Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because those are the things that last.

But those things cost the same amount of money whether it's part of the Olympics or not. I get that you want to try to take advantage of money from other levels of government, but it's still money being paid. If you want more things that last, it'll cost more.

This bid has lots of things that last, it's just the things actually required to stage an Olympic Winter Games, not a bunch of extras. They're nice to have, but it's also the things that run over budget.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Disagree with elected officials all you want, but this kind of discourse is just counterproductive. Besides, she was a business owner before she ran for council - and ran the Kensington BRZ too.

I am skeptical that she actually "doesn't understand". She has been a no from the beginning and is being dramatic (arts degree), to pretend she doesn't understand any of this.

Originally Posted by nik-

But she closed down part of Memorial drive on a Sunday afternoon once, so practically Satan.

I support those types of city events, and I also support the bridge she pushed. I just don't like how she disagrees with absolutely everything Olympics. It's disingenuous.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Ironically, a lot of the people I see making comments across social media and in person say "I'm worried that it will go over budget, and we'll be stuck with a big bill", but at the same time say "maybe if we were getting more LRT or roads it would be a good deal" - the games itself have shown consistently that operationally they are break even (or make modest profit)....it's the infrastructure add-ons that make things late and over-budget.

I think that there's a good chance that the budget numbers (with contengency) will be pretty close to correct, assuming people don't start adding big infrastructure projects that don't actually have anything to do with staging the Olympics (Vancouver, for example, had accelerated Canada Line and upgrading the Sea-to-Sky highway). Sure, those things can make hosting easier, but they're not needed to host. Realistically, they shouldn't really be part of the Bid Budget.

I'm not sure how you can complain about the Olympic budget, and then ask for more costly infrastructure projects at the same time.

I think there is a better chance that the Oilers trade Mc David to the Flames for Sam Bennett than ANY of the numbers they are espousing.

It's quite remarkable that in the space of 24 hours, for example, they were able to cut over 150 million dollars from security costs without any known input from those who actually uderstand providing security for eents of this magnitude.

Add on to that there is no new NHL sized arena nor a new stadium as part of any of this entire thing, makes the whole thing unpalatable to many many many Calgarians.

But hey....remember Karen Percy LOWE and how great it all was....right?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

But those things cost the same amount of money whether it's part of the Olympics or not. I get that you want to try to take advantage of money from other levels of government, but it's still money being paid. If you want more things that last, it'll cost more.

This bid has lots of things that last, it's just the things actually required to stage an Olympic Winter Games, not a bunch of extras. They're nice to have, but it's also the things that run over budget.

Well ideally you use it for infrastructure you were intending to do anyway and not superfluous builds. Yes it costs more, there's no arguing that, but without it, it's just an expensive party for two weeks.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by RM14

I am skeptical that she actually "doesn't understand". She has been a no from the beginning and is being dramatic (arts degree), to pretend she doesn't understand any of this.



I support those types of city events, and I also support the bridge she pushed. I just don't like how she disagrees with absolutely everything Olympics. It's disingenuous.

That I agree with. I think she does understand - it's weak argument. It's like a pie chart and a couple other numbers. People can digest it - she likely knows that.

[sleepingmoose]

Lets just say theoretically that the YES side wins in the plebiscite - do we all of a sudden see a change in the demeanor of the City Councillors that are currently anti-Olympics? It's non binding, so would the NO Councillors continue to push to cancel the bid, or do they move to the YES side since it's the will of the people?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by RM14

I support those types of city events, and I also support the bridge she pushed. I just don't like how she disagrees with absolutely everything Olympics. It's disingenuous.

What makes it disingenuous?

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Quite remarkable that in the space of 24 hours, for example, they were able to cut over 150 million dollars from security costs without any known input from those who actually uderstand providing security for eents of this magnitude.

According to the BidCo. in the City Council meeting yesterday, the budget (both original and adjustments) was provided by RCMP and CPS directly, it wasn't created by the BidCo.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Lets just say theoretically that the YES side wins in the plebiscite - do we all of a sudden see a change in the demeanor of the City Councillors that are currently anti-Olympics? It's non binding, so would the NO Councillors continue to push to cancel the bid, or do they move to the YES side since it's the will of the people?

I think there is a mushy middle that has signalled they'd go with the electorate no matter what. There will be a few ardent No people that will vote no regardless - I'd put Chu, Farrell, Farkas into that camp.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Lets just say theoretically that the YES side wins in the plebiscite - do we all of a sudden see a change in the demeanor of the City Councillors that are currently anti-Olympics? It's non binding, so would the NO Councillors continue to push to cancel the bid, or do they move to the YES side since it's the will of the people?

If they are doing their job properly then no their demeanor should not change unless BidCo addresses the issues that has them against it in the first place.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by nik-

What makes it disingenuous?

Its arguing to argue no, and not to have a productive conversation.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

If they are doing their job properly then no their demeanor should not change unless BidCo addresses the issues that has them against it in the first place.

Isn't their job to represent the people of the City that elect them (which would also be those voting in the plebiscite)?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

According to the BidCo. in the City Council meeting yesterday, the budget (both original and adjustments) was provided by RCMP and CPS directly, it wasn't created by the BidCo.

So the RCMP and CPS were able to find 150 million in un-needed costs from a budget they originally (assumingly anyhow) put together?

Maybe we should get those guys and gals to do the entire city budget for everything!

Im sorry but it is so blatently obvious what is and was happening the last few days....and it ain't anything good for taxpayers in Calgary.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there is a mushy middle that has signalled they'd go with the electorate no matter what. There will be a few ardent No people that will vote no regardless - I'd put Chu, Farrell, Farkas into that camp.

Which in my opnion is a cop out.

They should for sure take the plebiscite into consideration when making their decision, but they should also be looking at the bid and funding to see if it works for the city.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there is a mushy middle that has signalled they'd go with the electorate no matter what. There will be a few ardent No people that will vote no regardless - I'd put Chu, Farrell, Farkas into that camp.

I'd be interested to see if Woolley swings back. He seemed pretty bitter.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by RM14

Its arguing to argue no, and not to have a productive conversation.

I think the cost structure of Olympics is consistent enough to allow people to be no right from the bat.

There's a reason less and less cities are stepping up for Winter Olympics.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there is a mushy middle that has signalled they'd go with the electorate no matter what. There will be a few ardent No people that will vote no regardless - I'd put Chu, Farrell, Farkas into that camp.

And is there not a group that would vote Yes....no matter what?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

According to the BidCo. in the City Council meeting yesterday, the budget (both original and adjustments) was provided by RCMP and CPS directly, it wasn't created by the BidCo.

Which is even worse. That means that the RCMP and CPS had over $150 million in fat built in and knew exactly where it was in order to cut it so fast.

Or they were told to reduce it up front and that contingency would cover the rest, which isn’t outside the realm of possibility. Becuase it’s pretty obvious we’re getting a reduced dollar figure to sell the bid and then once we’re building, there is no turning back

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Isn't their job to represent the people of the City that elect them (which would also be those voting in the plebiscite)?

Did they not represent people of the city last night when they voted to kill the whole process but didnt have enough for a "super majority"?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

Isn't their job to represent the people of the City that elect them (which would also be those voting in the plebiscite)?

It's also their job to make informed choices that are good for the city.

Honestly I really don't believe we needed a plebiscite on this, council was capable of looking at the numbers and making a choice. I think this just shows how difficult it is to quantify the benefits of hosting the Olympics, and this is pretty much council not wanting to be on the hook for the decision.