Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
How does making the facility tied to the Olympics somehow make it a more lasting legacy than if it's not tied to the Olympics? Because the whole world gets to see the new facilty for two weeks?
Anyway we all know this is usually a spectacular waste of money, very little gained long term, and it makes one of the two most corrupt organizations on earth rich. Recently when western countries have been given the chance to vote on hosting the Olympics, they have overwhelmingly rejected it. I suspect it'd be the same here.
|
Seriously? Calgary has benefitted IMMENSELY from '88 in a myriad of ways, and in almost countless amateur sports. And it is still reaping benefits 27 years later.
As for the cost, not only does it bring in provincial and federal funding which aids in getting infrastructure projects completed (as the article above discusses), but Calgary has a huge head start already, with several facilities in place or simply needing an upgrade.
Even
major upgrades (like the bobsleigh track would need) are typically cheaper than starting from scratch. The land is already committed, the facilities are already there - an upgrade means they can continue to benefit Calgary for
another 25 years.
Yes, the IOC are a disgusting organization. But conversely, the Olympics are a wonderful event.
You have to look at the specifics when you weigh the costs and the benefits. Calgary is in a pretty unique position whereby the costs can be controlled and contained to a pretty significant degree.
And no city should be more aware of the benefits than Calgary already is.
I would be strongly in favour of this. And I would not be even a little surprised if an Olympic bid becomes part of the process for CalgaryNext.