Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Haha ok

Vancouver Olympics break even in final ‘team effort’ budget

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...rt_budget.html




2010 Olympics: Vancouver Winter Games Gave Economy A $2.3 Billion Boost, Report

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/...n_1035427.html

They "broke even" thanks to tax money, otherwise they lost $250 million. And the report you link shows little to no growth in tourism after the Olympics happened (something Olympic supporters consistently tout as a benefit). But you likely know there are many more reports that show the economic benefits are dubious at best and outright lies at worse.

Look, all I'm saying is that if you want to take the position that there are no real long term benefits, but we get to party, I'm cool with that. It's the attempt to deceive people about the benefits that is just grifter ####.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

They "broke even" thanks to tax money, otherwise they lost $250 million. And the report you link shows little to no growth in tourism after the Olympics happened (something Olympic supporters consistently tout as a benefit). But you likely know there are many more reports that show the economic benefits are dubious at best and outright lies at worse.

That PWC report examination ended at the end of 2010, hardly a fair measure since that was literally only months after the Vancouver Olympics ended. I bet you that $2.3 billion number is signficantly higher if you extend that to 2015 or so; hell, even 2018.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Do you actually think there's actually people who had no idea about Vancouver or Whistler and area before the Olympics, and they suddenly went there because of the Olympics? That's not only highly unlikely, but highly difficult to measure. Again, it's a "feeling" thing, not something you can seriously prove. And for most Olympic backers, they need to go on feelings because they really can't prove any of the benefits.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, you're going to have to elaborate on that.

If you're talking about how equalization is determined, its based on each province's capacity to raise revenues. Below-capacity revenue creates "have not" provinces.

Because of Alberta's ability to generate high amounts of revenue mean that we are able to generate more tax than the national average. Even during the recession. That said, Alberta's tax jurisdiction is 30% lower than the national average (and conversely, Quebec is the highest). We are exceeding at revenue of dollars per person than the national average, even with a low tax rate. Our ability to generate revenue is high because of high wages, high consumption, and resource royalties among other things. And this is natural because people and businesses spend more with lower tax rates. Probably partially why Alberta has really high consumer debt too.

If we increased the tax rate in a variety of areas (e.g. bringing in a PST, higher corporate tax rate, higher income tax rate) our ability to generate revenue would go down, meaning that our numbers would no longer exceed fiscal capacity - which would then put us closer to average if not below the capacity to generate average amount of revenue.

TLDR: Higher tax rate would affect basic economics and we would be more likely to receive equalization payments.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Do you actually think there's actually people who had no idea about Vancouver or Whistler and area before the Olympics, and they suddenly went there because of the Olympics?

Yes, I do.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That's not only highly unlikely, but highly difficult to measure. Again, it's a "feeling" thing, not something you can seriously prove. And for most Olympic backers, they need to go on feelings because they really can't prove any of the benefits.

So why not expand the chronological parameters of that same PWC study? They were able to measure it for seven years before the actual Olympics happened; what's wrong with showing post-Olympics for seven years?

That $2.3B number really needs to have an asterisk next to it, given it's origins.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well here's for one year after the Olympics, and in theory you'd think the year after the Olympics would be when you'd see a decent spike.....but nooooope, lowest tourism levels in 12 years. Sounds like the Olympics did #### all.

Selling the Olympic bid and its expected $6-billion price tag to British Columbians, Mr. Campbell found inspiration in a mega-event a generation earlier. The 1986 Expo fuelled an explosive growth in visitors during the five-month world's fair. By the end of 1986, 5.8 million visitors passed through the city, two million more than the previous year.

"It will have a greater positive impact than Expo 86 did," the former premier guaranteed in 2002, a year before Vancouver was granted the Games. A report commissioned by the government said the Games would be a "once in a lifetime opportunity," to increase tourism.

A decade later, the final tally shows the Games fell far short of the promises.

"The increase in tourism just never happened," said Robert VanWynsberghe, who headed the final Olympic impact report released last October. "Vancouver and Whistler might be the two places on the planet that need more tourists the least. We get a lot of tourists and the idea that we would see a significant increase was wishful thinking."

During February, 2010, while the Games were being held, a record 547,357 visitors stayed in the Vancouver area, an increase of 99,318 over the previous year. By March, the number of tourists in Vancouver was back to normal.

By the following February, the number of visitors in the city was down to its lowest level in 12 years.

While the flood of tourists never materialized, the report concluded that the Games may have contributed to a "slightly higher than 'normal' increase" in visitors. One group that benefited from the hype was hotel owners, who were able to double the price of rooms during the Olympic month.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle16772542/

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Do you actually think there's actually people who had no idea about Vancouver or Whistler and area before the Olympics, and they suddenly went there because of the Olympics? That's not only highly unlikely, but highly difficult to measure. Again, it's a "feeling" thing, not something you can seriously prove. And for most Olympic backers, they need to go on feelings because they really can't prove any of the benefits.

Care to make some actual points for the no side because if there’s anyone that’s going off feelings it’s the no side. Nimby’ism would be feeling central.

The yes side has made countless arguements for the benefits but you choose to ignore them.

You don’t want an Olympics and we get it. You’re going off a feeling and that’s fine but don’t pretend like Calgarians can’t make this work.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If you're talking about how equalization is determined, its based on each province's capacity to raise revenues. Below-capacity revenue creates "have not" provinces.

Because of Alberta's ability to generate high amounts of revenue mean that we are able to generate more tax than the national average. Even during the recession. That said, Alberta's tax jurisdiction is 30% lower than the national average (and conversely, Quebec is the highest). We are exceeding at revenue of dollars per person than the national average, even with a low tax rate. Our ability to generate revenue is high because of high wages, high consumption, and resource royalties among other things. And this is natural because people and businesses spend more with lower tax rates. Probably partially why Alberta has really high consumer debt too.

If we increased the tax rate in a variety of areas (e.g. bringing in a PST, higher corporate tax rate, higher income tax rate) our ability to generate revenue would go down, meaning that our numbers would no longer exceed fiscal capacity - which would then put us closer to average if not below the capacity to generate average amount of revenue.

TLDR: Higher tax rate would affect basic economics and we would be more likely to receive equalization payments.

Well that's a reasonable position, but pretty much the only way I could figure what you said making sense. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hamstring our economy so we don't have to help a province that can't run theirs.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Care to make some actual points for the no side because if there’s anyone that’s going off feelings it’s the no side. Nimby’ism would be feeling central.

The yes side has made countless arguements for the benefits but you choose to ignore them.

You don’t want an Olympics and we get it. You’re going off a feeling and that’s fine but don’t pretend like Calgarians can’t make this work.

This is truly some elite projection. Kudos sir.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well here's for one year after the Olympics, and in theory you'd think the year after the Olympics would be when you'd see a decent spike.....but nooooope, lowest tourism levels in 12 years. Sounds like the Olympics did #### all.



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle16772542/

Not really sure what the point of you posting this article was; that was one year after the Olympics. As stated, I'm talking upwards of 7-8 years, which is more realistic considering there's no point in measuring how many people 'rushed' to Vancouver IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Olympics. This is a long game, not an incredibly short one.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not really sure what the point of you posting this article was; that was one year after the Olympics. As stated, I'm talking upwards of 7-8 years, which is more realistic considering there's no point in measuring how many people 'rushed' to Vancouver IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Olympics. This is a long game, not an incredibly short one.

Surely you would concede that in the year after the Olympics, the host city should not see it's lowest tourism levels in 12 years if the Olympics actually provide a tangible bump. But once again, how do you possibly measure how much of a factor the Olympics was in any tourism boost? Ask every tourist if they came to Vancouver/Whistler because of the Olympics? My entire point here is most of the "benefits" are virtually impossible to measure, so that they are touted as meaningful benefits is disingenuous. As I keep saying, if the benefits were significant and tangible, cities would be trying hard to get the Olympics rather than running away.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Surely you would concede that in the year after the Olympics, the host city should not see it's lowest tourism levels in 12 years if the Olympics actually provide a tangible bump. But once again, how do you possibly measure how much of a factor the Olympics was in any tourism boost? Ask every tourist if they came to Vancouver/Whistler because of the Olympics? My entire point here is most of the "benefits" are virtually impossible to measure, so that they are touted as meaningful benefits is disingenuous. As I keep saying, if the benefits were significant and tangible, cities would be trying hard to get the Olympics rather than running away.

What's the point of any event - not just the Olympics - if you can't measure it then? It's effectively a strawman argument you're making by saying it's impossible to track ROI on an international event.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

What's the point of any event - not just the Olympics - if you can't measure it then? It's effectively a strawman argument you're making by saying it's impossible to track ROI on an international event.

When you tout a benefit, it should be pretty easy to back up no? Isn't that why it's a benefit? So when you say "tourism increases", and there's literally nothing to back it up, why are you touting that as a benefit? The argument that is measurable is that "there will be an increase in visitors during the Olympics", and obviously I can't say #### about that can I? But supporters here seem to think there's a real, tangible increase in tourism due to hosting the Olympics....which they can never back up.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Surely you would concede that in the year after the Olympics, the host city should not see it's lowest tourism levels in 12 years if the Olympics actually provide a tangible bump. But once again, how do you possibly measure how much of a factor the Olympics was in any tourism boost? Ask every tourist if they came to Vancouver/Whistler because of the Olympics? My entire point here is most of the "benefits" are virtually impossible to measure, so that they are touted as meaningful benefits is disingenuous. As I keep saying, if the benefits were significant and tangible, cities would be trying hard to get the Olympics rather than running away.

Somehow PWC was able to quantify it, so I'm just suggesting extending that period from 2003-2010, to 2003-2018.

[stampsx2]

Just letting everyone know that the $5.3 billion dollar cost includes McMahon stadium upgrades as well as a field house and upgrades to other existing facilities. All projects that have to be done.

Sure would be nice to use games revenues and IOC money to help fund those projects.

[Wormius]

If the fed and provincial governments do chip in for an arena, is CSEC going to get what they want with their possible contribution? I would find it odd that any contributions from other stakeholders wouldn’t have some strings attached that didn’t jive with the strings that CSEC wants attached, eg) all the future profits and none of the financial responsibilities.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

When you tout a benefit, it should be pretty easy to back up no? Isn't that why it's a benefit? So when you say "tourism increases", and there's literally nothing to back it up, why are you touting that as a benefit? The argument that is measurable is that "there will be an increase in visitors during the Olympics", and obviously I can't say #### about that can I? But supporters here seem to think there's a real, tangible increase in tourism due to hosting the Olympics....which they can never back up.

Tourism after the games isn’t factored into revenues from the games. It’s not factored into the $2.3 billion that Calgary would get from the IOC and tickets.

If tourism increases after the games then good that’s a bonus. If it doesn’t then at least Calgary got some worldwide exposure.

We know tourism doesn’t decrease after the games.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Tourism after the games isn’t factored into revenues from the games. It’s not factored into the $2.3 billion that Calgary would get from the IOC and tickets.

If tourism increases after the games then good that’s a bonus. If it doesn’t then at least Calgary got some worldwide exposure.

We know tourism doesn’t decrease after the games.

I literally just posted that Vancouver saw it's worst tourism year in 12 years after hosting the Olympics....

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I literally just posted that Vancouver saw it's worst tourism year in 12 years after hosting the Olympics....

I meant overall not just the year after. Average tourism decade before the Olympics vs a decade after so to speak. Guess I should of been more precise.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Absolutely. This is what I’m trying to say. We won’t be saving any money by not having an Olympics. We’ll be funding neccessary and approved infrastructure 100% by calgarians.

Yeah, but according to the latest proposal, that infrastructure is an updated McMahon Stadium and Saddledome, not really a lasting legacy for me.