2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

We can build the field house and maintain the athletic faculties for cheaper on our own without the Olympics. Even just the extra 300 million we're on the hook for now will do this. Just that one piece.

So there you go I just solved your dilemma

The portion of Calgary's bid costs tax payers less than the field house and McMahon renovations alone which will be done anyway. That doesn't include the NHL arena which would almost be a certain green light with the games at next to no additional cost.

The financial argument against is flawed when you consider the city has to spend roughly 500 million updating facilities and building the field house anyway. Sure it can be done for a bit less on a budget but why settle for less when Alberta, Canada and the IOC are prepared to contribute?

[JBR]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

We can build the field house and maintain the athletic faculties for cheaper on our own without the Olympics. Even just the extra 300 million we're on the hook for now will do this. Just that one piece.

So there you go I just solved your dilemma

There is over $500m in the bid allocated to the field house and maintenance of existing venues. The Bid also contains endowment funds to keep the Olympic venues sustainable for another 30+ years ($180m value). You're saying this can be done for less than the City's 2026 contribution? I can't see how you came to this.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The dramatics and misinformation has been plentiful on both sides (funny how it will both “paralyze” and “save” Calgary, people need to get a grip).

Paralyze? I didn't recall seeing that in this thread?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Hes

It’s seems in my circles it is pretty split yes and no amongst conservatives. Some of the most wildrose voting yes.

I think too many people are trying to fit the Yes and No sides into little boxes, which I don't think works in this situation.

You just have to look at the split on Council, you have Farrell, Chu, and Farkas heavily on the No side, with folks like Carra, Jones, and DCU on the Yes side. Those aren't groups that are typically on the same sides on Council.

The same is true in the media, of course Rick Bell is opposed because Rick Bell opposes everything, but Don Braid is a prototypical old white guy and he's a supporter.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well here's something we can all get behind: Just got an email from Willow Park saying select spirits today will be priced at $20.26.

#YesToA0.26BAC

[Muta]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

We can build the field house and maintain the athletic faculties for cheaper on our own without the Olympics. Even just the extra 300 million we're on the hook for now will do this. Just that one piece.

So there you go I just solved your dilemma

Uh, no. Building a new field house and maintaining a plethora of other sports facilities will cost more than $300M. A field house may cost $300M alone.

Your taxes are going to a field house eventually, Olympics or not. Why not get an additional return investment out of it in the process?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by getbak

You just have to look at the split on Council, you have Farrell, Chu, and Farkas heavily on the No side, with folks like Carra, Jones, and DCU on the Yes side. Those aren't groups that are typically on the same sides on Council.

Yeah, this is one of the things that makes me a little more comfortable voting Yes. I think this is a situation where city council only passes it if they can come to an agreement that the numbers make sense. They aren't going to say "This is an awful investment for the city, but 55% of the population wants it so our hands are tied."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Paralyze? I didn't recall seeing that in this thread?

Yeah, it isn’t the only ridiculous thing that’s been said by either side, but it came up:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are we getting the legacy infrastructure the city desperately needs and are the risks of acquiring said legacies worth the real risk of paralyzing the city with what could be a massive tax burden that will last years and years beyond the party itself.

It’s just odd to me that so many people are willing to go ditch to ditch to fight this issue. There are plenty of sensical arguments on both sides that don’t require dramatics and misinformation, but here we on vote day, and we’ve seen piles of it.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by GGG

The cost provincialy is almost as much as the city contribution. 1/3 of 700 million is 233 million and that assumes that we continue to get our share of infrastructure money and don’t hear we already funded the Olympics. It’s between 50% and double the city contribution so you need to add 1000-4000 dollars to your assessment. That is not a Negligible amount. It might not change how you make your decision as when amortized over 10-25 years the number doesn’t look bad but as you said it’s important to look at the correct info when making decisions.

Agree with you that the misinformation from the official camps has been disappointing.

How I came up with my number:

I took 800m estimated cost then multiplied by .43 (household priority tax share) then I divided by 419725 residents (based off of 2016 census numbers). I get $819/resident.

Then I assumed a 1 billion overrun, so 1.8b, and assumed that Calgary holds the bag on this amount and I get $1,844/resident.

Infrastructure like green line, road upgrades, etc. are hard to put towards the Olympics in my opinion since they need to be done anyways. I suspect this is what the No side is adding to their numbers to fudge them.

I may also be missing something in my numbers, but thought I'd share how I arrived at my conclusion.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, this is one of the things that makes me a little more comfortable voting Yes. I think this is a situation where city council only passes it if they can come to an agreement that the numbers make sense. They aren't going to say "This is an awful investment for the city, but 55% of the population wants it so our hands are tied."

Yeah, I expect only a “no” vote is binding, as it removes provincial funding. A “yes” vote allows us to continue the process and work out more of the details, see what comes of the arena, and allows council to make an informed vote when the time comes.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, this is one of the things that makes me a little more comfortable voting Yes. I think this is a situation where city council only passes it if they can come to an agreement that the numbers make sense. They aren't going to say "This is an awful investment for the city, but 55% of the population wants it so our hands are tied."

I think City council will have a difficult time ignoring the result of whatever side wins. Not impossible, but very difficult.

I expect a yes vote will result in a bid submission
I expect a no vote will not result in a bid submission

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

How I came up with my number:

I took 800m estimated cost then multiplied by .43 (household priority tax share) then I divided by 419725 residents (based off of 2016 census numbers). I get $819/resident.

Then I assumed a 1 billion overrun, so 1.8b, and assumed that Calgary holds the bag on this amount and I get $1,844/resident.

Infrastructure like green line, road upgrades, etc. are hard to put towards the Olympics in my opinion since they need to be done anyways. I suspect this is what the No side is adding to their numbers to fudge them.

I may also be missing something in my numbers, but thought I'd share how I arrived at my conclusion.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I'd also like to add, $1844/resident means it'll cost $184/person per year if they want to pay it off in 10 years. Or $92/per person per year over 20.

How does a homeowner even notice the $7-$15/month increase?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You think we can we build a fieldhouse and upgrade up to 10 more facilities for $390 million of City money when a decent fieldhouse alone is basically the vast majority of that?

I hope you have a budget ready to demonstrate how we are going to pay for this over the course of time, balancing maintenance, upgrades and other city projects at the same time - and without a lick of non-municipal funds.

Ummm the fieldhouse was quoted at 202 million at the time of Calgary next. Nakiska, Big 4, Saddledome, community arena are a waste of money. Sliding Center is already funded. 20 million oval for the ice planet, 10 million into Canmore, 80 million McMahon.

Im missing a few venues here though but I’m only at 310 million. The affordable housing component is a provincial responsibility. If you really care to look people including myself have run through the math repeatedly and depending on what you see as necessary upgrades the above statement is quite true.

Saying without a lick of non-municipal funds is false as well. The oval will find money for upgrades the same way the sliding Center did, the Nordic Center has upgraded itself continuously as well.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

How I came up with my number:

I took 800m estimated cost then multiplied by .43 (household priority tax share) then I divided by 419725 residents (based off of 2016 census numbers). I get $819/resident.

Then I assumed a 1 billion overrun, so 1.8b, and assumed that Calgary holds the bag on this amount and I get $1,844/resident.

Infrastructure like green line, road upgrades, etc. are hard to put towards the Olympics in my opinion since they need to be done anyways. I suspect this is what the No side is adding to their numbers to fudge them.

I may also be missing something in my numbers, but thought I'd share how I arrived at my conclusion.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Thanks, where my numbers differ from yours is I don’t think it’s fair to assume that business will bear an equal burden without just passing costs on the customers or in general being less competitive so the whole value rather than just the .43 factor should be assessed. I also think you need to include the full provincial amount.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I think City council will have a difficult time ignoring the result of whatever side wins. Not impossible, but very difficult.

I expect a yes vote will result in a bid submission
I expect a no vote will not result in a bid submission

I think the only way a 'No' vote gets overturned is if more funding gets announced.

And not a skimpy amount of funding, something stupid like:

'Feds announce in addition to previous funding commitments for the Olympics, it will provide: Green Line funding to complete all phases including an airport connector, putting the Red Line underground downtown, additional funding to flood mitigation, and a 'no questions asked' $200M that can be used for anything sports related be it professional *wink-wink* or amateur, and ramming through TMX and Canada East regardless of the Constitutional crises it may cause, pending council overruling and voting yes on the Olympics' then everybody would probably be pretty thrilled that it is a non-binding plebiscite

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

Ummm the fieldhouse was quoted at 202 million at the time of Calgary next. Nakiska, Big 4, Saddledome, community arena are a waste of money. Sliding Center is already funded. 20 million oval for the ice planet, 10 million into Canmore, 80 million McMahon.

Im missing a few venues here though but I’m only at 310 million. The affordable housing component is a provincial responsibility. If you really care to look people including myself have run through the math repeatedly and depending on what you see as necessary upgrades the above statement is quite true.

Saying without a lick of non-municipal funds is false as well. The oval will find money for upgrades the same way the sliding Center did, the Nordic Center has upgraded itself continuously as well.

You've run through the math? The Calgary Herald literally said yesterday the field house cost estimate is $300 million. City Hall even released numbers last year that it would cost $272 on its own, and that was before BidCo put the numbers together. Even the Flames - early in 2017 - said it would cost about $260 million. That's no small difference from what you've projected.

There is no immediate guarantee from provincial or federal coffers for future dollars commitment to the same venues or infrastructure. You can't just use "will find money" as a defense. There is no hard commitment other than this (as far as I know).

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I'd also like to add, $1844/resident means it'll cost $184/person per year if they want to pay it off in 10 years. Or $92/per person per year over 20.

How does a homeowner even notice the $7-$15/month increase?

you ever been on a fixed income?
in itself $10 a month may not be a lot, but those $10, $15 monthly costs add up pretty damn quick.
not like the cost of everything else is staying the same.

do I want to add another $15 a month on top of every other cost of living increase? every dollar matters in a household budget when you have limited means.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

The portion of Calgary's bid costs tax payers less than the field house and McMahon renovations alone which will be done anyway. That doesn't include the NHL arena which would almost be a certain green light with the games at next to no additional cost.

The financial argument against is flawed when you consider the city has to spend roughly 500 million updating facilities and building the field house anyway. Sure it can be done for a bit less on a budget but why settle for less when Alberta, Canada and the IOC are prepared to contribute?

First off no, City of Calgary bid costs will approach 1 billion.
Second there is no arena deal. People need to stop even hinting at it because it doesn't exist.
Third the high point of Field House costs before this bid when the city was budgeting was 250 mill. If we actually spend 500 mil on a field house and niche upgrades than that is a colossal waste of money bordering on corrupt.

It's you guys who have the flawed financial argument. JUST the extra portion we now have to pay due to province short changing us (300 mil) gets us the field house and 50 million for upgrades and further funds for the oval and winsport. That is absolutely true. Just the extra portion we now have to pay gets the city the only usable infrastructure out of this bid on our own. Everybody get that through your heads.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

How I came up with my number:

I took 800m estimated cost then multiplied by .43 (household priority tax share) then I divided by 419725 residents (based off of 2016 census numbers). I get $819/resident.

Then I assumed a 1 billion overrun, so 1.8b, and assumed that Calgary holds the bag on this amount and I get $1,844/resident.

Infrastructure like green line, road upgrades, etc. are hard to put towards the Olympics in my opinion since they need to be done anyways. I suspect this is what the No side is adding to their numbers to fudge them.

I may also be missing something in my numbers, but thought I'd share how I arrived at my conclusion.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

You divide the total amount by the residential property tax payers, but that ignores all the business tax that would also go to it, so individual household tax would be less that what you calculate.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by GGG

Thanks, where my numbers differ from yours is I don’t think it’s fair to assume that business will bear an equal burden without just passing costs on the customers or in general being less competitive so the whole value rather than just the .43 factor should be assessed. I also think you need to include the full provincial amount.

Business will definitely pass off the cost but that won't be 100% to residents, and will this be passed by increased revenue or price increases? I'm not 100% sure what the right answer to this is.

The provincial amount that is a bit harder to figure out but if it was a straight cost per adult (which it wouldn't be) that would be $233/adult, but revenue sources for the province are much more complicated and diverse then the city.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk