Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by pylon

But Calgarians care about and are passionate about the Flames. They are woven into the civic fabric. And that’s what matters most. What effects Calgarians, when Calgarians are expected to foot most the bill.

Secondly. You greatly over estimate the popularity of the winter games.

The Flames matter to Flames fans - the majority of Calgarians don't give a single fata about them, myself included.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by pylon

But Calgarians care about and are passionate about the Flames.

Some Calgarians care. But there are probably more that dont care about the Flames.

Originally Posted by pylon

They are woven into the civic fabric.

What does that even mean?

[Shazam]

It means GG will soon be turned into a quilt.

[Red]

Pylon, I don't understand your argument.
The Flames are already here. It's not Olympics versus bringing an NHL team to Calgary.

[Poster]

NO to the ARENA.
TRIPLE FRACK NO FRACKING WAY to the Olympics

IOC is the most corrupt organization on the planet, Im sure Fifa is jealous of their work. Why would we want to get into bed with a blank cheque with these known thieves? lol that IOC will agree to any cost sharing when things go over budget.

Calgary is not a world class city and doesnt need to be so lets stop chasing cliche's.

[CaptainCrunch]

Instead of doing some vote thing. Lets do this in the ultimate form of democracy and the ultimate form of volunteer funding. If we raise the money, its a go. If not, then its not

[Senator Clay Davis]

^^^His argument is giving taxpayer money to the Flames is a better expenditure than the IOC. They're both proven losers from a financial perspective, which is kinda why people are miffed why Nenshi supports one but not the other.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by pylon

This isn’t a new overpass, or an off leash area.

This is a massive project that will riddle this City with debt for the next 30-50 years, and likely become the responsibility of the next Mayor before the games even come to fruition.

Absolutely something of this scope should be voted on.

The Green line when finished will cost more than the Olympics, and above the debt it will cause... It will also be tax support for operational use as well... Should we have had a plebiscite on that as well?

Chris

[Red]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

^^^His argument is giving taxpayer money to the Flames is a better expenditure than the IOC. They're both proven losers from a financial perspective, which is kinda why people are miffed why Nenshi supports one but not the other.

Just as I suspected, it's not really about what he believes in. It's about winning an argument or opinion he defended. And hurting someone he hates, Nenshi.

I could care less how corrupt the IOC is or how big Nenshi's ego would grow. I want the Olympics because it would boost this city's image 10x more than any sports team could do. I believe that this would be good for the city long term. Expensive, but a good investment.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Except the Olympics would cost the city 10X more. So it's not apples to apples.

Personally I'm in favor in both, it's just odd when people's main arguments against the arena were:

-Every study ever says it's a bad investment
-Why are we enriching already rich parties
-How can you justify spending for this when we need money for homeless, seniors...basically insert any disadvanatged group here.

Those arguments go against the Olympics just as easily.

The bolded point is where I would disagree. The Flames are a for-profit organization that pays it's players multi million dollar salaries that are subsidized by local tax payers paying for their facilities (and cable company carriage fees from millions who don't watch them, but that's another argument).

The olympics are a non-profit and the vast majority of athletes competing are not wealthy by any standards.

There are lots of good arguments that the olympics have become too bloated, too corrupt, too expsensive, etc and that they're a bad idea. But on face value, they are a more appropriate use of public funds, and it is not hypocritical to take that position.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Red

Just as I suspected, it's not really about what he believes in. It's about winning an argument or opinion he defended. And hurting someone he hates, Nenshi.

I could care less how corrupt the IOC is or how big Nenshi's ego would grow. I want the Olympics because it would boost this city's image 10x more than any sports team could do. I believe that this would be good for the city long term. Expensive, but a good investment.

It is going to have a negligible effect at best on the city's image. The notion it's gonna have some major impact on how the world views Calgary is quite puzzling. People really need to remember what year it is, trotting out arguments that might have been valid for the 1988 bid is a bit much.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Red

Just as I suspected, it's not really about what he believes in. It's about winning an argument or opinion he defended. And hurting someone he hates, Nenshi.

I could care less how corrupt the IOC is or how big Nenshi's ego would grow. I want the Olympics because it would boost this city's image 10x more than any sports team could do. I believe that this would be good for the city long term. Expensive, but a good investment.

How do you see the Olympics boosting the city's image in the long term? And what positive economic benefits do you see attached it that? Being on the TV for a few weeks doesn't help us five or ten years down the road. Companies looking to invest are not going to say "well Calgary hosted the Olympics that one time, so lets make that a key point in our evaluation".

In my mind, there should be four main things that are firmly in place before a bid is submitted.

1) Commitment from the federal government for funding as a percentage of total costs

2) Commitment from the provincial government for funding as a percentage of total costs

3) Commitment from the IOC for either a lump sum amount plus share of generated revenues OR commitment for funding as a percentage of total costs

4) Scenarios presented to council showing impacts of the games on current and future debt loading, as well as predicted impact on future taxation rates. Not just best case scenarios either

If they are going to use the long term benefits of infrastructure created for the games, then those benefits should be able to be defined. There have already been enough games that the cost benefit analysis can be easily done. If it comes out positive, then go for it.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The bolded point is where I would disagree. The Flames are a for-profit organization that pays it's players multi million dollar salaries that are subsidized by local tax payers paying for their facilities (and cable company carriage fees from millions who don't watch them, but that's another argument).

The olympics are a non-profit and the vast majority of athletes competing are not wealthy by any standards.

There are lots of good arguments that the olympics have become too bloated, too corrupt, too expsensive, etc and that they're a bad idea. But on face value, they are a more appropriate use of public funds, and it is not hypocritical to take that position.

The Olympics are 150% for profit. At least csec pays their athletes

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Red

88 Olympics put Calgary on the world map.We are still benefiting from it. Tourist activity, all the facilities that were built etc.

Could 2026 put this city on track to being a world class city? Who knows, but it would definitely give this city image a huge boost.

Oh my god, if we get the Olympics AND a new NHL stadium we would be a World Class City x 2!! The worldliest City in the world!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The Olympics are 150% for profit. At least csec pays their athletes

The IOC is a non-profit, and has no owners or shareholders, so that's not correct.

[Frequitude]

Absolutely we should bid....at a number which makes economic sense for the infrastructure we would get. To not do so would be stupid.

[Red]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How do you see the Olympics boosting the city's image in the long term? And what positive economic benefits do you see attached it that? Being on the TV for a few weeks doesn't help us five or ten years down the road. Companies looking to invest are not going to say "well Calgary hosted the Olympics that one time, so lets make that a key point in our evaluation".

In my mind, there should be four main things that are firmly in place before a bid is submitted.

1) Commitment from the federal government for funding as a percentage of total costs

2) Commitment from the provincial government for funding as a percentage of total costs

3) Commitment from the IOC for either a lump sum amount plus share of generated revenues OR commitment for funding as a percentage of total costs

4) Scenarios presented to council showing impacts of the games on current and future debt loading, as well as predicted impact on future taxation rates. Not just best case scenarios either

If they are going to use the long term benefits of infrastructure created for the games, then those benefits should be able to be defined. There have already been enough games that the cost benefit analysis can be easily done. If it comes out positive, then go for it.

Years of construction boom. Downstream effects of such boom. Business opportunities. That's a lot of money earned and spent in this city.
Showcase what Calgary has to offer to promote business, tourism and migration.

Sure, things are different now than 88, but it is not a stretch to believe that this city would create a ton of buzz and money that comes with it. It's pretty much guaranteed.

And remember, infrastructure spending is an investment because you create jobs and boost the economy. This goes far beyond the actual length of the event. Years of booming economy.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Oh my god, if we get the Olympics AND a new NHL stadium we would be a World Class City x 2!! The worldliest City in the world!

Add the Greatest Show on Earth and we are game.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Red

Years of construction boom. Downstream effects of such boom. Business opportunities. That's a lot of money earned and spent in this city.
Showcase what Calgary has to offer to promote business, tourism and migration.

Sure, things are different now than 88, but it is not a stretch to believe that this city would create a ton of buzz and money that comes with it. It's pretty much guaranteed.

And remember, infrastructure spending is an investment because you create jobs and boost the economy. This goes far beyond the actual length of the event. Years of booming economy.

These are temporary benefits, which even place strain on our existing infrastructure during the ramp up to the Olympics. Once the games are over, we’re still on the hook for the cost, even when the benefits you describe disappear.

[Red]

Expanding roads and new sports facilities are not temporary. We create a boom building them and then we enjoy them for decades after. Like we have the ones we built for 88.

As for the cost, I already said that I don't mind paying for nice things. But I understand why some don't.
And most importantly, it is not a total loss either. The games will bring a ton of $$$ too.

Just adding for context. The Dome, COP, Nakiska, Nordic Centre, Olympic oval etc were all built for the Olympics. We lose that bid and likely we don't have most of them here. Some may not like these facilities, but overall I think they made a lot of people happy over the last 30 years and will continue to do so.