2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[GreenLantern2814]

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 it costs every person $200/year for 20 years vs $100 for 20 years, and you get the Olympics, what's the difference?

Unstable cities with corrupt kleptocracies can use events like the Olympics, World Cup etc to bleed money from the local populace. It' doesn't cost $50B to hold a Winter Olympics if it's not in Nowhere, Russia.

London 2012 didn't ruin anyone, Sydney seems fine, Vancouver didn't blow away. Oh, Brazil is ####ed? Have you seen City of God. Brazil has its own set of problems. The 2004 Olympics were not the reason Europe had to bail out Greece.

There is not a safer bet than hosting the Winter Olympics in Canada. Especially if (when) there will be NHL players in the hockey tournament. It is the sort of event we are built to have. And that $4+ or $5+ billion in investment is not coming to Calgary through any other means. Nobody is offering us $4 billion to run a homelessness pilot project.

On my way out the door, I'll be voting Yes.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Well I just voted in Varsity and they must have bussed in 200 seniors.....

That doesn't help the Yes vote for sure.

Voting is set up for my parents and residents in their Care Home. I don't know how they assess who is competent to vote there.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Given how much money the hotel and tourism industries are pumping into the Yes side, you can expect Airbnb to be banned in Calgary by 2026. And that's only half a joke, they aren't pumping all this money in so we can profit off Airbnb's.

Holy Nazi propaganda Batman! Like all the hotels in Calgary and Airdrie and Red Deer wouldn't be full years before 2026.....

They won't give 2 craps if i rented my house and condos for 2 weeks.

[sleepingmoose]

Even within this thread's poll, the gap between Yes and No seems to be widening to the Yes side.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Even within this thread's poll, the gap between Yes and No seems to be widening to the Yes side.

Thankfully old people don't use the internet and actually vote.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by troutman

Voting is set up for my parents and residents in their Care Home. I don't know how they assess who is competent to vote there.

I'm still waiting for someone to take up my idea of proportional vote value based on age. 16-25, value raises from 0.1-1. You stay at one until you reach 65 or something, and your vote value decreases back to 0.1, say by 80 or something. It's a perfect system. FLAWLESS.

[dsavillian]

Is voting yes just to see the no side melt down the new "owning the libs?"

[troutman]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Is voting yes just to see the no side melt down the new "owning the libs?"

I imagine it is mostly conservatives that vote no on spending and taxes.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by troutman

I imagine it is mostly conservatives that vote no on spending and taxes.

not libs as in actual liberals, more of a troll vote.

I should have used green text

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

not libs as in actual liberals, more of a troll vote.

I should have used green text

It's not troll voting, it's spite voting. And it's probably close to an even split on this one.

[Jbo]

Fascinating that overall feeling is that older population are voting no, while the younger demographics seem to lean to yes. Heading out after work and Wife and I will be voting yes

[bob-loblaw]

The comments regarding tourism reminded of a couple things.



A quote from yesterday's New York Times article is interesting, as the person quoted regarding free global advertising says “We’ve got 30 years of data that shows they will come,” he said. “It is the equivalent of hosting 21 Super Bowls.”


Also, if I remember correctly, the attendance records set for the Stampede and the Zoo were made in 1988 after the Olympics were held here. The records held for about 25 years before our population grew enough so that the attendance records were broken just through momentum of our own headcount. It would be great if we could repeat growth like that.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by troutman

I imagine it is mostly conservatives that vote no on spending and taxes.

It’s seems in my circles it is pretty split yes and no amongst conservatives. Some of the most wildrose voting yes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Sounds busy again today.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1062392178620710916

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

I'm voting yes, I don't completely trust bid and think they failed miserably at PR and their sales pitch. But I think their numbers are in the right ballpark.

The no side I trust even less, every time I looked into their numbers they were either outright lies or clear attempts to fudge their numbers.

As far as I can tell this will cost around ~2k per household across 10 or 25 years which isn't much. And a good chunk of this money is going to be spent otherwise, but without provincial and federal money guaranteed. The cost Federally and Provincially is negligible on a per taxpayers basis, and the fed money will be spent anyways, maybe not in Calgary though.

My son will be 10 when these games happen, and I remember the 88 Olympics as a child and think it'll be a great experience for him. So much happened during the 88 games even if you didn't actually go to them.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The cost provincialy is almost as much as the city contribution. 1/3 of 700 million is 233 million and that assumes that we continue to get our share of infrastructure money and don’t hear we already funded the Olympics. It’s between 50% and double the city contribution so you need to add 1000-4000 dollars to your assessment. That is not a Negligible amount. It might not change how you make your decision as when amortized over 10-25 years the number doesn’t look bad but as you said it’s important to look at the correct info when making decisions.

Agree with you that the misinformation from the official camps has been disappointing.

[Travis Munroe]

Is 13,000 high? I figured it was quiet when my polling station was a library with less than 180 votes in not long ago.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

In the event of a NO decision from Calgarians and an inevitable retraction of a bid, I hope the City has an alternative vision for the future to put Calgary on the international scene and become an even more attractive place to live and invest. And I hope that vision is supported and with input from the movers and shakers of the NO vote. And I hope that vision includes how Calgary is going to pay for the same upgrades and maintain our athletic training facilities over the long-run, which is something we are going to need to continue to maintain long after the Olympics.

We can build the field house and maintain the athletic faculties for cheaper on our own without the Olympics. Even just the extra 300 million we're on the hook for now will do this. Just that one piece.

So there you go I just solved your dilemma

[PepsiFree]

The dramatics and misinformation has been plentiful on both sides (funny how it will both “paralyze” and “save” Calgary, people need to get a grip). The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Given that there’s more to life than money, I’m going with my heart and voting yes.

I won’t be too disappointed if it’s a no, and with the way council is voting even a yes vote isn’t a guarantee, but if yes wins we’ll have something memorable to look forward to. That’s enough for me.

[troutman]

Still on the fence about the upcoming Olympics vote? CJSW 90.9 FM is bringing you coverage of the Olympics Plebiscite for the Calgary 2026 Winter Games. Featuring several voices from both sides of the debate, including city councillors Gian-carlo Carra, Jyoti Gondek and Druh Farrell; Jason Rubeiro with Yes Calgary, and Erin Waite with No YYC Olympics, and many more.

Tune in November 13th at 11:00am for this special special episode of CJSW Presents or visit cjsw.com/olympics to listen to the full episode!


https://www.facebook.com/CJSWFM/

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

We can build the field house and maintain the athletic faculties for cheaper on our own without the Olympics. Even just the extra 300 million we're on the hook for now will do this. Just that one piece.

So there you go I just solved your dilemma

You think we can we build a fieldhouse and upgrade up to 10 more facilities for $390 million of City money when a decent fieldhouse alone is basically the vast majority of that?

I hope you have a budget ready to demonstrate how we are going to pay for this over the course of time, balancing maintenance, upgrades and other city projects at the same time - and without a lick of non-municipal funds.