Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[chemgear]

Ahhh, I was looking around as well. If you divide by individual people and then divide further by month you can make the number look lower I guess.

https://www.taxpayer.com/blog/cost-t...-2026-olympics

$2,057.43/Calgary household… No cost overruns

$5,810.07/Calgary household… 65 per cent cost overruns (same as Calgary 1988)

$10,967.96/Calgary household… 142 per cent cost overruns (average for winter Olympics)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I haven't seen any figures on what it will do to property taxes but let's say we are on the hook for 800m (high figure), and that the population was 1m (low figure) then we are looking at about $8 per month per person for the next 7 and a half years. That is based on an average so a house bringing in $90,000 with 4 people (2 kids, 2 adults) would pay $32 a month between now and the Olympics (0.0042% of the household income spent on hosting the Olympics).

Whether you can afford to attend or not, you will 100% be able to soak in a ton of free (paid for via taxes) entertainment.

Make sure to add in the 1/4 of provincial and 1/30 of federal and quit trying to car salesmen us with the Monthly payment. About $3500 per family using your numbers. That is a meaningful amount of money. It isn’t just $32.

I also don’t think 800 million is the high end. The estimate is likely +\- 30% with 20% contingency. The city is contributing around 500 million. They cut 125 million from security when facing losing the bid so I assume that gets added back in. 200 million of the 1 billion contingency is planned to be funded with an insurance product that may or may not exist. So I think you need to add a 10% overage to the current budget, the 125 million back in and the 180 million in contingency. So I believe the realistic spend by the city, or at least the amount we are prepared to spend 50% of the time is 1.3 Billion.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Red

My post wasn't directed at you, it was a response to an article about profiting from the olympics.


I know about the real cost as much as you do about the overruns, we just put faith in our gut feeling. No right or wrong answer.

Ahh I see, no worries.


Respectfully, I guess that is where I have to agree to disagree. It seems crazy to me that Calgary is forced to rely upon faith rather facts (or even reasonable estimates) when we are talking about billions upon billions of dollars.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RM14

Read the report. The report is touting that Airbnb is encouraged and helps reduce the requirements for hotel rooms. They want you to rent your house. For anyone that's a no, could simply leave town, rent their house and easiy cover any tax increase + profit.

You do understand that 300,000 per night aren’t coming from out of town to watch the Olympics right? Vancouver had 1 million tickets sold, so even if 100% of guests are unique and from out of town and staying alone you only need an average of 88,000 rooms so unfortunately all the no’s can’t just rent their house and go on vacation. And even if they did they would need to make more then they spend elsewhere plus the $3500 or so in tax dollars spent on the games.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by GGG

Make sure to add in the 1/4 of provincial and 1/30 of federal and quit trying to car salesmen us with the Monthly payment. About $3500 per family using your numbers. That is a meaningful amount of money. It isn’t just $32.

I also don’t think 800 million is the high end. The estimate is likely +\- 30% with 20% contingency. The city is contributing around 500 million. They cut 125 million from security when facing losing the bid so I assume that gets added back in. 200 million of the 1 billion contingency is planned to be funded with an insurance product that may or may not exist. So I think you need to add a 10% overage to the current budget, the 125 million back in and the 180 million in contingency. So I believe the realistic spend by the city, or at least the amount we are prepared to spend 50% of the time is 1.3 Billion.

Rough day or just had the urge to throw the car salesman joke out?

Cut the cake any way you want... $3,500 per house in total or $8 per individual per month. I guess I was cutting it in the realistic fashion which would involve monthly adjustments. If you want to look at it as the tax man showing up and demanding a cheque for 3,500 then be my guest.

We can break down any expense which is faced but at the end of the day, I can't think of a better opportunity to improve Calgary with $7 received from outside funding per $1 from our own pocket.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Have you come across any economists trying to assess it strictly from a Calgary perspective? i.e as if the IOC and Fed’s contributions are “free”, and maybe a portion of the Province’s contribution (though I know we disagree on that so we can set it aside for the sake of the conversation for now).

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/calgaryh...he-numbers/amp

Toombe’s who has been fairly anti olympics throughout does consider the federal contribution “Free Money” or at least money that would be spent anyways so no affect to taxation. I don’t think I’ve seen any that looked at just the Calgary contribution though.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by GGG

Make sure to add in the 1/4 of provincial and 1/30 of federal and quit trying to car salesmen us with the Monthly payment. About $3500 per family using your numbers. That is a meaningful amount of money. It isn’t just $32.

I also don’t think 800 million is the high end. The estimate is likely +\- 30% with 20% contingency. The city is contributing around 500 million. They cut 125 million from security when facing losing the bid so I assume that gets added back in. 200 million of the 1 billion contingency is planned to be funded with an insurance product that may or may not exist. So I think you need to add a 10% overage to the current budget, the 125 million back in and the 180 million in contingency. So I believe the realistic spend by the city, or at least the amount we are prepared to spend 50% of the time is 1.3 Billion.

And if people are so hung up on the end number vs realistic monthly adjustments, urban sprawl in this city costs your house 2-3 times more than the Olympics would.

[chemgear]

Speaking of sheer faith, this is from a City Councillor Gian-Carlo Carra.

https://twitter.com/gccarra/status/1058034537874083840

https://twitter.com/user/status/1058034537874083840

Not sure if it is going to show the full transcript but:

- Interesting twist of facts.
Am now a bit confused by the insurance. Someone said it was a $200M policy. Someone said that is the COST of the insurance.
Anyone know?

-Will an insurance company willing to take 20M for 200M be found before the vote? That would have an impact on decisions.

- People are working around the clock on that question. WTF?

- Do you think the answer will be ready before the Nov 13 plebiscite?

-I hope so. But frankly the finer points of the deal are less important than the bigger question at this point. Do we want this? Is this who we are? Is this one of the launching points into our next era & our best future?


What deal? How is $200 million in insurance not important to City Council? "Do we want this?" WTF?

Okay, I got to stop doing research into this anymore tonight. It is just crushing my opinion of our City Council. Hopefully the Bidco can present proper numbers and better clarification before vote. Probably not?

[Hockeyguy15]

Not totally related but if we did host and the NHL players weren’t involved, could you imagine how bad the Flames schedule would be?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

And if people are so hung up on the end number vs realistic monthly adjustments, urban sprawl in this city costs your house 2-3 times more than the Olympics would.

Do you have any data for the cost of sprawl? I have been looking for a good source. I would very much support a lot size tax as a portion of property tax to account for each piece of lands contribution to sprawl.

Also just because we waste money on things doesn’t mean we should waste money on more things.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Not totally related but if we did host and the NHL players weren’t involved, could you imagine how bad the Flames schedule would be?

You don't have to imagine: https://www.nhl.com/flames/schedule/1988-02-01/MT

A full 31 days between home games for the Flames in 1988. On the plus side, they also won the President's Trophy that year.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also just because we waste money on things doesn’t mean we should waste money on more things.

Hey, I'm going to take my fallacy of relative privation and buy that new 200 inch OLED TV.

"Do I want this? Is that who I am? Why yes, yes indeed."

Originally Posted by getbak

You don't have to imagine: https://www.nhl.com/flames/schedule/1988-02-01/MT

A full 31 days between home games for the Flames in 1988. On the plus side, they also won the President's Trophy that year.

#### it, I'm in.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have any data for the cost of sprawl? I have been looking for a good source. I would very much support a lot size tax as a portion of property tax to account for each piece of lands contribution to sprawl.

Also just because we waste money on things doesn’t mean we should waste money on more things.

What is your suggestion to kickstart an economy in a lengthy recession?

The government will continue to run in the red and slowly bleed or we can rip the bandaid off, and create a spark to the economy.

Urban sprawl and the approval of new developments with extremely high vacancies are 2 examples of wasting money with no benefit of sparking the economy.

And the figure was 2-3 times the cost of Olympics depending on what you want to consider as a cost to urban sprawl but there is no denying this is a huge expense to the average tax payer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

What is your suggestion to kickstart an economy in a lengthy recession?

The government will continue to run in the red and slowly bleed or we can rip the bandaid off, and create a spark to the economy.

Urban sprawl and the approval of new developments with extremely high vacancies are 2 examples of wasting money with no benefit of sparking the economy.

And the figure was 2-3 times the cost of Olympics depending on what you want to consider as a cost to urban sprawl but there is no denying this is a huge expense to the average tax payer.

In general reduce regulation, educate the populace, and provide good transportation infrastructure. Keysian stimulous needs to be targeted, quick and temporary. The Olympics as stimulous are broad, slow and long term.

The Olympics will not create a spark for the economy. Find anyone not involved with the bid who makes this argument

“We should look at the Olympics not as an economic development strategy for the city,” Tombe said. “We had a tough recession and the recovery has been slower for many than we would hope, but the Olympics is not something that’s going to solve those problems.”

From the article linked earlier.

[Red]

Agree with the economist, the Olympics are not going to fix everything that's ailing the city. Is that what we are asking for though? Pretty high standard.



It will boost the economy for the 7 years though. How many economists would be against that?

[Calgary14]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Ahhh, I was looking around as well. If you divide by individual people and then divide further by month you can make the number look lower I guess.

https://www.taxpayer.com/blog/cost-t...-2026-olympics

$2,057.43/Calgary household… No cost overruns

$5,810.07/Calgary household… 65 per cent cost overruns (same as Calgary 1988)

$10,967.96/Calgary household… 142 per cent cost overruns (average for winter Olympics)

The $10k cost per Calgary household (likely scenario) - is that the total cost spread out over x years related to all the tax increases, or just the first year after the Olympics?

Can the average Calgary household actually afford that?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

The $10k cost per Calgary household (likely scenario) - is that the total cost spread out over x years related to all the tax increases, or just the first year after the Olympics?

Can the average Calgary household actually afford that?

I think it is a total cost (excluding inflation), certainly not a yearly thing for the next 7 years.

I would imagine it would have to be spaced out, not a grabbed in one shot. But again, no information about that.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

The $10k cost per Calgary household (likely scenario) - is that the total cost spread out over x years related to all the tax increases, or just the first year after the Olympics?

Can the average Calgary household actually afford that?

This is the source of the blog post.



CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION
a citizens advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes,
less waste and accountable government.


And no explanation given for any of the numbers. It's like a Trump tweet.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Red

This is the source of the blog post.



CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION
a citizens advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes,
less waste and accountable government.


And no explanation given for any of the numbers. It's like a Trump tweet.

What are you talking about, the link is literally a full page explanation listing out the assumptions and showing the actual calculations. Did you even look at it?

And they published this analysis two weeks ago. Meanwhile, I haven't seen anything from the Bidco at all about the cost.

[Slava]

Meh, I would guarantee them the $200m in 2026. Just the premium would be $158m paid today and I’ll guarantee it. I can’t see any insurer foolish enough to write that without ensuring that the premium makes sense and they can make some money. I would be incredibly interested in seeing the wording as well; surely any insurer is going to make that wording iron-clad. It’s not going to be “well we thought we’d stay on budget but didn’t, so you owe us $200m”. Although if they give that $158m today, I can even agree to that working for them!