2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

This will probably be my last word on the plebiscite and bid. Here’s my podcast with Mary Moran. I hope you have a listen. As a yes supporter I wanted to be transparent and as an interviewer present the best version of what I think are valid criticisms.

The debate has been super divisive and pretty ugly in my view. So this is my attempt to present a sensible conversation. I hope it is fair and informative.

https://livewirecalgary.com/2018/11/...ary-bidco-ceo/

Good job on the podcast at asking good questions that were balanced. Two small I would have liked more detail

One was around the arena where Moran’s answer on one hand was she would love an arena and could maybe move things around and the other that the 2020 bid requires venues be for community use. I think what wasn’t asked directly was will more public money be likely required to add an arena between now and 2026. My reading between the lines is that is a clear yes.

The other area where I thought you could push for more clarity is when she uses the word profit on Opex of the games. This idea that IOC plus tickets and local cover the op costs of the games is only true if you exclude security costs and the ParaOlympic games. She did mention the Parolympic games part but never mentioned security. I really don’t like the halftruth that the operations of the Olympics pay for themselves.

Good job on the discussion and having a pretty fair case of the benefits of the games. And appreciated her thoughts from the Calgary Economic Development point of view of using the Olympics as a tool.

[JBR]

Amazing watching Global news tonight at 11:00. When coming back from a break, they show an interview clip from someone voting ‘yes’ and ‘no’

2 who were leaning ‘no’ said they were against because we gave a away hockey, and it would be in Edmonton. The other said it would be bad for the environment and national parks, particularly Lake Louise...???

[getbak]

Originally Posted by T-Dog

I haven't read through all 31 pages of this thread, so apologies if it's been discussed elsewhere - I'm wondering what the likelihood is that the money earmarked for "upgrades" to the Saddledome and McMahon Stadium could be used towards hammering out a deal with the Flames to build new? Really seems like a waste to spend money upgrading facilities that could potentially been torn down in a few years. Would hosting the Olympics be a catalyst to actually build a new stadium and arena? If we had some sense that this would be the case, I'd be more inclined to get on board with an Olympic bid.

The renovations to McMahon should provide a renewal to the building to make it useful for additional decades. I think the proposed renovations are probably the best, most financially sound option going forward. Realistically, it's unlikely that we'll ever see someone come along to spend the $300+ million required for a totally new stadium.

The in-stadium experience at McMahon isn't bad, the biggest problems are the crowded and out-of-date concourse and washrooms, and overall accessibility issues. The proposed renovations would address those problems.

If done right, a renovated McMahon should serve Calgary and the Stampeders well for many more years, at a fraction of the cost of a new stadium.



For the Saddledome, I don't know how much money is earmarked in the budget for the work required there, but some of it would likely be saved if the building ends up hosting figure skating and short track instead of hockey. If the Flames move out in the next few years, it probably won't need a new ice plant for the Olympics. Also, the dressing room requirements are a lot less for figure skating than they are for hockey. With hockey, there are 2 or 3 games played in the building every day, which increases the crowd-handling requirements over figure skating/short track, which only have one event per day most days.

There will still likely need to be some money spent at the Saddledome (primarily for improving washroom accessibility), but probably not as much as is included in the budget.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yup...and should it go forward (which i do believe will happen) I hope they are bang on with their predictions, though I question some of them.


And there is just this flat out fact....



https://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/6195/1/2016-20.pdf

The problem with that report is that it doesn't look at why the different Games went over budget. Were the budgets poorly done from the beginning? Did they keep the estimates low to help gain support for the bid knowing that the costs would balloon after the fact? Did the scope of the projects change causing the costs to rise, but they got an overall better product?

Without knowing those answers, the analysis is lacking.


Also, looking at those numbers, the two Winter Games with the lowest cost overruns are also the two that are closest in structure to the 2026 bid plan, Salt Lake and Vancouver. Both were held this century in North American cities with populations in excess of a million people. Both made effective use of existing venues to reduce construction costs.

Even the 88 Games aren't a great comparison to the 2026 bid plan because Calgary is twice as large as it was then, and the Olympics are twice as large too. Also, the 88 Games had a large amount of new construction, including a never before seen at the Olympics, indoor speed skating track.

Originally Posted by GGG

Is that the budget that Hostco was given or the budget at the time of plebiscite. Is that the Opex or Capex or both?

The Vancouver plebiscite was held in February 2003, so it would have been the budget that was in the submitted bid book.

I got the 13% overrun number from the report that transplant99 linked above. My understanding is it includes both operating and capital expenses, but only those capital expenses that directly relate to the Olympics (e.g Speed Skating Oval, Whistler Nordic Centre). Capital expenses for things like transportation improvements (e.g Sea to Sky Highway and Skytrain to YVR) aren't factored in.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Good overall writeup of what to consider before the vote (Spoiler: They endorse choosing on your own)

Make it stop!!!!!!

Like most everyone, we're weary of Calgary's Olympic debate and are ready for some clarity one way or the other. It's been a strangely bitter and rancorous debate.

There's a lot more we want to dig into. We feel like we've barely scratched the surface.

Unfortunately, there's no time. It's time now for Calgarians to have their say.

This city is ready for an answer.

Newspapers have long had a tradition of trying to sway the citizenry one way or the other by making an endorsement before a big vote.

At The Sprawl, we have our own riff on this tradition.

But before we get to that, here are four things to keep in mind so you go to the polls clear-eyed.

1—Olympic venues benefit some, but not all
2—The Olympics have potential for reconciliation
3—All Olympics have gone over budget
4—The Olympics can be a powerful city-building opportunity

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/the-sp...26-endorsement

[Regorium]

This is an election which can be a case study of how money influences politics because of how vastly different the resources were between the two sides.

Three weeks ago, it was pretty much a no vote. The unbiased city committee recommended to stop all work and not to proceed with the plebiscite. 8 councillors voted not to proceed.

Since that point, we have had hundreds of radio, TV, online ads, athletes flown in from around the country and the world to talk about why the Olympics are amazing. I see election-esque road signs for YES everywhere. Everyone now suddenly is lining up to give massive corporate handouts in Calgary - the city of fiscal conservatism.

Amazing how money works in this world.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Regorium

This is an election which can be a case study of how money influences politics because of how vastly different the resources were between the two sides.

Three weeks ago, it was pretty much a no vote. The unbiased city committee recommended to stop all work and not to proceed with the plebiscite. 8 councillors voted not to proceed.

Since that point, we have had hundreds of radio, TV, online ads, athletes flown in from around the country and the world to talk about why the Olympics are amazing. I see election-esque road signs for YES everywhere. Everyone now suddenly is lining up to give massive corporate handouts in Calgary - the city of fiscal conservatism.

Amazing how money works in this world.

While true, the 'Yes' side has been significantly more vocal, but the substance of the bid as well as the fundamental financing structure changed significantly since that vote.

That recommendation to abandon was done because of uncertainty and disagreement concerning financing through all levels of Government and those concerns, outwardly at least, appear to have been allayed with the resolution and clarity concerning the financing.

Which is a huge point of contention for Calgarian taxpayers because everyone wants to know who is going to pay for all of this and at that point it was uncertain but everything seems to have been resolved and there is more clarity now.

I mean, 'More Clarity' is relative, I still find the overall funding model rather nebulous.

Still though, it was a major hurdle and concern that appears to have been more or less overcome, at least to a point where it might sway some undecided votes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Regorium

This is an election which can be a case study of how money influences politics because of how vastly different the resources were between the two sides.

Three weeks ago, it was pretty much a no vote. The unbiased city committee recommended to stop all work and not to proceed with the plebiscite. 8 councillors voted not to proceed.

Since that point, we have had hundreds of radio, TV, online ads, athletes flown in from around the country and the world to talk about why the Olympics are amazing. I see election-esque road signs for YES everywhere. Everyone now suddenly is lining up to give massive corporate handouts in Calgary - the city of fiscal conservatism.

Amazing how money works in this world.

I think this article sums it up well.

After several days of frantic, last minute negotiations, the Calgary 2026 bid corporation announced that the three orders of governments found the required $2.875 billion necessary to move ahead with the plebiscite. (Of course, that figure was a touch short of the $3 billion originally touted in earlier estimates thanks to a miraculous overnight reduction in security costs. This, despite the fact that security costs are one of the line items most likely to balloon.)

To paper over the murky accounting, the bid committee played a saccharine Olympics video featuring the most heart-rendering moments of the 1988 and 2010 games; a young torchbearer climbing the final steps, then mayor Ralph Klein in relief.

Even with the proposed public funding in place, this whole process has been so shambolic that the yes team will need to secure a resounding victory in the plebiscite. A majority of city council voted to stop the bidding process altogether—but such a drastic move required 10 votes in favour, and the final vote was 8-7.

Now, the whole scheme rests on the public vote, set for Nov. 13.

Living here, it’s hard to miss the lack of general enthusiasm for a 2026 games. There have been a handful of public meetings, but the majority of social media commentary has been either negative or, more ominously, absent.

There is nothing “grassroots” about the Yes side of the bid. A pro-2026 lobby group is staffed by well-known and well-established political operators. There is a long-standing link between athletics and power in Calgary. This bid is largely backed and promoted by city elites who seem oblivious to the concerns of a city struggling with a high unemployment rate, torpid house sales and a depressed downtown core.

This isn’t an era of nostalgia. It’s an age of cynicism, in which public trust in most of our institutions have been too eroded to expect the easy compliance of any electorate.

There is a general distrust of the politicians involved, the numbers proposed by the bid. And there is certainly no good reason to trust the International Olympics Committee.

I fear, then, that this plebiscite will have a Brexit-lite vibe about it. Those who bother to turn up will be the sort to channel several years of frustrated growth and disappointed economic hopes into a No vote.

If the plebiscite does fail, there will be think pieces a-plenty examining what the outcome says about Calgary’s dour mood and changing character.

Yes supporters question whether this city has lost its “can-do” attitude and have offered dire predictions of the city’s decay. I find this messaging both bizarre and manipulative; despite the downturn, Calgary is still the country’s fastest-growing city. Having a “can-do” attitude doesn’t oblige us to take flight with every passing fancy.

What does concern me, however, is the slow erosion of civic institutions that these votes tend to reveal. There are good reasons to dislike and distrust the politicians, the numbers, the council, the media, the boosters and the cynics alike. But at some point, simply tearing things down isn’t going to be enough. We will breed new sacred cows to replace the ones we are now splitting up for steak.

We need a unifying vision for what this city should be in the decades to come. If we aren’t going to build that vision around an Olympic bid—and, to be clear, I don’t think that we should—what should that vision be?

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/calg...not-nostalgia/

[Weitz]

What are your guys thoughts on not voting at all if you can't seem to really make up your mind one way or the other? Just letting the dominoes fall as the may?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Since that point, we have had hundreds of radio, TV, online ads, athletes flown in from around the country and the world to talk about why the Olympics are amazing. I see election-esque road signs for YES everywhere. Everyone now suddenly is lining up to give massive corporate handouts in Calgary - the city of fiscal conservatism.

Amazing how money works in this world.

I have always wondered at the American elections when it came to such spending. Not surprising in the end that people are so easily swayed by spending and faith for hilariously shoddy plans even more spending.

With even the mayor still spouting financial metrics that would get him strung up by the Securities Commission, I get why so many people get scammed in this day and age.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What are your guys thoughts on not voting at all if you can't seem to really make up your mind one way or the other? Just letting the dominoes fall as the may?

I think you should still vote based on your preference. Having participated in the discussion here you are better informed than most people voting. I think your indecision is reasonable. This deal isn’t great but it doesn’t have catastrophic negative possibilities either.

[puckedoff]

Seems like everyone who is the most 'in the know' about the funding/spending plans, who isn't bought by 'Yes2026' is quite strongly against the bid, even if they are generally in favour of hosting the Olympics here in the future.

That tells me its a bad deal for the city, and for that reason, I'm out.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I have always wondered at the American elections when it came to such spending. Not surprising in the end that people are so easily swayed by spending and faith for hilariously shoddy plans even more spending.

With even the mayor still spouting financial metrics that would get him strung up by the Securities Commission, I get why so many people get scammed in this day and age.

People are one issue voters and now they have a true one issue vote.

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What are your guys thoughts on not voting at all if you can't seem to really make up your mind one way or the other? Just letting the dominoes fall as the may?

If you are risk adverse, it's a class 4 cost estimation with no signed guarantor for security or other over runs, vote No.


Looking past the financials and you believe in the intangible benefits it brings, vote Yes.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I have always wondered at the American elections when it came to such spending. Not surprising in the end that people are so easily swayed by spending and faith for hilariously shoddy plans even more spending.

With even the mayor still spouting financial metrics that would get him strung up by the Securities Commission, I get why so many people get scammed in this day and age.

You're extremely arrogant. The assumption that people voting yes must but so stupid that they can't realize they are getting ripped off is laughable.

How destitute are people in vancouver because of the olympics? Salt Lake? Give me a break. Some people want nice things and don't mind paying for them. How can you not understand this?

[bob-loblaw]

I say yes for two reasons...

We need some facilities and I see no reason why we shouldn't have some money from other levels of governments directed towards us. Yes there's only one taxpayer, but let's have some say and get a few things that will make Calgary life better than it already is.

Form a corporate perspective, I had first-hand experience with VANOC as a colleague and I did a successful presentation to them for our company. We were involved in Vancouver 2010 for a period of three years as a supplier. Many things about the experience really stood out for me as I hadn't experienced it before our involvement with VANOC.

You learn a lot working with them and it was a great experience altogether - it was probably the highlight of my career to be honest. VANOC was very thorough, very professional and really gave me a different perspective about the Olympics. We broke even financially or perhaps had a small loss in the direct association, but what it did for the company and our people was pretty astounding. Everyone was very proud and the morale really increased for the better during that time frame.


The corporate attention you get from being associated with the Olympics was really different than what I was expecting. When I mentioned that we were involved with an Olympics Games Organizing Committee it gave us instant credibility. We even had one very large American organization tell us that when they saw we had the VANOC relationship it gave us the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' and they knew we were legit. VANOC really did their due diligence in learning about us and our people as they did way more than a credit check or simple references.

In most circumstances when I name dropped VANOC to potential clients we'd get an audience without any more effort. If we wanted to cut a deal and it was fair for both sides, the deal would get done and they would bypass internal processes for us for internal approval. Our competitors told us that if they knew we were involved in a bidding process they knew they'd lose. It was actually quite amusing as instead of getting an email from an inquiry I'd get a return phone call and then a contract very soon after. We were even pursued by people from Sochi to work with them (we declined). It literally became like shooting fish in a barrel.

One more thing - there will definitely be employment growth with the Olympics. VANOC took over a building in the Lower Mainland and we were there when they were ramping up and it was only a third full. The Olympic 'movement' really is a movement. They had people employed there from all over the world. I was very surprised at how many employees followed the Olympic family around by working for different Olympic committees. One particular person I knew worked for Sydney, then Vancouver, then Sochi after that.

In a time when business confidence is poor in Calgary, this could really give some local companies a shot in the arm and help us diversify. We could really use a boost right now.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Since that point, we have had hundreds of radio, TV, online ads, athletes flown in from around the country and the world to talk about why the Olympics are amazing. I see election-esque road signs for YES everywhere. Everyone now suddenly is lining up to give massive corporate handouts in Calgary - the city of fiscal conservatism.

Note that I would say almost all of the athletes that have come out in support of the bid through appearances, social media posts or videos have some tie to Calgary or the Bow Valley - they live here, or run their business here or they training and compete here.

The only exception really being Edwards.

[corporatejay]

My google skills are weak this morning, can someone post the link to where the results will be posted?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think this article sums it up well.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/calg...not-nostalgia/

I just don't buy this idea that it is nostalgia driven. The strongest supporters weren't here or weren't born yet - the strongest against are those that are older and were here. That seems to be the opposite of the nostalgia narrative people like Gerson and Markusoff have pushed.

I think people are forward looking about it. Whether they are supporters or opposed.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I just don't buy this idea that it is nostalgia driven. The strongest supporters weren't here or weren't born yet - the strongest against are those that are older and were here. That seems to be the opposite of the nostalgia narrative people like Gerson and Markusoff have pushed.

I think people are forward looking about it. Whether they are supporters or opposed.

The real point to discuss is the major difference between 1988 and 2026 is 1988 was truly grassroots. 2026 is truly...political lifers. It's why the Yes side has struggled so much, it's not really from the people up, it's the inverse.