2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[RM14]

FYI: Visual from the the report linked above:

[Weitz]

As someone who has worked with AON on cost cap over run insurance.. I think the city is in for a world of hurt if/when the inevitable over runs come.

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by stone hands

kind of unrelated, but is this true?(page 54, appendix f, table 9)

Average household income in Calgary, nominal dollars (CAD) Oxford Economics $180,646

maybe i'm reading that wrong, but unless the northeast where i grew up really is that poor, that seems extraordinarily high

**edit**

i see it has this below, i'm not sure what the difference is, but this also seems extremely high:

Average household income in Calgary, 2018 dollars (CAD) Calculation: [4] / ([5]/100) $151,381

That can't be correct

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's the full Ernst & Young Cost Benefit Analysis: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...g%20report.pdf

The presentation slide pack that was presented to the Olympic Assessment Committee yesterday: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreatio...g%20Slides.pdf

Effectively this report says if you believe that the games will come on budget and the provincial contribution is New Money and all the infrastructure is required than the games make sense

If you believe that the games go over budget and the provincial money is a substitute than the games are a bad investment.

There is also some great stuff in there on the housing component that scares the crap out of me from a cost side. The private sector builds the housing for the Olympics then converts it after, they then sell some of the units, then Calgary pays the difference in cost. So Calgary is making a massive real estate speculation by hosting the games. If the Condo market crashes Calgary would have significant exposure.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

That can't be correct

That number probably is correct. It's the difference between using a Median income vs an Average income.

[stampsx2]

Cost overruns:

According to Mary Moran -

The IOC will require 80% of olympic venues to exist in bidding cities. Calgary currently has 85% existing venues. Cost overruns can be well managed when the infrastructure already exists.

That’s why i dont think we’ll end up with a cost overrun like Japan.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by belsarius

That number probably is correct. It's the difference between using a Median income vs an Average income.

Care to explain? There must be some unimaginably wealthy calgarians bringing that average up

I just did a Google search and am seeing in the 70k ballpark which sounds more realistic

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Hes

I am a soft yes. Not a fan of the process so far, but My Kids will be 15 and 12 for these Games. That is a perfect age for them to soak up the experience. It is worth it to me pay extra taxes for that.

This is the same position I’m in (even the same ages). I’ve decided to vote with my heart, and go Yes. I still remember how great is was to have the Olympics here when I was 12, and I want my kids to have the same opportunity.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Hes

I am a soft yes. Not a fan of the process so far, but My Kids will be 15 and 12 for these Games. That is a perfect age for them to soak up the experience. It is worth it to me pay extra taxes for that.

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

This is the same position I’m in (even the same ages). I’ve decided to vote with my heart, and go Yes. I still remember how great is was to have the Olympics here when I was 12, and I want my kids to have the same opportunity.

It's good you feel that way for them because they are the one shouldering the financial burden.... for possibly their entire lives.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

It's good you feel that way for them because they are the one shouldering the financial burden.... for possibly their entire lives.

I’m sure there’s a thousand decisions made over the course of their childhood that will laden them with financial burden, including ring roads, fighter jets, and continuing to provide you and me with health care as we age. That’s part of the society we live in...at least they will have some good memories to go with the burden they’ll have either way.

There’s tons of people on here that talk about how great it was in ‘88, but will vote no this time. Do they feel the financial burden now with all the spending on new infrastructure then? Probably not. They just remember the good times.

[OMG!WTF!]

There’s tons of people on here that talk about how great it was in ‘88, but will vote no this time. Do they feel the financial burden now with all the spending on new infrastructure then? Probably not. They just remember the good times

You should totally ask that to Montreal.

[CPK80]

Interesting; On the CBC live stream, Trever Tombe sees little risk in going over budget.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

I’m sure there’s a thousand decisions made over the course of their childhood that will laden them with financial burden, including ring roads, fighter jets, and continuing to provide you and me with health care as we age. That’s part of the society we live in...at least they will have some good memories to go with the burden they’ll have either way.

There’s tons of people on here that talk about how great it was in ‘88, but will vote no this time. Do they feel the financial burden now with all the spending on new infrastructure then? Probably not. They just remember the good times.

Long term infrastructure and health care should certainly be lumped together with two weeks of fun.... We also have very different definitions of "a ton". And 1988 Olympics = Apples while 2026 Olympics = Oranges.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

And 1988 Olympics = Apples while 2026 Olympics = Oranges.

You're right, there's a lot less infrastructure needing to be built for 2026, so probably more cost certainly on venue costs.

Regardless, I gave my reasons for my vote, and they're my reasons. Feel free to vote the way you want, for your own reasons.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You should totally ask that to Montreal.

I lived in Montreal for years, and I can't remember a single person complaining about the burden from 1976, or Expo 1967, even once. The only reason most people would know about it is through media.

[btimbit]

Just sent in my mail in ballot. Happy this at least came to a vote rather than let city council decide for all of us

[chemgear]

LOL, still no Federal acknowledgment on overruns.

They've been asked so many times and still given no confirmation. It's not hard, pretty clear overruns are ours to eat.

I'm sure sales pitch will still be otherwise though.


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-cost-overruns

In an emailed statement, Craig MacBride, a spokesman for Science and Sport Minister Kirsty Duncan confirmed the federal government would sign the document “which guarantees a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympics Games.”

But MacBride said “it’s not quite so straightforward” when it comes to whether that guarantee would leave Ottawa on the hook for potential overruns of the $495-million security budget and that “it would likely depend on the nature of the costs.”

Duncan told reporters last week the federal government is “not responsible for cost overruns” under the government’s policy for hosting international sporting events.

But on Wednesday, Goodale’s office said it was not commenting on security matters related to the bid.

“I would refer this to the office of minister Duncan, who is responsible for the bid,” said spokesman Scott Bardsley. “Minister Duncan is the lead on this file, so her office is the best placed to respond.

The Alberta government has said it’s out of the question that cost overruns would fall to the province’s taxpayers.

“The Government of Alberta has stated in writing, to both the mayor of Calgary and the federal minister of sport, that we will not be able to provide any additional funds that may be required, including those to cover revenue shortfalls of cost overruns,” it stated earlier this week.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Care to explain? There must be some unimaginably wealthy calgarians bringing that average up

I just did a Google search and am seeing in the 70k ballpark which sounds more realistic

Sure. The 70k that normally comes up from google searches is the median after tax income. They are reporting the gross average income which can be a vastly different number.

For example I looked up the 2016 census which is pulling 2015 numbers. For comparisons sake the median household gross income in Calgary was around 117,000. The average was 162,000. Taking the downturn into effect it drops the current numbers to around 90,000 median, or about 70,000 after tax.

Assuming an equal decline would make the average around 135,000 but massive layoffs would affect the median much more than the average as most wealthy people are divested enough to compensate and maintain the higher end earners. So I would expect the average to be lesser decline than the median.

I didn’t go and research exactly where they got their numbers from, but for me the 180,000 they are quoting as an average could be seen as on the high side but I think it is completely reasonable.

Personally I hate seeing average income used. In this case the wealthy are making the numbers skewed higher than it should be. Simply because the wealthy would have a higher threshold to pay, it doesn’t mean the average Calgarian is willing to pay based on their thresholds. Sneaky sales technique to me to make the option look more attractive.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

It's good you feel that way for them because they are the one shouldering the financial burden.... for possibly their entire lives.

Oh good, the no side has moved to this rhetoric.

[Looch City]

Is there any chance the proposal will change to include a new arena?

That's basically the main reason I'm against it. I want a new arena baked into the deal, not renovations of the Dome/McMahon.