2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

I think the Yes vote struggled so much this time because the federal government really only committed on funding 10 days ago.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think the Yes vote struggled so much this time because the federal government really only committed on funding 10 days ago.

I think that's wishful thinking. The demand from the public for this wasn't there this time, this is more politicians selling something which makes it harder to swell up support, especially in an election where the politicians involved are hated by large swaths of the city, to varying degrees.

[T-Dog]

This is from one of the linked articles, which goes to my earlier question about the rink/stadium:


"On paper, Calgary's games are relatively lean and mean, costing $5.1B (including $2.8B in public funds) and creating just two new venues: a fieldhouse and a 5,000-seat arena.
It's extremely unlikely that Calgary would stick to this as its final plan.
Mayor Naheed Nenshi, Councillor Jeff Davison and others on council have acknowledged that a new NHL arena—partially publicly-funded—is very likely in the cards.
Davison tweeted Monday that if the bid goes ahead, he'll be looking for "cost-effective synergy" between the two projects.
City admin has said that city hall can't afford all of the mega-projects that are on the horizon, including the Green Line, the Olympics, a new arena and expansion of the BMO Centre.
"There are only a limited amount of dollars that this organization has," said Carla Male, the city's acting CFO, at city council October 31. "And so in making choices, you're making choices not to do something as well."

[Strange Brew]

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?

Definitely vote based on the best decision you can make with the info in front if you. Nothing wrong with making your decision in the voting booth.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

I think it is fair to say that the idea of bidding came from the community - as far back as 2011 for 2022. There were a number of citizen groups (I talked to them back in the day extensively) that came forward trying to push it - it was determined there wasn't enough time, but it would be explored for 2026.

I think when it turned into a plebiscite, that's when political types got involved - because it was then very much a campaign. But for every 1 political type there are 10 people involved in groups like Yes Calgary 2026 that aren't political people or typically involved in campaigns. There simply aren't that many political operatives or campaign volunteer types in Calgary.

[DiracSpike]

I'm on my way to vote No. I've wanted an Olympics in Calgary for my entire life but this is a bad deal and although I'll struggle with actually striking an X against this when I get in the booth I think it's the right thing to do.

Olympics are supposed to give the host city useful infrastructure when it's finished, otherwise it really is just an expensive two week party. This bid only gives us a Fieldhouse that's useful. Any upgrades on McMahon is a waste. Upgrades on the Saddledome, Big 4, trails/day lodges at Nakiska, all a waste. Niche upgrades to COP/Winsport are definitely not worth the money we're paying. The 5,000 seat arena nobody needs or wants is a hilarious waste. The fact that Moran is trying to dangle that as a precursor to the 20,000 seat arena people actually want is an absolute joke and borderline dishonest. I'm also not happy with the Yes side, their commericals are emotional "think of the children" garbage. I want substance and this bid and committee have none.

[troutman]

What events are the 5,000 seat arena for? What's wrong with the Corral (7,000 seats)? Max Bell (3,000)?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

My wife and I voted yes this morning.

I share some people’s reservations about some of the uncertainty around the bid but in the end I feel like it makes sense to take the next step here. My wife has been a solid yes for at least a week, I waffled until the weekend but landed on yes in the end.

[T-Dog]

Originally Posted by troutman

What events are the 5,000 seat arena for? What's wrong with the Corral (7,000 seats)? Max Bell (3,000)?

Having the Corral as the face of Calgary on the international stage would be a huge embarrassment, to be honest. It's old and it smells. Have you seen the dressing rooms?

[Wormius]

Can you vote anywhere in the city or does it need to be your community?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Can you vote anywhere in the city or does it need to be your community?

Has to be your polling station today. Advance was anywhere in the city.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Can you vote anywhere in the city or does it need to be your community?

It has to be at your designated polling station. You could vote anywhere at advanced polls, but the vote today needs to be your assigned one.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think the Yes vote struggled so much this time because the federal government really only committed on funding 10 days ago.

And they still will not give clarity on overruns. It's not that hard if they were going to pay for it, they'll push the bill back.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

It has to be at your designated polling station. You could vote anywhere at advanced polls, but the vote today needs to be your assigned one.

Yeah, early voting was wasn't restricted I believe but this time around it is at your designated spot.

[Bunk]

Indeed the Fed commitments, especially timing were brutal for yes - since so many were a conditional "yes, if it's a good deal". No one would really step out and truly advocate until that happened and it was only two weeks ago. The deal was incredibly late breaking, which was hobbling. It eroded trust and left people scrambling. The Minister's interview on the Eyeopener was...very bad.

Despite how it happened. If you went back 6 months ago and said that was the deal we got. Many would have thought it's an excellent deal to run on. And it is.

[bizaro86]

I just came back and 143 people had voted at Robert Thirsk by 9:30 AM (it says the number of ballots processed on the scanner you put your ballot in). I would guess that station has 10,000 inhabitants, maybe a bit less, probably 6,000 or so voters. It was steady but not packed. My wife and I were the youngest voters there by at least two generations, but that's probably because of the time. I think the turnout by younger voters/people with kids will probably be the deciding factor here. Nice weather will probably help with that.

[T-Dog]

I'm still undecided, but feel like I should vote. I think most of my indecision comes from not liking the current proposal for the City in terms of value of the legacy infrastructure vs. the cost and how that money could be better spent. One point that does sway me to the "Yes" side is the fact that this plebiscite is really only a green light to proceed with a bid, and hope that Calgary's counsel, the Calgary Olympic Committee and the Flames, can work out a final bid proposal that is actually a better deal for Calgary.

As some have said, I agree that the City could use something like the Olympics to rally around, but also worry about committing to a huge expense that we don't have certainty around the costs and the potential legacy of paying for these games for years to come. Every Olympics since 1968 have come in over budget, so I think it's reasonable to expect that these would also. Here's a chilling quote regarding the 1976 Montreal olympics:

"Drapeau (Montreal's mayor) had vowed the Montreal Games would be “self-financing,” setting a $120-million budget in 1970. By the time the Games opened in July 1976, the tally had risen to $1.3 billion. By 2006, when the Olympic debt was finally paid off, the price tag for the adventure would reach about $2.5 billion in capital and interest."

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Indeed the Fed commitments, especially timing were brutal for yes - since so many were a conditional "yes, if it's a good deal". No one would really step out and truly advocate until that happened and it was only two weeks ago. The deal was incredibly late breaking, which was hobbling. It eroded trust and left people scrambling. The Minister's interview on the Eyeopener was...very bad.

Despite how it happened. If you went back 6 months ago and said that was the deal we got. Many would have thought it's an excellent deal to run on. And it is.

Many who supported Yes 7 months ago would say this. The general public? Mostly complaining about no new arena and a McMahon refurb. And there's another thing the Yes side underestimated, many people are refusing to vote for this because of those specific things.

[edn88]

Voted yes this morning, hoping that they majority follow along. I voted yes with some reservations and concerns, but not all things in life are black and white.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by T-Dog

"Drapeau (Montreal's mayor) had vowed the Montreal Games would be “self-financing,” setting a $120-million budget in 1970. By the time the Games opened in July 1976, the tally had risen to $1.3 billion. By 2006, when the Olympic debt was finally paid off, the price tag for the adventure would reach about $2.5 billion in capital and interest."

This is 40 years ago and you're talking about the construction industry in Quebec, which was/is ... unique to say the least