Research into city’s Olympic bid must be rigorous

For those who truly believe that the idea of a Calgary bid for the 2026 Winter Olympic requires some rather sober, objective analysis — and a healthy dose of skepticism — there is reason to be concerned.

The announcement last week of a bid exploration committee came with plenty of assurances about its supposed objectivity, but there’s no escaping the fact that this committee has a rather pronounced pro-Olympic bent. Even the presence of the 1988 Olympic torch at the announcement of the committee seems like obvious pandering to the nostalgia of those Games. But we’re to read nothing into that, apparently.

The mere fact that we’ve come this far speaks to an underlying enthusiasm for the idea of hosting the Games. It was, after all, a report from the Calgary Sport Tourism Authority that recommended the city establish a bid exploration committee. That report was quite supportive of an Olympic bid, and trumpeted many of the supposed benefits of hosting the Games.

So the fact that four members of the tourism authority are represented on the committee undermines these assurances of objectivity. Furthermore, there are a number of other individuals who have been involved in Olympic organizations and previous Olympics.

Committee chair and former police chief Rick Hanson insists there is no pre-determined outcome to the committee’s work, and there’s no reason to take him at anything less than his word. However, the composition of the committee speaks for itself. There are no obvious Olympic skeptics included, no voices to represent

This committee has a rather pronounced pro-Olympic bent

taxpayer interests, no one to speak for potentially affected communities, and, perhaps most notably, no economists. This certainly will make it difficult for alternative perspectives to be heard.

It’s possible that the committee will reach out to many different voices and experts for input and analysis. But if that’s the case, why do we need a committee of 20 people? Clearly, these committee members were selected specifically because they’re expected to offer their own insight. Given that, it would appear that careful consideration was given to making sure that no committee members would rain on the parade.

Unfortunately, someone needs to. As the committee was being announced last week, the mayor of Rome was announcing that her city was no longer interested in hosting the 2024 Olympics. Virginia Raggi said it would be financially “irresponsible” to continue down that path.

While that concerns the much grander summer Olympics, it should serve as a major warning to our city. Backers of Calgary’s Olympic bid like to cite the IOC’s Agenda 2020, which will ostensibly give cities more flexibility to reuse existing facilities, thus making hosting more affordable. Clearly, Rome’s mayor wasn’t impressed.

Rome now joins Boston as potential bid cities for 2024 that have run away from the idea. Oslo, a front-runner for the 2022 Winter Olympics, also pulled out of the chase after deciding it just wasn’t worth it.

Will this committee be inclined to investigate the collapsed bids in these cities?

Ultimately, it will be city council’s decision whether to move forward with a bid, but this committee is obligated to help councillors make that decision with a comprehensive overview of the facts and all the costs and benefits.

Let’s not forget, either, that nothing precludes us from upgrading our winter sports facilities if necessary, and certainly we are already spending billions on infrastructure projects. None of that is contingent on hosting the Olympics.

For his part, Mayor Naheed Nenshi is eager to see the committee’s work. Nenshi says for him to support a bid the “numbers have to be bulletproof,” but in reality, they never are. A 2012 Oxford University study found that every single Olympics since 1960 (including 1988 in Calgary) went over budget. All of them.

Council needs to know all of this, which means the committee needs to confront some facts that will be uncomfortable to backers of a bid. On that point, there’s cause for concern.