2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by nik-

That's what I find funny about this. Some Yes people here are lashing out now and No voters are all visionless plebs.

Rome, Boston, Stockholm, Munich ... but no Calgary are all just dumb voters, all those other cities choice correctly for other reasons.

Would things be different if the votes had swung the other way? Unfortunately, I honestly think it wouldn't be much different, just different users in their place.

Maybe I am just a cynic.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I'm confused. What is this "capital" that you speak of and how does it differentiate from the operating budget? Also, this seems like a semantic discrepancy to me -- at the end of the day, the cost was $7 billion when it was initially slated to cost $1.7 billion. London saw a similar discrepancy. I'd be curious if you can clarify this, I'm interested in knowing.

Simplest way:

Capital = stuff you keep. Buildings, roads, pipes, etc. Infrastructure.

Operating = stuff you don't keep. wages, supplies, services, etc. Running things.


Capital is spending money on a truck. An operations budget is paying the driver, paying for gas and servicing.

[Ozy_Flame]

In the most basic of terms, I see it as free money. We don't just get granted billions of dollars otherwise. And we were going to have to spend money anyways.

To that end, guess I'll have to spend my money and take kids to events in Edmonton or Toronto in 2026 for the World Cup instead, which I am more than happy to do even if FIFA is just as bad as the IOC. I want to see world class athletes and sports in our country and if Calgary doesn't want to do it, that's fine.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Honestly, go nuts. I am upset. And I will continue to deride this decision by Calgarians for a long time.

We are happy to slam the Libs and the ANDP all day long, yet when they offered to help fund our infrastructure we turn it down. It is as simple as that for me, and it's really aggravating to see happen especially when there is no clear Plan B for said funding. It's extremely hypocritical with our waxing about the pipeline.

We are cutting off the nose to spite our face.

I think maybe your frustration is slightly misdirected.

I would have been an easy 'yes' vote if the bid was done reasonably. As far as I can tell, many of the 'no' voters both on CP and who I've spoken to feel the same way.

None of us were doing it for political reasons. It was poor planning.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Agreed. And I find it disrespectful. And I’m not American.

I misread TAO's post -- he wasn't talking about divisiveness at all. But c'mon -- America is clearly divisive politically right now, and it's not even close to being not. That's not the fault of the great citizens of the country or any one actor, and it's also not really for this thread. But the political arena (which, again, TAO wasn't talking about) has seldom been so far apart.

Anyway, moving on. This isn't for this thread

[nik-]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Would things be different if the votes had swung the other way? Unfortunately, I honestly think it wouldn't be much different, just different users in their place.

Maybe I am just a cynic.

Maybe. Probably? I've been no from the start, but I could have been swayed to yes if the bid was anything special. This wasn't. Infrastructure improvements should be significant if you're going to spend the money. Not a bunch of refurbs and still spending 5+ billion.

Bid was weak, it lost.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I misread TAO's post -- he wasn't talking about divisiveness at all. But c'mon -- America is clearly divisive politically right now, and it's not even close to being not. That's not the fault of the great citizens of the country or any one actor, and it's also not really for this thread. But the political arena (which, again, TAO wasn't talking about) has seldom been so far apart.

Anyway, moving on. This isn't for this thread

Okay. Moving on

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Agreed. And I find it disrespectful. And I’m not American.

I’ve had 5 friends move to Denver recently and let me tell you I highly regret not accepting the move a couple years ago. The mirror image of Calgary with a bustling diversified economy, and even then, their large oil and gas sector just continues to ramp up. That city is also far more liberal than Calgary.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Simplest way:

Capital = stuff you keep. Buildings, roads, pipes, etc. Infrastructure.

Operating = stuff you don't keep. wages, supplies, services, etc. Running things.


Capital is spending money on a truck. An operations budget is paying the driver, paying for gas and servicing.

That's good to know. Thanks for explaining that!

But my point is, why must we pay the operating costs, then? They will not be associated without the Olympics. And if the argument is that the Feds are contributing money that wouldn't normally be allotted towards infrastructure, well, can't the contributions of CSEC help fill that void for individual projects like new arenas? Last I checked, weren't they still prepared to foot at least 33% of that?

[H2SO4(aq)]

Question for debate: what was more inspiring, Calgary Next or Calgary 2026?

I think a realist would admit both were below average attempts.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I’ve had 5 friends move to Denver recently and let me tell you I highly regret not accepting the move a couple years ago. The mirror image of Calgary with a bustling diversified economy, and even then, their large oil and gas sector just continues to ramp up. That city is also far more liberal than Calgary.

Lol I love Denver. Great town. But in this case I’ll drop it because scorp is right, not the thread for it. That being said. Next chance I can head to Denver I’m going

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nik-

Maybe. Probably? I've been no from the start, but I could have been swayed to yes if the bid was anything special. This wasn't. Infrastructure improvements should be significant if you're going to spend the money. Not a bunch of refurbs and still spending 5+ billion.

Bid was weak, it lost.

I agree.

For me it wasn't even the money. Heck if the bid was double and we got an arena and a train line to the airport I'd vote yes. I'd pay 10000 more in taxes if the city actually got stuff in return.

Double the free money!

It was simply a half-assed bid. And it lost.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

I think maybe your frustration is slightly misdirected.

I would have been an easy 'yes' vote if the bid was done reasonably. As far as I can tell, many of the 'no' voters both on CP and who I've spoken to feel the same way.

None of us were doing it for political reasons. It was poor planning.

Question for you - if there was "not poor" planning and the numbers and strategy turned out to be the same, how would you vote?

I think it was more poor communication than planning. I think BidCo did a very reasonable Bid that probably wouldn't look much different from another group with similar objectives within a Calgary context. Let's be clear here about where the failure points lie.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Question for debate: what was more inspiring, Calgary Next or Calgary 2026?

I think a realist would admit both were below average attempts.

Both were bad, but I’d have to say the Olympic presentation was more inspiring.

[oldschoolcalgary]

i have no problems with Calgary looking at bidding again, even as early as 2030...

what raised red flags for me was the fact that the goal posts for the budget changed overnight to meet the funding deficit by the tune of 200 million dollars, that suddenly allowed the budget to balance again.

if we tendered a project and all the sealed bids came back as being over budget, and let the contractors know that it was overbudget by X dollars, if said contractors came back the next day saying they "sharpened their pencils" and their bids were suddenly meeting the original budget, I would recommend to the client that they walk away from the process and re-tender it later....

i wouldn't be calling it a 'good deal'

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Question for debate: what was more inspiring, Calgary Next or Calgary 2026?

I think a realist would admit both were below average attempts.

The difference was that CalgaryNext was a starting point of a negotiation. Calgary 2026 was the final product.

[TheScorpion]

I've always wanted to go to Denver. I love the geography of America, it really has everything to offer.

To answer your question H2SO4, I'd say CalgaryNEXT honestly inspired me more, although from the beginning I doubted we'd get it. Idk, with CalgaryNEXT, the promise of actual infrastructure right from the beginning was always nice to look at and think about as something concrete to ADD to the city, even as unrealistic as the funding model was. With Calgary2026 though, I felt the bid was always really unclear on what Calgary would get out of it in terms of the "capital" that Roughneck described in their great post.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Question for debate: what was more inspiring, Calgary Next or Calgary 2026?

I think a realist would admit both were below average attempts.

CalgaryNext was DOA.



Calgary2026 actually had funding sources.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Serious:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1062579400384933888

Cities that have voted against hosting the games (2022-2024): Oslo, Stockholm, Munich, Boston, Rome, Budapest, Hamburg,

Cities that have been awarded the Winter Olympics (1990-2018): Albertville, Lillehammer, Nagano, Salt Lake City, Turin, Vancouver, Socci, Pyeongchang

Which of these two groups is composed of more world class cities?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Question for debate: what was more inspiring, Calgary Next or Calgary 2026?

I think a realist would admit both were below average attempts.

One project included a new arena and a new stadium/fieldhouse...the other only a fieldhouse.

The one with both was more inspiring even if it was poorly presented and executed.