Olympics 2026 Potential Bid Thread

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I guess I'm more pessemistic. I don't see our adminstrations as inherently more competent and less likely to screw up as other jurisdictions'. Which isn't necessarily to say I don't support a bid, but I'd be making the decision knowing full well that the proposed bid and price is a floor, and will only escalate from there. My question would be who pays for the inevitable increase, something no level of government will lay claim to.

Well, there is lots of contingency built into the budget.

[Corndogger]

Summary of the latest numbers.

[Corndogger]

The vote to reconsider the entire process was 8-7 which means the plebiscite will still be held on November 13.

For: Chu, Demong, Farkas, Farrell, Gondek, Magliocca, Sutherland, Woolley

Looks like voters will have to kill this once and for all in a couple of weeks.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

the plebiscite will still be held on November 13.

A great result. Let the people decide.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

For [not allowing people to have a say]: Chu, Demong, Farkas, Farrell, Gondek, Magliocca, Sutherland, Woolley

Looks mostly like Jay Westman's slate, LOL!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

A great result. Let the people decide.




Looks mostly like Jay Westman's slate, LOL!

When the No side gets 80% of the vote are you going to claim the election was rigged?

Jay Westman's slate? Look at that list of names again! lol

[Rollerstud98]

Do you truly believe it will be an 80% no vote when even on this forum poll the majority are either strongly agree or agree?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Do you truly believe it will be an 80% no vote when even on this forum poll the majority are either strongly agree or agree?

This forum is not representative at all of the general population. Also, when did the voting start here? 2016? Initially I was in favor as well but I was expecting that we would major new infrastructure including an arena, stadium, field house, as well as improvements to other facilities along with some nice transportation upgrades. The plan now is a complete joke. It's also rather obvious that a small group of people connected to Nenshi are trying to benefit financially from the games at the public's expense. This is totally different than the 1988 experience.

[milomilo]

I'm pretty tempted to abstain. I'll be OK either way, but I don't think I have enough information to make an informed decision, and neither does anyone else, at least to vote yes.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm pretty tempted to abstain. I'll be OK either way, but I don't think I have enough information to make an informed decision, and neither does anyone else, at least to vote yes.

You have two weeks to read up:
https://www.yescalgary2026.ca/

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Jay Westman's slate? Look at that list of names again! lol

Bring out the list.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Bring out the list.

I'll let you bring it out.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by suburbia

There is an extremely well funded no vote push also, led largely by the Flames ownership group, Brett Wilson, Kenney's extreme-right-wing faction, Postmedia ownership, Rick Bell, Farkas, Chu and Magliocca. They were all actually on the sidelines till the bid corp released their scope, which included using the Saddledome, and adding a mid-sized arena and field house at the university (an extremely prudent and ironically fiscally conservative plan). Ken et al. flipped their lid, and started pushing back, saying either that the money would be better spent on a Flames arena subsidy, or pushing the bid back to 2030, when it could include a new arena. Just ridiculous stuff, in all honesty.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Initially I was in favor as well but I was expecting that we would major new infrastructure including an arena

There ya go - LOL!

As you may recall, even on this forum poll the majority were are against publicly funding an arena for the billionaire Flames owners.

Really excited there will be a fantastic new field house and a new arena at foothills though, in addition the all the upgraded facilities and injection of new housing. $1B in salaries for Calgarians is fantastic. Anyone who is for the economy is supportive! I accept that some are less financially literate as milomilo highlighted, and so will need to read up a pinch more on the bid.

[milomilo]

Just so you know, I was more on the fence but leaning to the yes side before, but your overly boosterish patronizing posts have pushed me more towards 'no'. I'd ask again (you won't answer though), what is your ball in this game? Why are you so strongly for them, and anything Nenshi? It's embarrassing.

If we could have done a good games for a good price, I would have strongly supported them. But, from the little information we have been given (even that yes2026 propaganda has barely anything), this games will give us little to be proud of. A new field house is the only big new piece of infrastructure - that isn't enough for me to get excited about.

[MalcolmTucker]

That is a really weird way to make a decision. Maybe when choosing what table to sit at at a pub with common tables that makes sense, but on a big project like this?


The capital spending and legacy fund 'benefits':





My perspective is we get the above, for the city amount basically, freeing up money from existing grants (that don't go away if we get the Olympics) that were to go to things like the field house for other things. The city spends $375 million out of pocket.



Plus we get to have the Olympics.

[milomilo]

There's not really a better way for a layman to make decisions like this than emotion. Which is why plebiscites are a bad idea. I don't have access to the city's finances, nor would I have the expertise or time to decide whether this bid makes financial sense, whether the city can afford it etc. Most people who claim they think they do are lying to themselves. We elect officials and have an administration to do that for us, and the decision should not be up to me and my fellow Calgarians.

But the decision is up to us now, and all we have to go on is what we have been presented, but what we have been presented is not very compelling. So I'm on the fence, and likely won't bother to vote.

[MalcolmTucker]

That is the rock and a hard place of IOC's Agenda 2020. Build a bid without any flash to save money. But then, it doesn't have any flash. And the Olympics themselves are still expensive, just a bit less so due to less flash.



If the city didn't have financial capacity to do it, the city would have never put forward its number ($370 or so) in the agreements, or let the bid go beyond the CBEC stage.



If you don't care either way, sure don't vote. But if the field house is cancelled and the affordable housing doesn't happen through alternative funding, can't really complain IMO. Voting yes is a good way to lock in the city to building the field house and a bunch of affordable housing, things that have fallen off the city budget in past cycles when council was deciding between nice to haves and need to haves (interchanges of course!). For four interchanges we get the Olympics plus all the above capital benefits.

[milomilo]

One thing that spoke to me was that if even the majority of councillors (8 out of 15), people who should be far more aware of the intricacies of this, don't believe the bid is even good enough to be put to the people, it can't be as good a deal as we are being told to believe.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

One thing that spoke to me was that if even the majority of councillors (8 out of 15), people who should be far more aware of the intricacies of this, don't believe the bid is even good enough to be put to the people, it can't be as good a deal as we are being told to believe.

I think some just wanted the process to be over due to personal frustrations of dealing with other levels of government, like Wolley and Gondek.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by suburbia

$1B in salaries for Calgarians is fantastic. Anyone who is for the economy is supportive! I accept that some are less financially literate as milomilo highlighted, and so will need to read up a pinch more on the bid.

That's extraordinarily condescending. Good luck pulling people to your side with that attitude.

Further, it may very well be wrong. Pro-games economic "analyses" are frequently debunked; just the latest: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...heck-1.4886988

If you believe that spending municipal tax money on the games is a good use of money, that's a valid opinion that you're entitled to. If you believe that spending other people's provincial and federal tax money on the games is a good use of money, well, you can have that opinion too. If you believe that spending money on the games is more important than other things on various governments' wish-lists, that's also a valid opinion to hold.

But asserting that it's an economic booster? Shaky ground, at best.

Honestly, I'm still on the fence and unsure how I'm going to vote. I value the Olympics and the things they do bring, I'm just not sure where my line in the sand is on costs.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, the reason to have the games is to have the games. It is super hard to quantify the worth of earned media and recognition of existence. An 8 year media biltz where every article about the olympics includes a 1 paragraph explainer of what calgary is, and where we want to go, is a huge branding opportunity. But yeah, hard to quantify that vision and sharing it, into real world numbers.