Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Assuming this story is true, and nenshi is quoted correctly He has now completely lost me.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4552048/n...ince-olympics/

He figures that the city paying more than the province for his vanity project is a bad deal for the city.

I am sure the folks in Medicine Hat or red cliff want the province to be picking up the lions share of something for the city.

it's interesting that Nenshi takes this position when in the other negotiations, between Flames ownership and the City, he thinks it's absurd that the Flames wanted the lion's share of funding to come from the City. Picked up some negotiating tactics from CSEC I guess.

Seems fairly hypocritical to me. Yes, everybody wants everybody else to pay for their ####. Cool.

[Northendzone]

at the end of the day the government only has one source of revenue, and that is from it citizens. we are taxed at all three levels, and all three levels have more and more debt - att he end of the day what is the difference who pays - it is just more debt.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Assuming this story is true, and nenshi is quoted correctly He has now completely lost me.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4552048/n...ince-olympics/

He figures that the city paying more than the province for his vanity project is a bad deal for the city.

I am sure the folks in Medicine Hat or red cliff want the province to be picking up the lions share of something for the city.

The entire argument for hosting the Olympics is the Province and the Federal Governments investing in Calgary Infrastructure. If you don't buy that argument the games make zero sense. So if this isn't Nenshi's position he would be an idiot. Calgary is net negative in terms of tax dollars it sends out to the feds and province then it gets in. No one gets to complain in Medicine Hat or Red Cliff when Calgary gets money from the Province or Feds.

Nenshi represents the city so making the myopic argument of its not our money makes sense as a person whose role is to purely advocate for the city. It is free money for the city. Now those of us that are also Provincial and Federal tax payers this argument fails but Nenshi's position in favour as mayor is logical.

Referring to the Olympics as a Vanity project is not a fair characterization of the bid and a lazy argument. Attack the bid on its own merits.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

at the end of the day the government only has one source of revenue, and that is from it citizens. we are taxed at all three levels, and all three levels have more and more debt - att he end of the day what is the difference who pays - it is just more debt.

If it's the Calgary Olympics let Calgary pay the most, and cover all the revenue shortfalls and cost overruns.
makes the most sense to me.
you want the most benefits, you pay the most money and take the risks. leave the rest of us out of it.

why should everyone else subsidize your party and your hockey arena?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

why should everyone else subsidize your party and your hockey arena?

They shouldn't, but it's unfortunately the way the world works (at least political spending in Canada), and it's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

It's a bit like a game of poker; we can either:

1. continue to ante up, but refuse to play the game out of principle, or
2. continue to ante up, put some more chips into the pot and try to win a few jackpots.

Either way, the 'house' always wins, we're unlikely to walk away from the table with more than we started, but number 2 at least has the potential to get us closer, and enjoy some thrills along the way (along with the real potential for financial catastrophe).

All told, our position in Calgary/Alberta has been pretty good - we always bring the biggest stack of chips to the table, and even though our odds of winning much back have been terrible, we still leave with a healthy stack of chips.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They shouldn't, but it's unfortunately the way the world works (at least political spending in Canada), and it's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

It's a bit like a game of poker; we can either:

1. continue to ante up, but refuse to play the game out of principle, or
2. continue to ante up, put some more chips into the pot and try to win a few jackpots.

Either way, the 'house' always wins, we're unlikely to walk away from the table with more than we started, but number 2 at least has the potential to get us closer, and enjoy some thrills along the way (along with the real potential for financial catastrophe).

All told, our position in Calgary/Alberta has been pretty good - we always bring the biggest stack of chips to the table, and even though our odds of winning much back have been terrible, we still leave with a healthy stack of chips.

If it was just federal money I'd agree with you. Where that analogy kind of falls apart is the outsized and likely to grow contribution from the City coffers.

[powderjunkie]

^ I agree with that - it's all about ROI. The ROI in either scenario is less than 1.0 - but, if they are at least relatively close I'd rather do the one that is more fun.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

^ I agree with that - it's all about ROI. The ROI in either scenario is less than 1.0 - but, if they are at least relatively close I'd rather do the one that is more fun.

But how does one measure ROI? Calgary is still reaping the benefits of the 88 Olympics each and every day.

[lambeburger]

https://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...ge-by-critics/

“What I’ve seen is an engagement process that is flawed as it seems to only appeal to the No side.”

Seems like the public consultation process isn't yielding the correct sort of feedback. (ie feedback that provides affirmation for city council.)

[OMG!WTF!]

I find it interesting that the provincial government cut MSI funding to Calgary by 91 million this year and ending in 2025. 8 years. 91 million a year. That looks a lot like our 700 million dollar olympic check...which coincidentally is to be portioned out in yearly advances of 85-95 million.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

But how does one measure ROI? Calgary is still reaping the benefits of the 88 Olympics each and every day.

And you’re able to quantify those daily benefits I assume?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I find it interesting that the provincial government cut MSI funding to Calgary by 91 million this year and ending in 2025. 8 years. 91 million a year. That looks a lot like our 700 million dollar olympic check...which coincidentally is to be portioned out in yearly advances of 85-95 million.

Pay no attention to the math behind the curtain.

[Mr.Coffee]

Sorry for the uncool kids what is MSI?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Sorry for the uncool kids what is MSI?

Municipal Sustainability Initiative. They take some property tax from Calgary then give it back. They've chopped it by 91 million a year in order to pay off debt by 2026/have a big party.

[fundmark19]

So what you’re really saying is we are out 91 million a year if we don’t hold a big party. Why would I want to paydown provincial debt for those suckers in Edmonton when I can have a 2 week bender.

[getbak]

Ray Jones is hosting an Open House tomorrow which was supposed to feature representatives from both the Yes and No sides. Apparently, the No side is unwilling to answer actual questions.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1052394120021299200

https://twitter.com/user/status/1052394121158000640

[Weitz]

Why are they having a debate type event?

What do the no side have to answer? It’s really the yes people presenting their case and everyone deciding yay or nay. All having the no side there will do is lead people to attack those who disagree with the stupid things the yes side presents as reasons to hold this dumb event.

[OMG!WTF!]

The no side also did their own info session tonight in the NE. Seems like the Jones tweet is just trying to make stuff up.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

https://calgarysun.com/news/local-ne...ge-by-critics/



Seems like the public consultation process isn't yielding the correct sort of feedback. (ie feedback that provides affirmation for city council.)

So who hacked and trolled the open house last night?



https://globalnews.ca/news/4558427/c...0GlobalCalgary

The Yes side has really increased the desperation the last week or so, which is obviously suggesting they're in huge trouble. I also can't believe the audacity of the side that literally has a spending advantage something close to 99.99% to 0.01% is going to accuse the 0.01% side of underhanded tactics. Running a troll farm costs money. Maybe they just can't accept this is headed for defeat and can't believe people haven't simply decided 1988 was awesome so let's do it again. Olympics have changed, and people aren't as naive about it anymore.

[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.