Creating a new thread as many people wanted to see a new poll. Some info on the bid that doesn't appear to slanted: The Games are estimated to cost $5.1B
Muta in the another thread captured my line of thinking:
Quote:
"We have governments and organizations willing to give us money to improve our infrastructure, totaling in the billions. Our local taxes will be going to a field house, Olympics or not, so we might as well do the project in a fashion that sees additional investment come in. This is direct investment in Calgary, in a time when our economy is lagging. It will help spur the design, construction, sport and tourism industries, among others, in our city on a large, large scale.
This funding will not be available outside the Olympics. These chances don't come along often, with this level of assistance. I believe it's our best chance to repair and rebuild our aging infrastructure, and it's why I will be voting 'yes'."
Agree?
Feel free to attempt to sway me to the no side...
Last edited by cral12; 11-06-2018 at 09:31 AM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to cral12 For This Useful Post:
It was a mistake to characterize it in those terms. Reading the context what was meant was the ratio of local City tax money versus other sources - games revenue, IOC, Province, Feds. It is true that the funding mix is about a 1:10 ratio for the hosting. "ROI" has a specific connotation that doesn't really apply in this case.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
I have looked for answers before, but should the costs become unacceptably high as building is going on, can the city simply just bail on it? What’s the city on the hook for if we commit to it and then due to financial pressures of cost overruns decide to cancel it? What are we on the hook for in that case?
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
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.
The Following 28 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I have looked for answers before, but should the costs become unacceptably high as building is going on, can the city simply just bail on it? What’s the city on the hook for if we commit to it and then due to financial pressures of cost overruns decide to cancel it? What are we on the hook for in that case?
I'm pretty sure that we'd get hammered on all sides by lawsuits. The IOC would surely file a lawsuit as well as sponsors, TV networks, probably all of the businesses that spent money preparing for the Olympics in terms of things like renovations on hotels.
It'd be massive.
Once you commit to an Olympics even if it goes major over budget you'd better learn to live with it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
It was a mistake to characterize it in those terms. Reading the context what was meant was the ratio of local City tax money versus other sources - games revenue, IOC, Province, Feds. It is true that the funding mix is about a 1:10 ratio for the hosting. "ROI" has a specific connotation that doesn't really apply in this case.
They're still using the false claim to sell their snake oil.
Actually no - it looks like they have not been pushing that specific "ROI" messaging or graphic in 5 days since they got that feedback (including from me) and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemgear
They're still using the false claim to sell their snake oil.
Actually no - it looks like they have not been pushing that specific "ROI" messaging or graphic in 5 days since they got that feedback (including from me) and others.
You'd think they'd publically retract such an obvious "error". Publish a correction. Or at least take down the press releases that continued to be retweeted, shared and promoted.
You'd think they'd publically retract such an obvious "error". Publish a correction. Or at least take down the press releases that continued to be retweeted, shared and promoted.
Fair enough. I agree.
I will ask Mary Moran on my podcast later this week.
Hope to be able to put forward a lot of the concerns I hear on this site and see how she responds.
I have looked for answers before, but should the costs become unacceptably high as building is going on, can the city simply just bail on it? What’s the city on the hook for if we commit to it and then due to financial pressures of cost overruns decide to cancel it? What are we on the hook for in that case?
Only once in history has a city been awarded the Olympics only to later back out. That was the 1976 Winter Games.
Denver was named the host city in May 1970. In November 1972, a statewide referendum on State funding for the Games was held and it was defeated. As a result, Denver withdrew a week later. Due to the short timeline, the Games were subsequently awarded to Innsbruck, which had hosted the 1964 Games.
I don't believe there were any consequences to Denver for pulling out. The IOC awarded the 1980 Games to Lake Placid two years after Denver pulled out (although, they were the only bid, so the IOC didn't have much choice).
I don't know what kind of legal requirements were in place back then, so it's possible that the IOC has changed things to ensure cities won't back out now. Currently, as part of submitting the final bid in January, all funding agreements must be fully in place, which includes guarantees for all cost overruns.
The consequences would likely depend greatly upon how close before the Olympics the city pulled out. I'd guess that because Calgary has most of the required venues in place already, the more-likely outcome would be that certain renovations and enhancements would just get dropped and they'd make do with what already exists.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%
