepreneurs can startup and locate anywhere.

What gives Calgary an advantage over places like Toronto and Vancouver, not to mention Winnipeg, Saskatoon, southern Ontario or Quebec is the proximaty and affordability of this playground.

I can be in the mountains in 40 minutes from my house.

It’s an ace up our sleeve that other places do not possess. It’s also one we should take full advantage of and not squander. Provided housing can stay affordable it only enhances our economic competitiveness.

If people in Calgary haven’t lived elsewhere or haven’t for a long time, I can see how this perspective fades because it’s the normal they have become accustomed to. My kids will probably grow up with this. My son's school playground has a panoramic view of the Rockies.

My jaw still drops when I see a morning view of a sunrise on the eastern slopes of the rockies.

This is why I find people on the NO vote frequently can not see the forest from the trees. The seem to confuse finance and economics, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

What makes the Olympics even more attractive is that it also unites us as a City/Province/Country while providing attention to the rest of the world that we couldn’t purchase even if we wanted to.

It's not like we won't have those types of places if we don't get the Olympics 8 years from now........we already have them.

The entire thing boiled down to 2 things for me.

Are we getting the legacy infrastructure the city desperately needs and are the risks of acquiring said legacies worth the real risk of paralyzing the city with what could be a massive tax burden that will last years and years beyond the party itself.

One was a very hard no, and the other one was a soft yes.

Easy decision for me.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

the real risk of paralyzing the city with what could be a massive tax burden that will last years and years beyond the party itself.

Is that a real risk? I don’t really think so.

“Paralyzing”? “Massive”? No, not really. It’s a tax burden, but it neither has the potential to be massive or payalyzing.

It’s a little concerning that on the eve of the vote, people on both the no and yes side have made their minds based on dramatics or “creative” depictions of reality, but I guess we have to hope that the population of each side voting that way balances each other out.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Is that a real risk? I don’t really think so.

“Paralyzing”? “Massive”? No, not really. It’s a tax burden, but it neither has the potential to be massive or payalyzing.

It’s a little concerning that on the eve of the vote, people on both the no and yes side have made their minds based on dramatics or “creative” depictions of reality, but I guess we have to hope that the population of each side voting that way balances each other out.

You have no idea how large cost over runs can go, so that statement is false.

It could be nothing and it could be massive...both are equally possible.

Have you not seen some of them with past Olympics?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You have no idea how large cost over runs can go, so that statement is false.

It could be nothing and it could be massive...both are equally possible.

Have you not seen some of them with past Olympics?

If they hold scope in check and the feds guarantee security there isn’t catostophic risk. The biggest one is likely real estate speculation around the atheltes village but if that goes sideways you could sell all 1800 units and recoup a lot of dollars at the expense of low income housing.

What things could happen that would cause greater than 500 million dollar overruns?

[getbak]

The Vancouver games had a 13% cost overrun. As far as I can tell, their budget didn't include any contingencies for cost overruns.

The Calgary 2026 bid plan includes 25% of contingencies. If the Vancouver budget had included similar contingencies, it would have come in 9.5% under budget.