2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

edit: to put a little more perspective here; according to a Financial Post article on November 11, the current differential picture is a pace of losing $100,000,000,000 per year. That's $100B. Global demand is still growing. Oil is Canada's number one export.

How many Olympics does that pay for? How much public benefit and economic stimulation? That pace in 1 year is enough to pay off 10 provincial and 3 territories debts.

That is a staggering number to sneer at, which Canada is currently doing. That is a staggering number to turn our backs on.

You made some good points in your post, even if some were based mainly on your opinion and we’re clearly presented with a political narrative.

But as someone who would like to see the BS that is holding up pipelines stop, I must say it’s incredibly frustrating and disappointing to see supporters of pipelines resort to these kinds of misleading arguments.

The $100B differential shortfall would not wipe out $100B in debt across the provinces in a year, because that money wouldn’t be just handed to the other provinces. It would certainly be taxed and that revenue can’t be ignored, but unless it were to be taxed at 100%(which it won’t be) it’s just plain and simply misleading to try and argue it could eliminate debt across the provinces in 1 year.

Resorting to this kind of misrepresentation of the facts only helps opponents of Alberta’s energy industry because as you pointed out in your post when people don’t trust what they are being told they are unlikely to support what you’re trying to get them onboard with. Support for pipelines has been increasing across the country in recent years, why slow it down by giving people a reason to be pessimistic about the actual benefits? The facts on the economic benefits speak for themselves, even if the message isn’t getting through to people as quickly as you or I would like it to, there’s no benefit in presenting misinformation.

Do you think Nenshi’s “10-1 return” line helped with making a case for the olympics, or do you think it’s more likely that his blatant hyperbole made people more skeptical overall towards the bid? From what I’ve been hearing and reading the past couple of days my guess would be the latter. Don’t be a Nenshi

[Senator Clay Davis]

Pretty good write-up.

The boosters — the mayor, the business community — they all pointed to the spectacle of hosting the 2026 Winter Games and the billions in unleashed funding as not only an economic boost, but a spiritual one as well.

Both the bid corporation and the lobby group Yes Calgary 2026 spent lavishly to drive the message home. Ads peppered the airwaves, stars from the '88 Games, including Eddie the Eagle, soared into town, there were even last-minute robocalls featuring Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi.

But it wasn't enough.

Calgarians wanted to focus on local priorities, particularly with an austerity municipal budget scheduled for debate the next day.

Some might have been cranky with stalled pipelines, the NDP government, Nenshi or the federal Liberals.

Unemployment runs high and over 25 per cent of the office space in Calgary's downtown towers sit empty.

"It looks to me like Calgarians put their head before their hearts on this decision," is how Matti Siemiatycki from the Munk School of Business in Toronto put it.

If the vision for Calgary's bid could be summed up in one word, it would be: frugal.

It's not the kind of thing you hang from banners or use to fire up emotions. Calgary's bid had the feel of a cocktail party at the local Value Village that had to be wrapped up by 10 p.m.

But it would still cost $3 billion in public funds.

There would be improvements to existing facilities like McMahon Stadium and the Saddledome and a couple of new ones — a fieldhouse and mid-sized arena — but sometimes you need a new gown.

There was hype when it came to the economic benefits of hosting, but the bid corporation, Calgary 2026, couldn't present a clear vision of its accounting.

City councillors tripped over the numbers and economist Trevor Tombe called some of the claims "demonstrably" wrong.

There were more doubts than facts, more confusion than clarity. A last-minute funding deal provided no comfort — not even for Coun. Evan Woolley, who chaired the Olympic Assessment Committee and then decided to flee from the sinking ship. The good deal, he said, wasn't there.

The lack of a vision for what the Games would be and what they would mean for Calgary long-term was a fatal flaw, according to Brent Toderian.

And in an effort to sell the Games, and sell them quickly to a city facing an austerity budget, Calgary 2026 chose to not include any of the long-lasting city infrastructure that could come with the Olympics.

It didn't build upon existing visions and dreams.

It chose cheap — what it would call responsible — while still racking up a $3 billion public tab.

There was also no unity, no coming together of the different levels of government to celebrate a promising mega-event for not just Calgary, but Alberta and Canada as well.

When Alberta Finance Minister Joe Ceci announced the province would provide $700 million for the Games, not a penny more, he had the look of someone who had lost a beloved pet. The city's contribution was leaked on a Saturday. Ottawa's initial offer was revealed the same way.

In the wake of Tuesday's vote, some of its biggest supporters were angry. George Brookman, a bonafide civic booster and flag-waving Yes man, called the No side "losers" and wondered where their vision for the future was.

It was a common refrain on social media. A suggestion that if you're opposed to the Olympics, provide another vision for the city or get out of the way.

But there was also a sense that the debate — albeit too polarized, too often — is the start of a bigger discussion about this place and where we're going. It focused minds and set priorities in thousands of disparate brains in all corners of the city.

Even in the course of it, there were ideas about where else to spend and why. The arts, transit, tax relief.

Kate Jacobson is with Better Spent 2026, a group that wanted to talk about exactly that — where and why we should spend Olympic-size budgets elsewhere.

"Our take on it was really that it's great when the government spends money, but only when it spends money on public programs and services that actually improve the lives of Calgarians," she said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ysis-1.4906001

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's the argument for every olympics. Greece and China had to build a baseball diamond that they would never use. The IOC then took baseball out. Only to put it back in for 2020.

There are speed skating ovals and velodromes. Who is going to these? Sure Calgary can boast they host hundreds of World Cup events but who is going to them? The problem is the Olympics needs venues and bleachers/stands for the Olympics crowd that will never come back. I went to the World Speedskating Championships at the Oval in 1998 about a month after the Nagano games and there are maybe 500 people there. And I got in for FREE because I was a UofC student at the time.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I do think the Winter Olympics have a bleaker future than the Summer Olympics. Winter Olympics require more specialized venues that don't have a significant value to the general public when done. I do wonder if this rejection will actually have the IOC considering going with a rotation for the Winter Olympics. Summer Olympics I would think have far more cities who could host, from a financial perspective.

Like what? Ski jumping, I'll give you that. Maybe the sliding centre, but it's not all that expensive and is still well used. Anything else? The oval is always busy with people. It gets used constantly by people who don't even speed skate! Crazy, right? I can't think of any other venue that isn't easily repurposed or used for it's purpose.


The Canmore Nordic Centre is always busy. It's booked pretty much every weekend of the summer for bike and running events. It's got a disc golf course anyone can use, endless mountain bike trials, and the events centres host weddings all year. In the winter it is also in use constantly, whether for ski events, or people getting exercise. The Banff Trail is basically ski-tip to ski-tip on weekends of regular people. It's got winter biking trails as well.



To suggest these facilities sit empty for 30 years after the games is just plain wrong.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pretty good write-up.









https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ysis-1.4906001

In the wake of Tuesday's vote, some of its biggest supporters were angry. George Brookman, a bonafide civic booster and flag-waving Yes man, called the No side "losers" and wondered where their vision for the future was.

is it safe to assume the next day he apologized for calling tens of thousands of Calgarians losers?

this was a good point:

The lack of a vision for what the Games would be and what they would mean for Calgary long-term was a fatal flaw, according to Brent Toderian.

"What I actually say to cities contemplating bids … they need to come at that consideration from a position of confidence and clarity around their vision, their aspirations as a city, not from a position of desperation," he said.
"It's the cities that are desperate to make something happen that are at great risk of bankrupting themselves."

[OMG!WTF!]

My unpopular and vindictive reason for being happy about this result is that this time last year we were dragging people out of the midfield mobile home park because there was no way in our super tight city budget that these guys could find 4 million dollars to keep a moral and not unprecedented obligation and commitment to those citizens. So, right or wrong, I'm glad these people don't get to play Olympics. No trips to Switzerland or Beijing. No parties, no meetings, no fun projects. Just keep saving that 4 million.



The oval would make a decent field house. That ice is expensive. Let the soccer players have it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Kelly Vanderbeek called No voters stupid too.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1062736768829612034

I don't think the Yes side realizes it's this kind of attitude that contributed to why they lost. People voted No for a variety of reasons, some were misinformation, some were hating Nenshi/Notley/Trudeau. A lot of us though just thought the deal was peak mediocrity (or worse) given the risk.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Like what? Ski jumping, I'll give you that. Maybe the sliding centre, but it's not all that expensive and is still well used. Anything else? The oval is always busy with people. It gets used constantly by people who don't even speed skate! Crazy, right? I can't think of any other venue that isn't easily repurposed or used for it's purpose.


The Canmore Nordic Centre is always busy. It's booked pretty much every weekend of the summer for bike and running events. It's got a disc golf course anyone can use, endless mountain bike trials, and the events centres host weddings all year. In the winter it is also in use constantly, whether for ski events, or people getting exercise. The Banff Trail is basically ski-tip to ski-tip on weekends of regular people. It's got winter biking trails as well.



To suggest these facilities sit empty for 30 years after the games is just plain wrong.

And honestly, without the '88 games that never gets built. There is no question we got a significant legacy from those games and almost all of these facilities are still in use today. The ski jumps are an easy target.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

My unpopular and vindictive reason for being happy about this result is that this time last year we were dragging people out of the midfield mobile home park because there was no way in our super tight city budget that these guys could find 4 million dollars to keep a moral and not unprecedented obligation and commitment to those citizens. So, right or wrong, I'm glad these people don't get to play Olympics. No trips to Switzerland or Beijing. No parties, no meetings, no fun projects. Just keep saving that 4 million.



The oval would make a decent field house. That ice is expensive. Let the soccer players have it.

you probably would like what Kate Jacobson said.

Kate Jacobson is with Better Spent 2026, a group that wanted to talk about exactly that — where and why we should spend Olympic-size budgets elsewhere.

Jacobson calls budgets "moral documents" that reveal what a government really cares about. Look at the numbers, look where the money goes and you find the heart and soul of a place.

And with Calgary debating an austerity budget that envisions $100 million in cuts, one day after the plebiscite, she thinks it's a perfect time to have those hard number conversations that show more than just dollars and cents.

"When I'm saying I want money to be going toward public transit, toward our public school system, toward social housing, I'm making a moral claim and a value claim that people can disagree with or agree with. I think it's a fairly honest way to show people what you value and have a conversation about politics."

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pretty good write-up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ysis-1.4906001

I thought this article was great. Summed up why I personally voted no.

I'm not someone who just said "#### the IOC"; I researched the bid a lot. There were ever changing funding contributions and ever changing benefit arguments. I could have been swayed to the yes side if there was some lasting infrastructure that all Calgarians could take advantage of; not just infrastructure that elite athletes could take advantage of. A field house and a small arena just wasn't enough for a $390 million figure that I didn't believe was accurate.

To see the vitriol spouted by some the yes side towards the no side is really disheartening. This city is not going to die.

[transplant99]

"It looks to me like Calgarians put their head before their hearts on this decision," is how Matti Siemiatycki from the Munk School of Business in Toronto put it.

There were more doubts than facts, more confusion than clarity. A last-minute funding deal provided no comfort — not even for Coun. Evan Woolley, who chaired the Olympic Assessment Committee and then decided to flee from the sinking ship. The good deal, he said, wasn't there.

But there was also a sense that the debate — albeit too polarized, too often — is the start of a bigger discussion about this place and where we're going. It focused minds and set priorities in thousands of disparate brains in all corners of the city.

Sums it up pretty well.

[automaton 3]

Personally I don't think there was much misinformation. It was simply a bad deal. Calgarians were asked to take on huge financial risk and didn't get any desired legacy infrastructure in return.

Clean up McMahon, a 5000 seat arena and a fieldhouse? Please.

The majority of council had already voted to end this. The NO voted only confirmed it.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Personally I don't think there was much misinformation. It was simply a bad deal. Calgarians were asked to take on huge financial risk and didn't get any desired legacy infrastructure in return.

Clean up McMahon, a 5000 seat arena and a fieldhouse? Please.

The majority of council had already voted to end this. The NO voted only confirmed it.

The funny thing is majority of the capital projects are going to be needed anyway with the exact same financial risk.... The other levels of governments never guarantee any capital projects the City of Calgary does.... For example if the Green line goes 100% over budget the City of Calgary tax payers would be on the hook for 4.6B

[jaydaybay]

Voted yes, not fired up with the no result but im getting more dissapointed with it after talking to people who voted no and the reasoning, based on ideas and issues that are not even true. Really hope thats not the case for the bast majoroty of no voters.

-Want the money spent in other ways (which it will be for the most part, not in calgary though)
-Too much for a 3 week party (sure, although honestly i voted yes for the cash influx and platform to sell/rebrand calgary leading up to and during the games, pump money into facilities and help sell calgary as a premire winter sport/fun city)
-General misinformation about the funding, security costs and even where the events would be held.
-Sticking it to the ROC by not hosting a party for their sake, retaliation for not approving pipelines, crapping on Ab etc (pretty sure the ROC isnt too concerned their tax dollars wont be going to calgary to host the event)

There was confusion and issues with the bid, largely due to the 3 levels of government unfortunately.

IOC has their own issues and i totally get a no vote citing concerns with dealing with them.

Of course a bid would have been risky but in other breaking news, taxes are going to go up no matter what, likely including to pay for things that olympic funding would have covered.

I dont think we are becoming detroit but in my opinion this city desperately needed something to look forward to and rally around, other than go/no go pipelines and oil prices. Both of which are out of our control and not exactly going in our favour, regardless of what industry you work in.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I agree with your sentiment, but does the world really need more skating ovals and ski jumps? Seems silly to spend public money on things that truly aren’t needed.

My children are in the 35 to 45 year old demographic. They are both very outdoors oriented.

They told me that they and most of their friends voted no for this very reason. They see spending big money on infrastructure that only elite athletes use, like for luge, skeleton, ski jump or bob sled, makes no sense to them.

On the other hand, they would encourage spending on infrastructure for skiing, skating, curling, hockey and the like.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by redforever

My children are in the 35 to 45 year old demographic. They are both very outdoors oriented.

They told me that they and most of their friends voted no for this very reason. They see spending big money on infrastructure that only elite athletes use, like for luge, skeleton, ski jump or bob sled, makes no sense to them.

On the other hand, they would encourage spending on infrastructure for skiing, skating, curling, hockey and the like.

Isn't the big infrastructure costs that were proposed for facilities that are open and usable to the public (e.g. field house, arena, WinSport Skill Hill)? I don't think any net new luge, bobsled or ski jumps were being proposed to be built, just upgrades (some that were already planned?)

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Isn't the big infrastructure costs that were proposed for facilities that are open and usable to the public (e.g. field house, arena, WinSport Skill Hill)? I don't think any net new luge, bobsled or ski jumps were being proposed to be built, just upgrades (some that were already planned?)

No, I agree. That was their response for any Olympics going forward after this. They want stuff that they can use.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Would prefer if the Olympics had a couple of dedicated cities and they just rotate. It would be far more economically feasible, more environmentally friendly, and can create a training/athletic industry in the host city. Then the IOC and every competing country contribute funds to maintain and upgrade the facilities as needed.

If this was part of the deal, I'd vote yes in a heartbeat. I'd even say give one city 2 Olympics in a row so you don't have infrastructure collecting dust, so to speak. That would make way more sense for a city.

[RM14]

I still don't understand the logic of having the citizens vote on supporting the Olympics, without viewing the proposed final bid book to the IOC.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Kelly Vanderbeek called No voters stupid too.

Who?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Like what? Ski jumping, I'll give you that. Maybe the sliding centre, but it's not all that expensive and is still well used. Anything else? The oval is always busy with people. It gets used constantly by people who don't even speed skate! Crazy, right? I can't think of any other venue that isn't easily repurposed or used for it's purpose.


The Canmore Nordic Centre is always busy. It's booked pretty much every weekend of the summer for bike and running events. It's got a disc golf course anyone can use, endless mountain bike trials, and the events centres host weddings all year. In the winter it is also in use constantly, whether for ski events, or people getting exercise. The Banff Trail is basically ski-tip to ski-tip on weekends of regular people. It's got winter biking trails as well.



To suggest these facilities sit empty for 30 years after the games is just plain wrong.

The fact that the Oval gets so much use in Calgary is a credit to Calgary and it's citizens. To be able to turn it into something tangible for other sports. Same as Vancouver, it's been turned into a multi-sports facility.

But others aren't like that. What's the Sochi Oval being used for? It's been converted to a convention center. And the Pyeongchang Oval? They can't even keep the lights on in that thing.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I do think the Winter Olympics have a bleaker future than the Summer Olympics. Winter Olympics require more specialized venues that don't have a significant value to the general public when done. I do wonder if this rejection will actually have the IOC considering going with a rotation for the Winter Olympics. Summer Olympics I would think have far more cities who could host, from a financial perspective.

And the advertising. TV and advertising dollars are huge for the summer games because every country watches it.