Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not incorrect. Our facilities are outdated. With upgraded facilities, we can regularly support future, professional events past the Olympics. The Nordic Centre is currently being upgraded for this very reason.

Yes they are outdated, but then again so are our roads/schools/hospitals/transit system etc... They should all take far, far greater precedence than sports facilities. It's laughable to act like getting upgraded venues from the Olympics is actually a good use of federal dollars. It's actually a staggering waste.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I mean, we are the Economist 4th most liveable city in the world. That is not nothing. We are a better city now than Vancouver was at ~1.4 million in the late 80s/early 90s. We can get there if we make good choices - the Olympics can be helpful in that endeavour.

see the way you state your case, I can understand your reasoning.

saying Calgary is a great city and to believe the olympics would enhance Calgary's standing on the world stage, and provide opportunities to promote the city that otherwise wouldn't be had. i can get that.

the way stamps put it, calgary is average at best and an olympics would change that. I don't believe that to be accurate is any way.
at least he admits he just wants the party. (and probably a new hockey arena)

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Stunningly incorrect. There are FAR greater needs in Calgary than sports infrastructure. This is a want, plain and simple. Acting like we need these things is sort of implying they are vital to the city, which they simply are not.

You sound so far removed from anything winter sport related. This is not a want for the many athletes that come to this city to train year round. If you care about Canadian winter sport at all, you would at least consider this. Most of Calgary's winter sport infrastructure and thus Canada's winter sport infrastructure is nearing the end of its life. Winsport needs significantly more money to maintain its level of training facilities, same as the Olympic oval.

For you to dismiss this shows that you have not looked at the pros and cons of the argument. For the record, I am still on the fence about which way to vote.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yes they are outdated, but then again so are our roads/schools/hospitals/transit system etc... They should all take far, far greater precedence than sports facilities. It's laughable to act like getting upgraded venues from the Olympics is actually a good use of federal dollars. It's actually a staggering waste.

but their argument is the money would be wasted anyway, so it should be wasted on Calgary instead of those easterners.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yes they are outdated, but then again so are our roads/schools/hospitals/transit system etc... They should all take far, far greater precedence than sports facilities. It's laughable to act like getting upgraded venues from the Olympics is actually a good use of federal dollars. It's actually a staggering waste.

That's fine, you can think that. We aren't getting that federal money otherwise.

Our taxes will be going to a field house and potentially other projects (including an arena, IMO) over the next how ever many years; I'd rather see us get a return on those taxes through federal / provincial / IOC assistance for infrastructure then to see no return at all when those taxes are eventually spent anyways.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You sound so far removed from anything winter sport related. This is not a want for the many athletes that come to this city to train year round. If you care about Canadian winter sport at all, you would at least consider this. Most of Calgary's winter sport infrastructure and thus Canada's winter sport infrastructure is nearing the end of its life. Winsport needs significantly more money to maintain its level of training facilities, same as the Olympic oval.

For you to dismiss this shows that you have not looked at the pros and cons of the argument. For the record, I am still on the fence about which way to vote.

niche sports that 99.9% of the population doesn't care about except once in every 4 years when canada might be good at it, doesn't really say need.
it screams want.

it says the olympics are perhaps an event that should be mothballed.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yes they are outdated, but then again so are our roads/schools/hospitals/transit system etc... They should all take far, far greater precedence than sports facilities. It's laughable to act like getting upgraded venues from the Olympics is actually a good use of federal dollars. It's actually a staggering waste.

It depends how you view the important of government spending on sport and recreation facilities. If we're always going to view roads and schools more important than that, then why do we even put money into sports and recreation facilities? Building the fieldhouse (which the city considers the #1 top priority item that's unfunded), or the community hockey arenas around the city is taking away from building new interchanges and K-6 schools in newer communities. This is why the fieldhouse continues to get put off, although it's been wanted for several years now.

The big argument for the fieldhouse is pretty much every other major city in this country has one, except for us. And it affects sporting in this city, and withholds us from hosting certain events that can draw people and spending in the city. At some point it's going to have to get built. At that time, is it okay to spend on the fieldhouse, rather than on roads, schools, and etc.?

(Not like because of the fieldhouse house getting funded, that those still won't get funded)

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's fine, you can think that. We aren't getting that federal money otherwise.

Our taxes will be going to a field house and potentially other projects (including an arena, IMO) over the next how ever many years; I'd rather see us get a return on those taxes through federal / provincial / IOC assistance for infrastructure then to see no return at all when those taxes are eventually spent anyways.

So when the Olympics ends up costing $6+ Billion and the city has to pick up the cost of the over runs, where do the cost savings come from?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

niche sports that 99.9% of the population doesn't care about except once in every 4 years when canada might be good at it, doesn't really say need.
it screams want.

it says the olympics are perhaps an event that should be mothballed.

Aside from the hyperbole, I would be curious on just how important it is that Calgary currently is the nation's winter sport training headquarter, and what would be lost if major training facilities were to move to other cities in this country. What are we getting currently, what do we get to gain from renewing these facilities, and what do we lose if we don't?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So when the Olympics ends up costing $6+ Billion and the city has to pick up the cost of the over runs, where do the cost savings come from?

What will the cost overruns specifically be in? How much? People's taxes will be spent regardless of the Olympics. We have an opportunity to secure multiple levels of assisted funding for infrastructure in our city that otherwise we would not see. We also get to see our federal taxes returned directly to Calgary, instead of going to Ontario or Quebec.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Aside from the hyperbole, I would be curious on just how important it is that Calgary currently is the nation's winter sport training headquarter, and what would be lost if major training facilities were to move to other cities in this country. What are we getting currently, what do we get to gain from renewing these facilities, and what do we lose if we don't?

Agreed; the last thing this city needs right now is losing more industry. Sports is an important industry in this city, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You sound so far removed from anything winter sport related. This is not a want for the many athletes that come to this city to train year round. If you care about Canadian winter sport at all, you would at least consider this. Most of Calgary's winter sport infrastructure and thus Canada's winter sport infrastructure is nearing the end of its life. Winsport needs significantly more money to maintain its level of training facilities, same as the Olympic oval.

For you to dismiss this shows that you have not looked at the pros and cons of the argument. For the record, I am still on the fence about which way to vote.

We live in a city that's about to start cutting services and raising taxes because of it's budget problems. Allocating federal dollars to ensuring we have great winter sports facilities instead of adequate sports facilities seems remarkably misguided. The last three Winter Olympics have been Canada's best medal hauls ever, so there's not really an argument to be made that better facilities will produce better results. For me, that would be the only valid argument for upgrades as a need. Since it can't be argued, it becomes a want. No matter how badly some people may want it, it remains a want.

The real discussion this whole process should be about how much do we truly value sports in our lives? And I think sports fans are starting to realize the answer is "Not that much" when there are far more pressing issues to address. I mean think about how little discussion has been devoted to health care despite the fact the system is about the be obliterated by the boomers retiring. That's a real, impactful discussion to have. Sports facilities? Please.....

Originally Posted by Joborule

It depends how you view the important of government spending on sport and recreation facilities.

It should be considered near the bottom of the list. Sorry but there are simply many more pressing issues than sports and recreation facilities. Especially since it's now clear the city is on the hook for the guaranteed cost overruns. So whatever "upgrades" we get from "federal money" will be offset when the city goes deep into the red hosting the Olympics and has to turn around and increase taxes or significantly reduce services. There's a very good chance the net result of hosting the Olympics is a financial negative.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So when the Olympics ends up costing $6+ Billion and the city has to pick up the cost of the over runs, where do the cost savings come from?

Originally Posted by Muta

What will the cost overruns specifically be in? How much? People's taxes will be spent regardless of the Olympics. We have an opportunity to secure multiple levels of assisted funding for infrastructure in our city that otherwise we would not see. We also get to see our federal taxes returned directly to Calgary, instead of going to Ontario or Quebec.

The costs overrun is the main boogyman argument against the Olympics. It's just as fair to say that there wouldn't be overrun, and it's on budget. We won't truly know unless it actually happens either way. But even if they games was to go over budget and the city has to pick up the costs, would Calgary overall still gained still from the higher level government funding, making it worth it for the city still?

[The Yen Man]

From day one, my vote was going to be only a yes if we get a new hockey arena out of it. Sure, we can speculate that there probably is funds earmarked for a potential one, but they haven't provided any concrete details. And to spend all that money only to refurbish old facilities, and paying stupidly high costs for security? Thanks but no thanks. Unless the city and the Flames announce something more concrete in terms of a new arena and other new facilities, my vote will continue to be no.

What a disaster of a bid. People laugh at how inept Ken King was with CalgaryNext. This Olympic bid is pretty much right up there. Guess we have incompetence on all sides here.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

We live in a city that's about to start cutting services and raising taxes because of it's budget problems. Allocating federal dollars to ensuring we have great winter sports facilities instead of adequate sports facilities seems remarkably misguided. The last three Winter Olympics have been Canada's best medal hauls ever, so there's not really an argument to be made that better facilities will produce better results. For me, that would be the only valid argument for upgrades as a need. Since it can't be argued, it becomes a want. No matter how badly some people may want it, it remains a want.

The real discussion this whole process should be about how much do we truly value sports in our lives? And I think sports fans are starting to realize the answer is "Not that much" when there are far more pressing issues to address. I mean think about how little discussion has been devoted to health care despite the fact the system is about the be obliterated by the boomers retiring. That's a real, impactful discussion to have. Sports facilities? Please.....



It should be considered near the bottom of the list. Sorry but there are simply many more pressing issues than sports and recreation facilities. Especially since it's now clear the city is on the hook for the guaranteed cost overruns. So whatever "upgrades" we get from "federal money" will be offset when the city goes deep into the red hosting the Olympics and has to turn around and increase taxes or significantly reduce services. There's a very good chance the net result of hosting the Olympics is a financial negative.

A good response - I agree. I think if that's the way we are shifting however, then we do see these niche sports dying off. There is never a good time to devote money to sports vs. education or healthcare and the case can always be made that the money is better spent elsewhere.

But if you think that the federal government is going to give money as freely than I think you are out to lunch. Same goes to the IOC, I look at it as free money and money we would not otherwise receive.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Calgary is Calgary because of Oil and Gas. Alberta is Alberta because of Oil and Gas. Without O&G Calgary wouldn't even be Winnipeg, we'd be lucky if we were Saskatoon.

It bugs me to see the constant comparisons to 88 when it's a completely different world in terms of cost and security threats 30 years later. I'm glad that Olympics went well for the people who were around at the time but it doesn't mean the Olympics are a good idea now.

A bit OTT.

Most people outside the business world know Calgary not for O&G, but as a place to visit thanks to proximity to the Rockies. It will always enjoy a higher profile as a result of this feature.

As for 88. The impact of those games is not being overstated. It turbocharged Calgary’s international profile. Before 88 few I knew heard of Calgary. Afterwards just about everybody had and their perception was very positive.

Mind you, they may have heard about Calgary because I constantly went on about it.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Leondros

A good response - I agree. I think if that's the way we are shifting however, then we do see these niche sports dying off. There is never a good time to devote money to sports vs. education or healthcare and the case can always be made that the money is better spent elsewhere

Couldn't it be argued though that sports is related to health in that it's wellness, and preventative healthcare? Having an healthy, active community is beneficial to the healthcare system.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Couldn't it be argued though that sports is related to health in that it's wellness, and preventative healthcare? Having an healthy, active community is beneficial to the healthcare system.

It is. A healthy population becomes less of a burden on a nation's healthcare system. Indoor facilities are needed in Canada so that activity may be possible year-round.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Couldn't it be argued though that sports is related to health in that it's wellness, and preventative healthcare? Having an healthy, active community is beneficial to the healthcare system.

It can definitely be argued. It gets into the argument of preventative or reactive healthcare. Our society seems to like to focus on heart surgery, rather than heart health and active lifestyles. Something that some of our most prominent heart surgeons in their later lives are trying to change. Its far cheaper and less invasive to invest into something that with prevent a heart attack rather than having to perform a double bypass.

I argue that sports and active life styles definitely promote that prevention. Does it have to be niche sports such as alpine or ski jumping to do that? Probably not.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Who votes at the municipal level? Old people. What are the politics of old people when it comes to this stuff? They don't want to spend money.



I'd guess 70+ per cent of Calgarians over 50 are opposed to the bid, and it's maybe 50/50 for the under 50s. If I had to bet on the outcome, I'd go with 38/62 for/against.

Old people will probably be dead by 2026.

Nobody within 8 years of average Canadian life expectancy should be allowed to vote.