2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[Nyah]

I'm undecided too. If a new arena was a guarantee, and they kept the games in Alberta rather than sourcing out Whistler, I'd probably be a yes.

[RM14]

Hellllll yes

Hearing a lot about the sport infrustructure above. How much in $$ equivalent of affordable house is in the plan?? I know Canmore is basically a yes for their legacy housing.

[Lanny_McDonald]

As a non-Calgarian I won't vote to skew the results, but if I did have a vote it would be a resounding NO. The benefits from this are not those big ticket items you hope to see become legacy spaces which would not be built without having a major event like this. The field house is already going to be be built (horrible location), so no big benefit. There is no mention of a new arena, so no big benefit. The call is to slap some makeup on a piece of crap stadium, so no benefit there. It is recycling of old sites with a $5B price tag. The juice ain't worth the squeeze. Not enough benefit for the city. $5B seems a big price tag for just another party.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RM14

Hellllll yes

Hearing a lot about the sport infrustructure above. How much in $$ equivalent of affordable house is in the plan?? I know Canmore is basically a yes for their legacy housing.

217 and 350 million depending on if you use 1800 - 20% for market units or 800 committed senior and low income units.

This is a provincial responsibility to provide affordable housing so they are far behind in funding it outside of the games.

[troutman]

I could support a better bid, but not this one.

Hold IOC's feet to the fire.

[Weitz]

Did they ever sort out the downhill ski events?

Last I heard the National Park wasn't interested in having the Olympics (lake louise)? And Nakiska isn't big enough anymore? I'm sure that has changed though?


Voted no btw. Too much money. No benefit. If there was benefit cities would be tripping over each other to host.

[crazy_eoj]

The city needs to get out of control spending fixed before committing to a huge event such as this.

I'd love to support an Olympic bid, but not with the current council and budget.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Did they ever sort out the downhill ski events?

Last I heard the National Park wasn't interested in having the Olympics (lake louise)? And Nakiska isn't big enough anymore? I'm sure that has changed though?


Voted no btw. Too much money. No benefit. If there was benefit cities would be tripping over each other to host.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The city needs to get out of control spending fixed before committing to a huge event such as this.

I'd love to support an Olympic bid, but not with the current council and budget.

I keep echoing that I agree but to answer, cities are not tripping over themselves because they are doing just fine without the Olympics. The timing couldn't be better, without the Olympics taxes are set to increase with no plan in sight to slow them down. With them, they also rise but it creates jobs along with it and a short term boost until we can hopefully fall back on trans mtn.

The out of control spending has no chance at being fixed anytime soon. Over 100 million has gone into helping downtown business with property taxes due to high vacancy over the last 2 years. Downtown commercial office is worth over 10 billion less today than a few years ago (taxable money for the city).... Like it or not, we are still in a pit and the province or city appear to have no solution to fix it for several years. Any outside funding that is a multiple of our own funding is greatly welcomed.

For the record, I'm not a huge Olympics guy
Hate how the government has handled this entire process
Don't trust much of what's being said (although I do believe we can do it without going over the budget + 1.1 billion contingency fund)

I'm voting yes because I'm sick of a dying Calgary with no end in sight. I'm voting yes because I believe there is a deal to be had with the flames which looks much better for tax payers than the previous deal. I'm voting yes because it means billions into this city we would never see without the olympics. Taxes are going up either way people.... We either try something drastic or slowly bleed out.

[Jacks]

There should be a 3rd poll option
"I don't live in Calgary so can't vote"

[Ice_Weasel]

Yes for me. Going to be an interesting vote on Monday - seems pretty split.

[OMG!WTF!]

Is that really an argument? Taxes are going up anyway so we might as well spend a bunch? Seems kind of weird. Like there's a limit on how much they can go up or something.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

Yes for me. Going to be an interesting vote on Monday - seems pretty split.

The vote is on Tuesday next week, advance polls open today and tomorrow.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I'm voting yes because I'm sick of a dying Calgary with no end in sight. I'm voting yes because I believe there is a deal to be had with the flames which looks much better for tax payers than the previous deal. I'm voting yes because it means billions into this city we would never see without the olympics. Taxes are going up either way people.... We either try something drastic or slowly bleed out.

There is no deal with the Flames, it's been made abundantly clear that there are no plans or funds in the bid for any arena work besides Saddledome renovations and a new small arena for figure staking. If we added a new arena, the provincial and federal governments will have no par tin the funding. The city would be on the hook, minus whatever the Flames kick in. Hosting the Olympics doesn't give the city any additional bargaining power.

And a bunch of temporary jobs and volunteer positions won't revitalize Calgary. Even if we keep the project on budget, not all of that money is staying in Calgary. We'll be using it to pay Whistler to host part of it, we'll be paying Canmore for their share, Olympic workers will be going home with good portions of their cheques and pretty much all security personnel will be from out of town.

If spending all this money on renovating existing facilities and building two small new ones would generate a significant long term revenue stream, maybe it would be beneficial. But really we'd probably see a small blip in our economy while things get built and then we'd be right back to the status quo. There is also no estimate on the cost of the additional strain on our infrastructure for that period. Yes, people will come here and spend money on food and hotels, but can we actually handle the logistics of tens of thousands of people dropped into the city all at once

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I'm voting yes because I'm sick of a dying Calgary with no end in sight. I'm voting yes because I believe there is a deal to be had with the flames which looks much better for tax payers than the previous deal. I'm voting yes because it means billions into this city we would never see without the olympics. Taxes are going up either way people.... We either try something drastic or slowly bleed out.

I am 100% on your side with this. It's guaranteed free money on the table that would otherwise go to other things not guaranteed to improve Calgary. It's simple as that for me. The risk inherent with cost overruns is no different than any major project - it's not a deal breaker for me, otherwise we'd have the same debate about any major development in the city. We are a city of good planners, thinkers and experienced builders that wouldn't undertake this if we didn't see value in it on multiple fronts. I also think that property taxes are moot point since they go up anyways, and we would have 7-8 years to prepare for any cost overruns that may happen (and plenty of time for redesigns if necessary).

I don't see it fixing the economy, but I do see it as part of a long-game to Calgary's eventual renewal - something we are going to need to basically compete with the other Canadian cities for investment, talent, and to maintain it as an attractive place to live.

I think there is too much misplaced anger towards BidCo since most people don't know all the context (including the Yes side) but are unfairly assuming a disaster scenario.

[Parallex]

If the early results above are any indication it appears few people have changed their minds from the other Olympics thread... the % difference between Yes and No are pretty much the same.

[Parallex]

If the early results above are any indication it appears few people have changed their minds from the other Olympics thread... the % difference between Yes and No are pretty much the same.

Edit: ...and naturally as I was composing the post above it tightened

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Jacks

There should be a 3rd poll option
"I don't live in Calgary so can't vote"

I thought about that, and the simple solution is for anybody who isn't in Calgary to not vote if you don't want to skew the results. The point of the poll is to be able to see at a glance if yes or no has the advantage. Adding that 3rd option means any time you want to look at the poll results you would have to manually take out the 3rd option.

Not really a big deal to do that, but why add a step?

[chemgear]

Interesting times with US elections today and what we've seen the last several years. Having watched so many people vote with emotion rather than reason, I guess it's not surprising anymore.

I don't know how many more red flags there can possibly be. Maybe we'll get some clarification of all the various contradicted/false/fake/mistaken items in our bid and budget before the vote. I still can't believe I'm saying that about this multi-billion dollar bid process.



https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...still-flourish

Not that all Calgarians will be raising a toast to Coun. Evan Woolley today. In fact, he’s probably branded a traitor in some quarters, following his vote last Wednesday not to proceed with a plebiscite on Calgary making a bid for the 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

But Woolley as the actual chair of the city’s Olympic assessment committee and, up until this last week, a big supporter of Calgary hosting these Games isn’t allowed such a simplistic though satisfying response to any and all detractors.

Which makes his conversion to a no-Games plebiscite position all the more telling.

“I don’t have confidence that the numbers are going to add up. I’m uncomfortable with the risks associated with the other orders of government not carrying better guarantees,” is how he put it.

So when a man who has spent a lot of time behind closed doors working with colleagues and bid supporters rises above the influences and natural camaraderie such a situation encourages and instead votes to halt on the very process he’s been key to instigating then that carries a compelling message.

It is also a testament to Woolley’s integrity.

[Mr.Coffee]

This is going to be such a disaster. You can just sense it based on how disorganized it all is.

On the weekend we had friends over and did a little informal poll. Weirdly all the people who were going to be financially impacted and have their taxes raised said no while everybody who did not own property said yes. Strange, I know. Therein lies the problem with the plebiscite. Let me vote on your dime to spend money on a want not a need.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Missing from the Calgary contribution is 180 million in contingency for the insurance policy they cannot purchase. This increases the Calgary Contribution to 570 million. The federal contribution will likely be spent on an international sporting event regardless of if Calgary bids or not. The provincial Money is money that won’t be spent if the Olympics aren’t held therefore comes from tax dollars which means between 1/3 and all should be counted when assessing the costs of the Olympics.

Legacy
Mcmahon - 80 million (from estimates around the time of Calgary next)
Oval - 30 million (CBEC bid report)
Sliding Center - 9 million (CBEC bid report)
Nakiska - ????? - they had 45 million in CBEC report but that didn’t include a new lift on a new peak.
BMO/Big 4- ??? CBEC included 80 million for just BMO
Nordic Center - 9 million (CBEC)
Whistler - ?????
Winsport - ????
Saddledome - 10 million (CBEC)

Note I am using Capital maintenance requirement as opposed to the Olympic requirement for the which likely makes up some of the difference between the CBEC final report vs the bidco report.

I certainly do not feel we are getting good value for that 500 million. The Saddledome, Whistler, Nakiska and the Big 4 upgrades are complete wastes of money with no justification outside of the games

For housing the budget is now 490 million for 1800 units with 500 units of market housing. 800 are committed as low income / senior so really only half of this spend is public benefit. So 217 million. If the remaining 500 units are also low income this rises to 350 million

400 million in a new field house and new 5000 seat arena. Around the time of Calgary next the field house was estimated by the city to be 202 million (2017 dollars). We don’t need a 5000 seat arena. So for new facilities the Olympics brings 200 million in value.

180 million in Legacy funding for venue maintenance. This is an important contribution that often gets missed.

Risk. - City is on the hook for all risks including security. An estimate at this stage is likely a +30% estimate. This bid has 20% contingency so the risk is 10%. This project will be considered within the margin of error of the estimate if it goes 500 million over the current budget. Given the history of the Olympics it’s reasonable to add in this risk money.

So when I add up the infrastructure I believe will be spent with or without the games I get 850 million in benefit (high end of housing estimate). The cost I include all the provincial contribution and the 180 million so get 1.27 billion in costs plus 500 million in risk.

About two years ago I said that the best case of Olympics is we get a reduced cost on infrastructure we need, the worst case is you get an inflated cost for infrastructure we don’t need. In this case we come out in the middle and pay 1.27 billion for 850 million worth of stuff and risk another 500 million. This is not good enough.

There is No C-Train to the airport, No new Stadium and a ton of risk to the city. No credible economist believes the 10-1 benefit, we are being misled about the insurance product and the cost over runs.

Despite all the above the Olympics would be awesome to host so I understand why people would vote yes, just own it and say the two week party is worth it.

I’m unfortunately voting with my head and not my heart. So it’s a no.

Great post and really boils it all down. Well done.

The bolded is exactly where i am at as well. Two of the most fun weeks of my life were in February of 1988, and more than anything i would love to re-live that as well as see so many who weren't around get to experience the same thing. It really was magical time for this city.

It would be irresponsible though IMO, as the return we are getting for taking on a giant risk with years of potential tax increases to cover said return, just isn't worth what has been proposed. No new stadium and no new arena, simply means this is a non-starter for me. Building another small arena is just ludicrous and a total waste of money and opportunity to truly make the legacy part of this thing a selling point. Who is going to occupy it after it's built?

There are so few guaranteed benefits for the money being sunk into it, that im surprised so many are supportive.

I still wish something tangible would come out and allow me to change my mind, but at this point that's not happening.