View Poll Results: Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics
|
Yes
|
|
286 |
46.28% |
No
|
|
261 |
42.23% |
Determine by plebiscite
|
|
71 |
11.49% |
10-17-2018, 09:00 AM
|
#1121
|
Franchise Player
|
I think the peace bridge is fantastic, but lets not pretend that it wasn't a giant debacle with it's screwed up welds, repainting twice (or was it 3 times?), massive delays, dubious costs, and the fact that not one person involved in the entire process considered that it should have extended over Memorial Drive, the other massive barrier for pedestrians. This has led to a comical farce of traffic lights and J-walking that hinders pedestrians and vehicles and costs everyone more money, every day.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 09:34 AM
|
#1122
|
Franchise Player
|
At this point, I have to think the plebiscite will go down and be pretty lopsided at that.
A few things didn't happen that needed to, in my view:
- they needed to have either a budget games that cost less than $5b, or have a $5b games that gave you more "stuff". Right now, it's a budget games, but still quite expensive. The City is trying to be ultra conservative with budget - which is great (a $1b, 20% contingency is good), but it also produces sticker shock.
- they needed a clear and early commitment from the Provincial and Federal Governments. You have a late commitment from the Province and it leaves a budget gap, at that. No real commitment from the Feds and we're 4 weeks out from a plebiscite.
- we had a really strong position of leverage with the IOC. This enabled us to recycle venues, but probably did not do enough on the revenue side. A lot of public money is still needed.
- they let the (long) public debate happen without enough details that were clear. People were only debating an idea - one with a partner in the IOC that was starting from a deficit in public trust.
- officials on the yes side did not even bother to stick their neck out to advocate from their positions of influence. I called the Mayor out on this point in my podcast. The no side had no qualms about speaking loudly and clearly about their objections. This has certainly shaped public opinion. The yes side all along has relied on "if it's a good deal", but that deal has not yet materialized.
I still firmly believe with the right deal this would be a great thing for Calgary. But without that deal emerging, it's an extremely difficult case to make. The City and BidCo are going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat with a bigger IOC/Fed contribution, an arena. Something.
__________________
Trust the snake.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2018, 09:44 AM
|
#1123
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Memento Mori
|
The No lobby is non-extant. They have a budget that is basically zero.
There's been loads of propaganda from the Yes side.
Hard to say though, opponents of any idea tend to be more vocal.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 09:50 AM
|
#1124
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
At this point, I have to think the plebiscite will go down and be pretty lopsided at that.
A few things didn't happen that needed to, in my view:
- they needed to have either a budget games that cost less than $5b, or have a $5b games that gave you more "stuff". Right now, it's a budget games, but still quite expensive. The City is trying to be ultra conservative with budget - which is great (a $1b, 20% contingency is good), but it also produces sticker shock.
- they needed a clear and early commitment from the Provincial and Federal Governments. You have a late commitment from the Province and it leaves a budget gap, at that. No real commitment from the Feds and we're 4 weeks out from a plebiscite.
- we had a really strong position of leverage with the IOC. This enabled us to recycle venues, but probably did not do enough on the revenue side. A lot of public money is still needed.
- they let the (long) public debate happen without enough details that were clear. People were only debating an idea - one with a partner in the IOC that was starting from a deficit in public trust.
- officials on the yes side did not even bother to stick their neck out to advocate from their positions of influence. I called the Mayor out on this point in my podcast. The no side had no qualms about speaking loudly and clearly about their objections. This has certainly shaped public opinion. The yes side all along has relied on "if it's a good deal", but that deal has not yet materialized.
I still firmly believe with the right deal this would be a great thing for Calgary. But without that deal emerging, it's an extremely difficult case to make. The City and BidCo are going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat with a bigger IOC/Fed contribution, an arena. Something.
|
Well duh, it looks like the plebiscite will be over overwhelmingly no, and these people want to save face.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 09:57 AM
|
#1125
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Well duh, it looks like the plebiscite will be over overwhelmingly no, and these people want to save face.
|
But even going back 12 or 18 months. Right from the start, really.
__________________
Trust the snake.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 10:12 AM
|
#1126
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toledo OH
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
- they needed to have either a budget games that cost less than $5b, or have a $5b games that gave you more "stuff". Right now, it's a budget games, but still quite expensive. The City is trying to be ultra conservative with budget - which is great (a $1b, 20% contingency is good), but it also produces sticker shock.
|
I agree with this point. There's a contingent of people who are a sizable but vocal minority who are basically against this at any cost. They are the types who question why a jug of coffee for a cabinet minister's meeting costs $20 and why our premier can't stay at a super 8 for less than $100/night whenever they travel. You simply won't win over those people.
In the middle there's probably a reasonable majority of people who are open to the idea of hosting the Olympics, but acknowledge that if we're going to spend the money to host this thing we better solve/fund a number of infrastructure projects that are needed as well such as a new arena for the Flames, airport LRT line, major McMahon renovation or replacement, a green line LRT that actually services the north, and a field house. To these people they see a price tag of over $5 billion where we get none of these things as useless. To them the question becomes, why can't we just spend our tax dollars on the things we need and skip the Olympics altogether.
I actually think a higher sticker cost that included a few of these items would have had a better chance winning over the public rather than a bid that was attempting to accommodate the low cost crowd that was not going to vote yes in any scenario.
Last edited by Cowboy89; 10-17-2018 at 10:20 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
|
4X4,
Ace,
automaton 3,
Barnet Flame,
Bunk,
burn_this_city,
DeanOMac,
Dentoman,
East Coast Flame,
GullFoss,
I wanna be like Miikka,
lambeburger,
Locke,
mikephoen,
mrkajz44,
octothorp,
Slava,
Swarly,
Table 5,
Thunderball
|
10-17-2018, 10:14 AM
|
#1127
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
Not a response to Senator or anything in this thread in particular, just more of a generic comment. But this city seems to have a very vocal crowd that has a phobia to anything that looks like it costs a lot of money, but could benefit the city in the long term. The bump of the peace bridge thread reminded of that. If it's not road or LRT related, high number figures get a lot of negative vocal responses, and even with the arena negotiations this could fit under.
Not sure if in all these cases if it's a vocal minority, or it actually represents the majority views. With how the US elections went, as well as the recent Quebec one, public perception isn't as obvious anymore.
Either way, this Olympic bid was going to draw a vocal negative responses no matter what since it's a contributions of billions involved from multiple parties. When +9 figures is involved, there's a worried responses from many no matter how good the project could end up being in the long term.
|
I mean I've certainly earned my #### the arena/#### the Olympics reputation around here, but I am definitely not against spending money on things. I have actually made one of my more consistent refrains that I think it's gross we need to invite corrupt groups like FIFA and the IOC to get public dollars for meaningful projects, rather than simply doing them because of citizen need/benefit. That to me is so insane, impressing outsiders supersedes all when it comes to public infrastructure investment. I fully get that not hosting the Olympics means some projects won't get done, but my issue is with why can't they get done without the Olympics? Why does it have to a zero sum game of no Olympics, no project?
If you wanna know why Trump and the related are happening, it's things like catering to groups viewed as elitist like the IOC and FIFA rather than serving citizen need. Populism is more about riling people up, and when we're talking about a city that is facing tax increases and service cuts, turning around to throw money at the Olympics isn't helping quash that, it's fueling the "They don't care about me" narrative populists spin.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2018, 10:19 AM
|
#1128
|
Franchise Player
|
Nm
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 10-17-2018 at 10:20 AM.
Reason: Reading comprehension
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 11:05 AM
|
#1129
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
I agree with this point. There's a contingent of people who are a sizable but vocal minority who are basically against this at any cost. They are the types who question why a jug of coffee for a cabinet minister's meeting costs $20 and why our premier can't stay at a super 8 for less than $100/night whenever they travel. You simply won't win over those people.
In the middle there's probably a reasonable majority of people who are open to the idea of hosting the Olympics, but acknowledge that if we're going to spend the money to host this thing we better solve/fund a number of infrastructure projects that are needed as well such as a new arena for the Flames, airport LRT line, major McMahon renovation or replacement, a green line LRT that actually services the north, and a field house. To these people they see a price tag of over $5 billion where we get none of these things as useless. To them the question becomes, why can't we just spend our tax dollars on the things we need and skip the Olympics altogether.
I actually think a higher sticker cost that included a few of these items would have had a better chance winning over the public rather than a bid that was attempting to accommodate the low cost crowd that was not going to vote yes in any scenario.
|
I put myself in that category. If this bid was $8bn, but we saw the $3bn build all kinds of infrastructure and new facilities (an arena being one of them), I could see that benefit. But $5bn and keeping buildings around for decades longer than they should be, with nearly no benefit just seems pointless.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2018, 11:26 AM
|
#1130
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
And you’re able to quantify those daily benefits I assume?
|
Your assumption would be incorrect. I don't have data to quantify but it is probably possible to do so for someone with resources. For starters find out how many employees there are at Hockey Canada HQ at Winsport, how many other sports are based here, hoe many people they employ, how may researchers at UCalgary Kinesiology are there that focus on winter sport etc. Then estimate their salaries and you get an idea of what the contribution is - those jobs would not be in Calgary without the 88 Olympics.
But my main point was how do you actually measure ROI for something like this? It's a legit question and probably has many answers depending on point of view. Supporters of the bid likely see the long term benefits vs up front cost much differently than those who do not support.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2018, 11:41 AM
|
#1131
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I put myself in that category. If this bid was $8bn, but we saw the $3bn build all kinds of infrastructure and new facilities (an arena being one of them), I could see that benefit. But $5bn and keeping buildings around for decades longer than they should be, with nearly no benefit just seems pointless.
|
Same story for me. If the bid was $7-9B and it included a fully rebuilt McMahon, Airport LRT, new Hockey arena (and likely lipstick for the Saddledome to last until 2026 as a second venue), new ski jumps in Nakiska or Canmore or another nearby location, full Green Line LRT, and a fieldhouse, its an easy sell. Calgary needs almost all of those things, and its the only way to see Federal funds to do it.
The bargain bid with a chance that McMahon gets the minimal refurbish, and the need to use BC facilities was insulting and pathetic. I might still vote yes, but they need to seriously pull out some 11th hour magic.
Generally, its pretty depressing to see Calgary embrace this mediocre mentality... bargain Olympics which are still pricey and that we'll probably say no to. I'm not big on Government overspending (but that's what every single government in Canada left or right does), but it feels like there is generally no ambition in this city to do any beyond the bare minimum because of the "not my tax dollars to fund millionaires" brigade. I'd rather go into debt on big infrastructure than operational debt on a bunch of DB pensions.
Last edited by Thunderball; 10-17-2018 at 12:34 PM.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 11:43 AM
|
#1132
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Memento Mori
|
Flames should guarantee a Stanley Cup appearance.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 11:45 AM
|
#1133
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon
Your assumption would be incorrect. I don't have data to quantify but it is probably possible to do so for someone with resources. For starters find out how many employees there are at Hockey Canada HQ at Winsport, how many other sports are based here, hoe many people they employ, how may researchers at UCalgary Kinesiology are there that focus on winter sport etc. Then estimate their salaries and you get an idea of what the contribution is - those jobs would not be in Calgary without the 88 Olympics.
But my main point was how do you actually measure ROI for something like this? It's a legit question and probably has many answers depending on point of view. Supporters of the bid likely see the long term benefits vs up front cost much differently than those who do not support.
|
Past performance is not indicative of future results. If you're not building new stuff and making new investments in infrastructure, you're not likely to see much benefit. We're not going to get a new Kinesiology department at the U of C. Winter sport is already here and established. We're not getting new ski jumps, new arenas or new ski venues. Those are the things that drive tourism and future growth. But that is also what costs the most money.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 11:45 AM
|
#1134
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Memento Mori
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon
Your assumption would be incorrect. I don't have data to quantify but it is probably possible to do so for someone with resources. For starters find out how many employees there are at Hockey Canada HQ at Winsport, how many other sports are based here, hoe many people they employ, how may researchers at UCalgary Kinesiology are there that focus on winter sport etc. Then estimate their salaries and you get an idea of what the contribution is - those jobs would not be in Calgary without the 88 Olympics.
But my main point was how do you actually measure ROI for something like this? It's a legit question and probably has many answers depending on point of view. Supporters of the bid likely see the long term benefits vs up front cost much differently than those who do not support.
|
Over a long enough timeline, everything turns out net positive.
For financed (as in, borrowed money) projects such as the Olympics should be considered over the lifetime of the scheduled debt repayment.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
|
|
|
10-17-2018, 12:42 PM
|
#1135
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Calgary
|
I'm young and selfish and I want to see the Olympics in my city.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hey Connor, It's Mess For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2018, 01:24 PM
|
#1136
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
At this point, I have to think the plebiscite will go down and be pretty lopsided at that.
A few things didn't happen that needed to, in my view:
- they needed to have either a budget games that cost less than $5b, or have a $5b games that gave you more "stuff". Right now, it's a budget games, but still quite expensive. The City is trying to be ultra conservative with budget - which is great (a $1b, 20% contingency is good), but it also produces sticker shock.
- they needed a clear and early commitment from the Provincial and Federal Governments. You have a late commitment from the Province and it leaves a budget gap, at that. No real commitment from the Feds and we're 4 weeks out from a plebiscite.
- we had a really strong position of leverage with the IOC. This enabled us to recycle venues, but probably did not do enough on the revenue side. A lot of public money is still needed.
- they let the (long) public debate happen without enough details that were clear. People were only debating an idea - one with a partner in the IOC that was starting from a deficit in public trust.
- officials on the yes side did not even bother to stick their neck out to advocate from their positions of influence. I called the Mayor out on this point in my podcast. The no side had no qualms about speaking loudly and clearly about their objections. This has certainly shaped public opinion. The yes side all along has relied on "if it's a good deal", but that deal has not yet materialized.
I still firmly believe with the right deal this would be a great thing for Calgary. But without that deal emerging, it's an extremely difficult case to make. The City and BidCo are going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat with a bigger IOC/Fed contribution, an arena. Something.
|
I don't see this as a flaw. I agree with Nenshi's position that this needs to be a good deal for the city and the city should only support it if its a good deal. It's a reasonable nuanced positon that we would like politicians to take. I also appreciate that they are leaving it to Bidco to be the biased cheer leaders and the city is presenting information rather than opinion.
I think when they announce the deal with the flames in the next two weeks that will make the good deal case a lot easier to argue and provide momentum.
While I disagree with the bid I appreciate the City's role in providing information and think they have done a good job.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2018, 02:41 PM
|
#1137
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Same story for me. If the bid was $7-9B and it included a fully rebuilt McMahon, Airport LRT, new Hockey arena (and likely lipstick for the Saddledome to last until 2026 as a second venue), new ski jumps in Nakiska or Canmore or another nearby location, full Green Line LRT, and a fieldhouse, its an easy sell. Calgary needs almost all of those things, and its the only way to see Federal funds to do it.
The bargain bid with a chance that McMahon gets the minimal refurbish, and the need to use BC facilities was insulting and pathetic. I might still vote yes, but they need to seriously pull out some 11th hour magic.
Generally, its pretty depressing to see Calgary embrace this mediocre mentality... bargain Olympics which are still pricey and that we'll probably say no to. I'm not big on Government overspending (but that's what every single government in Canada left or right does), but it feels like there is generally no ambition in this city to do any beyond the bare minimum because of the "not my tax dollars to fund millionaires" brigade. I'd rather go into debt on big infrastructure than operational debt on a bunch of DB pensions.
|
I'm of the same mindset. If you do it, do it right, do not half-ass it, so for this, I'm a solid NO, because it's pretty half-assed.
|
|
|
10-19-2018, 06:09 PM
|
#1138
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I don't see this as a flaw. I agree with Nenshi's position that this needs to be a good deal for the city and the city should only support it if its a good deal. It's a reasonable nuanced positon that we would like politicians to take. I also appreciate that they are leaving it to Bidco to be the biased cheer leaders and the city is presenting information rather than opinion.
I think when they announce the deal with the flames in the next two weeks that will make the good deal case a lot easier to argue and provide momentum.
While I disagree with the bid I appreciate the City's role in providing information and think they have done a good job.
|
man, I lol'd. Nenshi sticking his finger into the wind again at the last minute.
|
|
|
10-24-2018, 08:06 AM
|
#1139
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Yes side getting pretty desperate now if they have to make us believe without the Olympics in 88 Calgary would be Winnipeg. Also, just guessing, Winnipeg's economy is probably doing better currently than Calgary's, so yeah....
https://twitter.com/user/status/1054909333031444480
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
10-24-2018, 08:13 AM
|
#1140
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Yes side getting pretty desperate now if they have to make us believe without the Olympics in 88 Calgary would be Winnipeg. Also, just guessing, Winnipeg's economy is probably doing better currently than Calgary's, so yeah....
https://twitter.com/user/status/1054909333031444480
|
It would have been worse: Edmonton
__________________
Trust the snake.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 PM.
|
|