Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by troutman

If this happens in 2026, I hope the opening/closing ceremonies don't involve chuck-wagons and square dancers again.

More is expected now - could do something cool around native lore, dinosaurs, energy technology. What else?

I would love to see a theme around the new energy of the Prairies, multiculturalism, respect for the land (with an homage to our prehistoric past, our economy, and vision of green and sustainability). I hope the chuckwagons and cowboy hats are kept to a minimum. Would probably be OK to also include something small from the 88 Olympics (e.g. Sun Ice jackets or an appearance from Eddie the Eagle).

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm definitely a belligerent ####### about this one (and the arena, but less so), but it's one of those things that drives me insane about politicians. Why can't we secure this funding without the Olympics? There is truly no good reason other than lack of political will and cowardice. And to get the funding, we have to assume a massive risk. The public always has to carry the risk, not the politicians. Then to see the public carrying their water rather than holding them to the fire as to why we can't get this out of citizen need rather than a one off event...it just drives me insane.

Every big endeavour carries risk. The question is whether you believe a) the risk can be managed and b) whether the up-side is worth the risk. The Olympics is big and people will simply disagree whether it is too risky or not, and whether that upside is worth it or not. Calling it a "one-off" event is an indication you clearly don't think it is worth it, while others don't really view it as a one-off thing - others believe it has long lasting tangible and intangible benefit.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I would love to see a theme around the new energy of the Prairies, multiculturalism, respect for the land (with an homage to our prehistoric past, our economy, and vision of green and sustainability). I hope the chuckwagons and cowboy hats are kept to a minimum. Would probably be OK to also include something small from the 88 Olympics (e.g. Sun Ice jackets or an appearance from Eddie the Eagle).

Calgary 2026 Opening Ceremonies: "A Salute to Cycletracks"

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm definitely a belligerent ####### about this one (and the arena, but less so), but it's one of those things that drives me insane about politicians. Why can't we secure this funding without the Olympics? There is truly no good reason other than lack of political will and cowardice. And to get the funding, we have to assume a massive risk. The public always has to carry the risk, not the politicians. Then to see the public carrying their water rather than holding them to the fire as to why we can't get this out of citizen need rather than a one off event...it just drives me insane.

You can be passionate about your position, but can you do it without the level of condescension and disrespect that you're consistently showing others in this thread that don't agree with you?

There's no need to get so riled up. It's just a message board. Take a chill pill.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by troutman

If this happens in 2026, I hope the opening/closing ceremonies don't involve chuck-wagons and square dancers again.

More is expected now - could do something cool around native lore, dinosaurs, energy technology. What else?

Fleury in the back of a F150 in the pouring rain going from McMahon to the Peace Bridge!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Every big endeavour carries risk. The question is whether you believe a) the risk can be managed and b) whether the up-side is worth the risk. The Olympics is big and people will simply disagree whether it is too risky or not, and whether that upside is worth it or not. Calling it a "one-off" event is an indication you clearly don't think it is worth it, while others don't really view it as a one-off thing - others believe it has long lasting tangible and intangible benefit.

Right, but my argument isn't totally about the risk being carried by us. It's about that we can't secure funding for things without there being a flashy event tied in. Someone mentioned Edmonton has three fieldhouses and we have none. Well yeah, because they had the political will to get it done. We've had the fieldhouse on the wish list for like what, 30 years? And apparently the only way it can get done is the Olympics. Apparently not for Edmonton (thrice), but whatever. In some ways this whole bid actually seems more like a bailout package to make up for funding we didn't have the political will to commit to.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, but my argument isn't totally about the risk being carried by us. It's about that we can't secure funding for things without there being a flashy event tied in. Someone mentioned Edmonton has three fieldhouses and we have none. Well yeah, because they had the political will to get it done. We've had the fieldhouse on the wish list for like what, 30 years? And apparently the only way it can get done is the Olympics. Apparently not for Edmonton (thrice), but whatever. In some ways this whole bid actually seems more like a bailout package to make up for funding we didn't have the political will to commit to.

It's the reality of the political economy we live in, which is unfortunate but true. If Calgary has to use the Olympics as a vehicle to get infrastructure funding for a number of things - including near end-of-life facilities - then I am happy to support it. I don't think Justin Trudeau (or even Jason Kenney/Andrew Scheer) is going voluntarily give up billions of dollars so Calgary can catch up on infrastructure development. We can either sit an kvetch or we can play the game.

At least with the Olympics we can get that funding and provide opportunities for local businesses to benefit down the line (e.g. supplies, transportation logistics, construction, tourism, etc.) and with an international eye on our changing city.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, but my argument isn't totally about the risk being carried by us. It's about that we can't secure funding for things without there being a flashy event tied in. Someone mentioned Edmonton has three fieldhouses and we have none. Well yeah, because they had the political will to get it done. We've had the fieldhouse on the wish list for like what, 30 years? And apparently the only way it can get done is the Olympics. Apparently not for Edmonton (thrice), but whatever. In some ways this whole bid actually seems more like a bailout package to make up for funding we didn't have the political will to commit to.

I dont agree with many of your posts on this topic, but this one has some truth to it. Calgary seems to be stuck in reverse when it comes to committing to building big infrastructure. If the Olympics are a driver to get them moving again, well maybe thats the price that has to be paid?

If this thing gets quashed, I think we are in for more of the same stagnant and risk averse behavior.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Unless someone wants to step up and maybe risk their job to try and get funding. But much as we'd like to altruistically believe politicians actually care about the public good, they are in a career and like anyone else are career driven. Doing the unpopular thing, even if it's right, doesn't prolong one's career. And I'm sorry but ultimately the legacy infrastructure from this is extremely underwhelming unless you're a winter athlete, or have direct financial ties to any prospective projects

I wish the plebiscite could be switched to the following question:

$2.875 billion in funding from three levels of government have been procured: Would you prefer to host the Olympics, or spend that on (fill in the blank)?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Unless someone wants to step up and maybe risk their job to try and get funding. But much as we'd like to altruistically believe politicians actually care about the public good, they are in a career and like anyone else are career driven. Doing the unpopular thing, even if it's right, doesn't prolong one's career. And I'm sorry but ultimately the legacy infrastructure from this is extremely underwhelming unless you're a winter athlete, or have direct financial ties to any prospective projects

I wish the plebiscite could be switched to the following question:

$2.875 billion in funding from three levels of government have been procured: Would you prefer to host the Olympics, or spend that on (fill in the blank)?

If that was on offer, you could do that. But government funding has never, does not, and never will work like that. Grant programs are not free for all multiple choice - nor should they be. You could argue creating ongoing sustainable funding with flexibility is valid, but that is a different ball of wax than this.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Unless someone wants to step up and maybe risk their job to try and get funding. But much as we'd like to altruistically believe politicians actually care about the public good, they are in a career and like anyone else are career driven. Doing the unpopular thing, even if it's right, doesn't prolong one's career. And I'm sorry but ultimately the legacy infrastructure from this is extremely underwhelming unless you're a winter athlete, or have direct financial ties to any prospective projects

I wish the plebiscite could be switched to the following question:

$2.875 billion in funding from three levels of government have been procured: Would you prefer to host the Olympics, or spend that on (fill in the blank)?

The Federal portion is not budgeted for anything other than sport. So cut that in half. It is not being offered for anything other than Canada Sport use. This is not a question of the Olympics or complete the Green line with federal sport money question. "Hey Calgary we have $1.4BB available from sports Canada.... do you want that for transit!??" no other Cites in Canada will mind...."

[puckedoff]

Would prefer to use the funds for a ladder to nowhere.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Calgary 2026 Opening Ceremonies: "A Salute to Cycletracks"

Bicycle pulled chuckwagons???

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I am going to hesitantly weigh in by saying first that I think this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, and that it is just up to them to be reasonable about it....

With that said, I think two things are true:

1. In the abstract, the Olympics are great, but not at any cost, and
2. No-one at this point knows or could reasonably be expected to know what a 2026 Olympics in Calgary will cost in 2018.

This creates a difficulty for us as voters in a plebiscite. I looked at the question that is being asked, and it is apparently this: "Are you for or are you against Calgary
hosting the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games?"

Well, that is hard question for me. Again, in the abstract, I might say yes. But if it came with an increase to property taxes, or redirected infrastructure spending away from areas that badly need it, I would say no. If it means tons of awesome legacy infrastructure that we can now have federal and provincial money to help build, I'd say yes. If it gives a huge jolt to the economy (and who knows whether it will need one 8 years from now) then again, I'd say yes. If it is a 'budget' Olympics that doesn't build anything that the city really needs and provides only a transient benefit, I'd say no.

So this is the problem: we don't know any of that. Or, at least, I don't--and I'll admit to being sort of uninformed. I suspect some of the above is simply unknowable right now.

All of that leads me to the question: are we voting too soon? Right now, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the no side wins this plebiscite. I might vote yes, but I would do it not really knowing the long-term ramifications of that vote, and that - frankly - gives me some pause. I guess I am not sure that we are in the right process at the right time here.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, but my argument isn't totally about the risk being carried by us. It's about that we can't secure funding for things without there being a flashy event tied in. Someone mentioned Edmonton has three fieldhouses and we have none. Well yeah, because they had the political will to get it done. We've had the fieldhouse on the wish list for like what, 30 years? And apparently the only way it can get done is the Olympics. Apparently not for Edmonton (thrice), but whatever. In some ways this whole bid actually seems more like a bailout package to make up for funding we didn't have the political will to commit to.

You can't see that maybe we've funded other projects instead?

[Hockeyguy15]

They asked BidCo if the plebiscite could be pushed back to December and BidCo said no they need that time to get their "bid book" in order and off to the IOC.

They said it's because they are competing with other bids which I don't totally agree with because let's face it, the IOC wants us to have it over the other two bids.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I am going to hesitantly weigh in by saying first that I think this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, and that it is just up to them to be reasonable about it....

With that said, I think two things are true:

1. In the abstract, the Olympics are great, but not at any cost, and
2. No-one at this point knows or could reasonably be expected to know what a 2026 Olympics in Calgary will cost in 2018.

This creates a difficulty for us as voters in a plebiscite. I looked at the question that is being asked, and it is apparently this: "Are you for or are you against Calgary
hosting the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games?"

Well, that is hard question for me. Again, in the abstract, I might say yes. But if it came with an increase to property taxes, or redirected infrastructure spending away from areas that badly need it, I would say no. If it means tons of awesome legacy infrastructure that we can now have federal and provincial money to help build, I'd say yes. If it gives a huge jolt to the economy (and who knows whether it will need one 8 years from now) then again, I'd say yes. If it is a 'budget' Olympics that doesn't build anything that the city really needs and provides only a transient benefit, I'd say no.

So this is the problem: we don't know any of that. Or, at least, I don't--and I'll admit to being sort of uninformed. I suspect some of the above is simply unknowable right now.

All of that leads me to the question: are we voting too soon? Right now, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the no side wins this plebiscite. I might vote yes, but I would do it not really knowing the long-term ramifications of that vote, and that - frankly - gives me some pause. I guess I am not sure that we are in the right process at the right time here.

For infrastructure the bid includes 2 new venues (Fieldhouse and a 5-6,000 seat arena), updates to 11 existing venues (McMahon, Oval, Big 4, BMO, Winsport, Canmore Nordic Centre, Nakiska, and the Saddledome), and also includes over 2,800 new housing units.

From the condensed bid.

[puckedoff]

Maybe we should spend the time to get the facts right, and do 2030 or 2034 instead.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by greyshep

I dont agree with many of your posts on this topic, but this one has some truth to it. Calgary seems to be stuck in reverse when it comes to committing to building big infrastructure. If the Olympics are a driver to get them moving again, well maybe thats the price that has to be paid?

If this thing gets quashed, I think we are in for more of the same stagnant and risk averse behavior.

I think the problem that a lot of people see is that there isn't any big infrastructure as part of the proposed bid.

From the initial proposed bid,

$502 million to upgrade Saddledome, Olympic Oval, Winsport Sliding Track, Winsport Ski Hill, Canmore Nordic Centre, Nakiska, Whistler Olympic Park, McMahon Stadium, Stampede Grandstand, BMO Centre & Agrium, Big Four Centre.

$403 million for new venues, which includes a field house the city was budgeting to build anyway, and a 6,000 seat area that no one knows what to do with after the Olympics (and many assume is just a placeholder to move forward while negotiations on an NHL arena are being made).

$583 million on some new housing, which has already been slashed this week.

So if the point of hosting the Olympics is to kickstart a bunch of infrastructure spending, then the proposed bid doesn't really do it.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Maybe we should spend the time to get the facts right, and do 2030 or 2034 instead.

Yeah why does it have to be 2026?

Spend the time to get it right.

And plus, 2030 is a nice number.