[News] UPD: Calgary City Council approves exploratory bid study for 2026 Olympics

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think the Olympics need to be looked at as a catalyst for infrastructure work you're hoping to do anyway. If an Olympics allows you to revitalize a dead part of town (ie West Village) or to build an LRT line...and do with less direct money and on a quicker timeline, then that cost might be worth it.

If it's just about a big party with no real benefit but good memories, no thanks. If it's a fast-track to city building, then I think it becomes a lot more palatable.

This is what it boils down to ultimately. It's not about what the Olympics can do for the city for the two weeks it's here. It's moreso about what the Olympics can do for the city during, and after the games.

If it provides renewal/replacement to the facilities we have, infrastructure development like the LRT and rail service to Banff, and provides employment for construction up the games, and operation afterwards, may be worthwhile if it gets Calgary further ahead.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by polak

Does a state of the art cancer center have the potential to revitalize the city in a recession? If done right, the Olympics can accomplish a lot more than being a "big party"

No it can't

I understand the infrastructure argument, but if we need the olympics to be the catalyst for that then our priorities are out of sync.

The issues with olympic infrastructure spending are twofold: lack of correct focus and lack of time.

The timing from an Olympic win to the olympics is short given the amount of infrastructure that needs to be completed, the planning and assessments, and ultimately construction. This significantly raises the cost of these projects and the potential for problems.

The lack of focus is related to what the city truly needs and the location of those services. If we are planning on spending billions of dollars in Calgary, the focus should be on how the communities are positively affected, not the olympic experience. An olympic showcase in the west village, filled with venues and press buildings may look great for those two weeks of blimp flyovers, but does that type of planning benefit Calgary longterm?

[HHW]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The money is just thrown away. It is taken away in taxes from people who would otherwise have spent it on things they actually wanted and valued. And where does it go?

Yes, it goes in wages. It goes in wages to people who could otherwise have spent the time at other jobs, producing goods and services. Those people produce nothing while they are working on Olympic security; they only protect other people from losing their lives, health, or property to threats that would never have occurred if it were not for the Olympics.

Frédéric Bastiat had it exactly right:



The effect remains the same if you spend the six francs (or $1 billion) stationing guards in front of the windows to prevent them from being broken. If the guard prevents anybody from breaking the window, society is worse off by the value of that guard's.

And Bastiat's Glazier may spend his 6 francs in the local tavern on a pint of ale, and the inn keeper may spend the 5 francs he earns on buying new cooking pots from the shopkeeper to improve his business. Not all of the 6 francs are wasted.

Look, I'm not saying that money spent on security is the best use of that money, but it doesn't just vanish. It will still circulate in the economy.

As stated, people should spend their money on "things they actually want and value." Many people consider the overall impact of these events to be of value. I do, and would be willing to support it. You may not and are free to say so.

But, on the whole not much glass will get broken. And perhaps the shopkeeper would spend his saved money on a vacation in Mexico anyway instead of on new shoes or a book. Of value to him but not of any value to his neighbours

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cappy

No it can't

I understand the infrastructure argument, but if we need the olympics to be the catalyst for that then our priorities are out of sync.

The issues with olympic infrastructure spending are twofold: lack of correct focus and lack of time.

The timing from an Olympic win to the olympics is short given the amount of infrastructure that needs to be completed, the planning and assessments, and ultimately construction. This significantly raises the cost of these projects and the potential for problems.

The lack of focus is related to what the city truly needs and the location of those services. If we are planning on spending billions of dollars in Calgary, the focus should be on how the communities are positively affected, not the olympic experience. An olympic showcase in the west village, filled with venues and press buildings may look great for those two weeks of blimp flyovers, but does that type of planning benefit Calgary longterm?

Boom, this is it entirely.

Not only does olympic spending end up being far more expensive than necessary, it also ends up generally poorly designed for the long term use and needs of the area and people it's being built for.

A great example is in Vancouver with the light rail out to the airport. Different rail car technology with all the procurement repair and part concerns that go along with it, while also not being able to connect directly to the rest of the system or to use the cars interchangeably.

The means of getting it built was terribly disruptive to the business community along the corridor when it probably should have been a boon.

It's not that it is a bad piece of public infrastructure, I've used it extensively, but it should have been more. It also canabalized much needed public dollars for the most congested piece of roadway in north america, the Broadway Corridor connecting east vancouver and burnaby to UBC. The line out to the airport built for the olympics has delayed the proposed Broadway light rail line by 20-25 years at minimum.

The argument for the Olympics has to be better than being an elaborate ruse to deceive governments out of dollars for infrastructure.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by getbak

The group exploring the possibility of bidding has a new website: https://www.shouldcalgarybid.com/

There is a survey available too.

I just looked at this site. It's a joke. I'm not particularly for or against a bid... I'd just like to see things being investigated fairly.

First of all, the committee is filled all with people with an interest in seeing something like this happen. Every single person has nothing to gain with a failed or non-bid. Secondly, the "survey" is filled with descriptions/questions designed to gain a specific answer.

Lastly, without any other data collection (i.e. a name, email, registration... ANYTHING), the survey is open to be compromised. I mean, if I'm someone who say... wants a new hockey stadium built, I would put a little bit of money into skewing the survey via people or bots, wait for the results and then say, "see? People want this!"

[Classic_Sniper]

Surprised there are so many people against hosting another Olympics considering how well 1988 turned out. The biggest factor generally is the cost of hosting; but it helps that our current world class facilities that are already intact from the previous Olympics will make it considerably less expensive than if we were to start off from scratch.

The legacy that the Olympics can create and the sense of community that can be built are huge benefits. But not only that, the additional money from the government, television exposure, massive influx of tourism and residual tourism years later cannot be rivaled from any other event. Overall, it's a no brainer to me as the experience itself would be unbelievable.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Surprised there are so many people against hosting another Olympics considering how well 1988 turned out. The biggest factor generally is the cost of hosting; but it helps that our current world class facilities that are already intact from the previous Olympics will make it considerably less expensive than if we were to start off from scratch.

The legacy that the Olympics can create and the sense of community that can be built are huge benefits. But not only that, the additional money from the government, television exposure, massive influx of tourism and residual tourism years later cannot be rivaled from any other event. Overall, it's a no brainer to me as the experience itself would be unbelievable.

Why are you so surprised? I would love to see the Olympics back in Calgary as I was too young to remember the first time but there are plenty of reasons to not bid which many posters have recently listed. Any city looking at an Olympic bid needs to seriously consider if the exposure and infrastructure benefits will out weigh spending the money on other things such as non-Olympic infrastructure, health care and education. The public needs to be fully aware of the trade offs and there should be a plebiscite. Although there are still cities bidding on games many European democracies have recently made the decision the Olympics just aren't worth it.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Why are you so surprised? I would love to see the Olympics back in Calgary as I was too young to remember the first time but there are plenty of reasons to not bid which many posters have recently listed. Any city looking at an Olympic bid needs to seriously consider if the exposure and infrastructure benefits will out weigh spending the money on other things such as non-Olympic infrastructure, health care and education. The public needs to be fully aware of the trade offs and there should be a plebiscite. Although there are still cities bidding on games many European democracies have recently made the decision the Olympics just aren't worth it.

Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using public funding that could go towards other important and potentially more pressing matters. But all things considered, additional money from the government, unique tourism and television exposure could be huge boons for this city. It's an investment really, we'd essentially be spending money to make more money. If the facilities and infrastructure that's currently in place is sufficient to the Olympic board and doesn't require much money to bring up to standard then the costs to host would go down significantly. Who's to say the 2026 Olympics can't post another $140,000,000 in profit and use that towards healthcare, education and etc. I think it's a worthwhile risk to take.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using public funding that could go towards other important and potentially more pressing matters. But all things considered, additional money from the government, unique tourism and television exposure could be huge boons for this city. It's an investment really, we'd essentially be spending money to make more money. If the facilities and infrastructure that's currently in place is sufficient to the Olympic board and doesn't require much money to bring up to standard then the costs to host would go down significantly. Who's to say the 2026 Olympics can't post another $140,000,000 in profit and use that towards healthcare, education and etc. I think it's a worthwhile risk to take.

You make a lot of good points that I don't have an issue with although I wouldn't call hosting the Olympics and investment, more of a very risky gamble. My problem is your surprise that many posters are against a bid and calling it a no brainier. It is not at all a surprise some people would rather have a hospital than a ski jump and whether or not to host should be a very difficult full brained decision.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

It's an investment really, we'd essentially be spending money to make more money.

Make more money, how exactly?

There's very little evidence that olympics are even good for tourism, which is supposed to be the huge moneymaker locally. For example, Britain actually had 5% less tourists in 2012 than the previous year. London saw a slight increase in tourism, but even that was not a boon for everyone, as for example museums and theaters (both big business in London) saw significant declines in audiences.

In other words, olympic tourism mostly just replaces other tourism instead of adding to it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Surprised there are so many people against hosting another Olympics considering how well 1988 turned out.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by the opposition. Do you read the news? The public opposition to hosting Olympics (and the World Cup) is growing worldwide, as the costs for these things has spiraled out of control in the last 15 years, and the organizations running them have been exposed as deeply corrupt. As was mentioned up-thread, any time hosting has been put to a public vote in recent years, it has lost. There were marches and riots in Brazil. The number of countries that submit bids to host is getting fewer and fewer. Only two countries bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics, neither of them democracies.


'The Olympics are dead': Does anyone want to be a host city any more?


NOBODY WANTS TO HOST THE OLYMPICS

[Rhettzky]

I'd be for it. Upgraded facilities, improved infrastructure, and leading the Olympics into a new era of fiscal responsibility would be a great opportunity for the City when it really could use a shot in the arm. Also, the '88 Olympics really left a lasting impression of Calgary worldwide.

The examples of 'wouldn't you rather have a new cancer center/hospital/etc' ring a bit hollow with me. It's always the argument that gets trotted out in these debates about tax dollars and it's why I'm glad these things don't generally go to the public for decisions. If we weighed every public spending decision against the value of a hospital nothing would ever get approved and built. And the two don't really correlate anyway.

This is not to say that I'm in favor of rampant public spending, I'll trust the committee to come up with a solid recommendation that our elected officials can measure against the cons and expect them to come to a well informed decision on the matter either way. My hope is that it all works out to us being able to host the winter games in 9 years.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Surprised there are so many people against hosting another Olympics considering how well 1988 turned out. The biggest factor generally is the cost of hosting; but it helps that our current world class facilities that are already intact from the previous Olympics will make it considerably less expensive than if we were to start off from scratch.

The legacy that the Olympics can create and the sense of community that can be built are huge benefits. But not only that, the additional money from the government, television exposure, massive influx of tourism and residual tourism years later cannot be rivaled from any other event. Overall, it's a no brainer to me as the experience itself would be unbelievable.

You sound like you work for the IOC with this post. 1988 is literally 10,000 BC when it comes to the Olympics. It really is that much of a different world than it is now. 2026 will be guaranteed to have at least twice as many athletes as 1988. That alone significantly drives up the cost of hosting. Never mind security in the new Trump world, where he's very likely to bring a big terrorist attack on North America (which to be fair is what he wants). $1.5 billion could be the low end for security. Only creative accounting can make that much of a black hole cost turn into a profit.

The second part is the big lie the IOC hopes everyone falls for. There is not going to be an significant exposure for Calgary that will actually drive any long term growth in tourism. Flash has already posted that nothing was gained from Vancouver, and whether people like this or not, it's true: Calgary is boring. Not Winnipeg level boring, but Calgary's biggest "chip" to lure people to come is....Banff. That's right, come to Calgary and....spend money in Banff! Calgary is not getting the slightest tourism bump in the long term. It's another IOC trick to bait to public, but thankfully the public is waking up to their horse####.

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

The examples of 'wouldn't you rather have a new cancer center/hospital/etc' ring a bit hollow with me. It's always the argument that gets trotted out in these debates about tax dollars and it's why I'm glad these things don't generally go to the public for decisions. If we weighed every public spending decision against the value of a hospital nothing would ever get approved and built. And the two don't really correlate anyway.

You understand how opportunity cost works right? So of course these two things correlate, unless you're suggesting we can simply, I guess, find the billions needed to pay for the Olympics (start planting money trees maybe? Sling some coke?)? Because the options to ensure you can have both are increase taxes, or grow debt. But if you don't want either of those, you do have to choose. And choosing enriching private enterprise and corrupt organizations like the IOC is not very palatable.

[GGG]

I think there is an opportunity for Calgary to demand all revenues and the IOC gets a very small percent. Essentially if the games turn a profit then the IOC gets paid rather than the IOC getting paid first.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think there is an opportunity for Calgary to demand all revenues and the IOC gets a very small percent. Essentially if the games turn a profit then the IOC gets paid rather than the IOC getting paid first.

lol

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

lol

That the IOC will give up their cut?

If the IOC wants to have hosts for the Winter Olympics thatbare in the North American time zone they don't have many options. We shouldn't conform to any of the IOCs expectations or requirements when making the bid.

Our bid should be based on what is economically sustainable. If the IOC doesn't want to award on that basis we will wait for 2038 when that run out of host cities. The IOC needs us more than we need the IOC. We need to use that leverage to extract concessions from the IOC. We shouldn't bid for the games we should demand concessions for us to host the games.

[Erick Estrada]

Senator Clay Davis and Flash totally against any public money going into anything related to sport facilities in this city? Stunning development.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ponch consistently railing against Spendshi and the NDP for wasting money, yet begging for more spending for new arenas and the Olympics, thus essentially begging for his taxes to go up? Confusing.

[Flash Walken]

Hosting the olympics is 100% about conforming to any of the IOCs expectations.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Senator Clay Davis and Flash totally against any public money going into anything related to sport facilities in this city? Stunning development.

I think the public should fund 100% of a 100% public use facility.