2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[timun]

Originally Posted by CPK80

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

The key difference between the Green Line and Olympic bid being that four-and-a-half billion dollars is a realistic cost to build the LRT line, whereas the Olympic BidCo presented a budget that was unrealistically low and almost certainly would have gone over.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by 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.

Whelp.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1046192281428983809

[OMG!WTF!]

I listened to Mary Moran on two occasions say she was looking forward to moving on from a circling conversation about financing to a more productive one on the fun stuff like venues and buildings. Seemed like she was tired of trying to convince rubes of something she thought was so basic.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by timun

The key difference between the Green Line and Olympic bid being that four-and-a-half billion dollars is a realistic cost to build the LRT line, whereas the Olympic BidCo presented a budget that was unrealistically low and almost certainly would have gone over.

Plus you don't have self-inflicted cost inflation of trying to build everyone all at once, and with a hard deadline to boot. Much more likely the Green Line can remain on budget if it isn't competing for workers with the rest of the Olympic construction.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

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.

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

So isn't that a testament to how well we have done? I don't see your argument here. Other places couldn't figure it out, but we could, but since others couldn't we shouldn't?

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by timun

The key difference between the Green Line and Olympic bid being that four-and-a-half billion dollars is a realistic cost to build the LRT line, whereas the Olympic BidCo presented a budget that was unrealistically low and almost certainly would have gone over.

What Capital cost in the Olympic bid seemed unrealistic? All the costs for individual projects seemed pretty inline for me.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pretty good write-up.

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

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

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

He did: https://twitter.com/CalgaryGeorge/st...19861267132417

The most frustrating thing about people like Brookman is that he's still parroting a blatant fallacy that "if you're a 'no' voter what's your alternative to 'move our city forward'?" As though if you voted no to this particular idea you have to have some "back-up plan" for the city.

Brookman and the like deluded themselves into believing that the Olympics would "kickstart the economy", which is a complete and utter fabrication. The Olympics do not miraculously generate billions in long-lasting, local economic activity. Take the '88 Olympics an example: Calgary's economy was in the ####s beforehand and actually got WORSE by 1990. It didn't rebound until later, and the rebound had precisely nothing to do with the Olympics.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CPK80

What Capital cost in the Olympic bid seemed unrealistic? All the costs for individual projects seemed pretty inline for me.

Why are you picking out capital costs specifically? The capital costs were already relatively low because they weren't going to build much of anything new anyway. The overall cost was unrealistically low.

[Wormius]

I think in the grand scheme of things, it's easy to be a SaveCalgary or Sean Chu or Jeromy Farkas than to actually try to get something moving forward. The like to think that they are saving the City and doing something ,but they're just do-nothings. I will be shocked the day that any of those has their names attached to something the City has built.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by timun

He did: https://twitter.com/CalgaryGeorge/st...19861267132417

The most frustrating thing about people like Brookman is that he's still parroting a blatant fallacy that "if you're a 'no' voter what's your alternative to 'move our city forward'?" As though if you voted no to this particular idea you have to have some "back-up plan" for the city.

Brookman and the like deluded themselves into believing that the Olympics would "kickstart the economy", which is a complete and utter fabrication. The Olympics do not miraculously generate billions in long-lasting, local economic activity. Take the '88 Olympics an example: Calgary's economy was in the ####s beforehand and actually got WORSE by 1990. It didn't rebound until later, and the rebound had precisely nothing to do with the Olympics.

Well at least he didn't blame it on the English and jewish vote so that's positive.


But calling people losers because they didn't vote for your side is stupid.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think in the grand scheme of things, it's easy to be a SaveCalgary or Sean Chu or Jeromy Farkas than to actually try to get something moving forward. The like to think that they are saving the City and doing something ,but they're just do-nothings. I will be shocked the day that any of those has their names attached to something the City has built.

It was interesting to see the names of the people against it like these guys you mention, Rick Bell, Cory Morgan, Jason Kenney...rarely do I agree with anything they say or do. Makes me feel like I'm making the right decision.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by timun

Why are you picking out capital costs specifically? The capital costs were already relatively low because they weren't going to build much of anything new anyway. The overall cost was unrealistically low.

Because capital costs are the main reason why Olympics have went over budget. For example Vancouver ran positive both capital and operational if you don't include the Sea to Sky, Canada Line, and Convention Center... All three are capital projects that were not in the original bid book.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It was interesting to see the names of the people against it like these guys you mention, Rick Bell, Cory Morgan, Jason Kenney...rarely do I agree with anything they say or do. Makes me feel like I'm making the right decision.

I was kind of surprised about Gondek and Farrell though. When people you respect have a differing opinion on a subject, you'd like to hear more about their reasons and what they might know based on being in these meetings. I might have convinced to vote "no" if I maybe had their insight into it and how they came to their conclusion.

[FurnaceFace]

∆
I think the argument is those capital projects are not Olympic projects. They were built because of the Olympic bid, however I don't believe any of those projects were within control or management of VANOC.

Same idea with the Train here.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I was kind of surprised about Gondek and Farrell though. When people you respect have a differing opinion on a subject, you'd like to hear more about their reasons and what they might know based on being in these meetings. I might have convinced to vote "no" if I maybe had their insight into it and how they came to their conclusion.

Druh had emailed this, before the vote:


http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/wa...-Olympics.aspx


At least it is a well thought out explanation to her position, even if I disagree with some of it. Not to put words in her mouth, but I get the feeling she felt the Olympics would be more of a threat to her vision of community focused problem solving. The Olympics are big, and she prefers small scale stuff.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So isn't that a testament to how well we have done? I don't see your argument here. Other places couldn't figure it out, but we could, but since others couldn't we shouldn't?

I'm saying the IOCs new mandate is bunk because really Calgary and only Calgary could do follow their rules. And if Calgary is struggling to convince its citizens it can do it then who can?

The Winter Games are either going to be extinct or given to authoritarian regimes who will spend billions to build something in advance and leave them as white elephants.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CPK80

Because capital costs are the main reason why Olympics have went over budget. For example Vancouver ran positive both capital and operational if you don't include the Sea to Sky, Canada Line, and Convention Center... All three are capital projects that were not in the original bid book.

That's so not true though. It was on budget because they kept changing the budget. When they were at our stage their entire budget was under a billion. And the provincial government paid for all overages. We got none of that.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That's so not true though. It was on budget because they kept changing the budget. When they were at our stage their entire budget was under a billion. And the provincial government paid for all overages. We got none of that.

I do agree that the provincial government in the BC case covered the overages.. My point is that Calgary has the same financial risks on the capital projects Olympics or Not, the other government are not going to guarantee overages when the City of Calgary eventually builds the field house.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by getbak

Quebec can't host it until they find a mountain that's tall enough to host the downhill events. There aren't any in Canada east of the Rockies, so they'd have to find one in Maine (or somehow build a fake mountain).

Their plan was to have those events 400 km south in Lake Placid, or to have them in Alberta or BC.

https://nationalpost.com/sports/olym...or-lake-placid

[mikephoen]

One thing that really swung me from a 'yes' to a 'no' was that so few other cities want to bid on these anymore. If it's such a sure fire way to stimulate an economy and to advance a city on a global tourism scale, then why aren't tons of cities putting in bids?

Sure, these games are going to be under the 'new and improved' system, but if it's so new and improved, why aren't there more bids for 2026? Cities and countries around the world are reaching the same conclusion, that the Olympics are a bad deal for the host.