Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This historically has not been found to be true. The benefits touted for the Olympics are as dubious as the benefits touted for a new arena.
The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price. The worst case is you get infrastructure you didn't want at an inflated price.
|
I've never seen it put this way, but I like it so much. It sums it up so concisely. Kudos
I'd like to expand on the idea of price though (note, "+" means cash in, "-" means cash out).
Price=
-
Infrastructure cash costs
+
Subsidies
+
Operating income of the Games themselves (Ticket revenue, TV revenue, labor costs, security costs, etc....note this could very possibly be negative so a "-")
+
Taxes from increased economic activity during the games in the city during the games (hotels, food, etc...i.e. likely positive)
+
Operating income of future events in those facilities (I.e. taxes I'd assume positive)
+
Taxes from increased economic activity during future events in the city during the games (hotels, food, etc...i.e. likely positive)
-
Maintenance and sustaining capital of the infrastructure
Note that in all of those line items, we as citizens would not receive or spend all of that. It's more complicated that that. Especially the operating income line items. Let's say the games turn an operating profit, who gets that?
The point is really just to say that "Price" needs to consider many aspects and a long time frame. But I think that's a decent first pass at identifying the buckets associated with "price" in this discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
Tell that to all of the athletes that trained in the facilities built for the 88 games.... Maybe in a lot of places the facilities end up not being used but when it done right like in Calgary and Vancouver, they do have uses.
|
These would be examples that fits into GGG's
"
The best case scenario for the Olympics is you get infrastructure you wanted at a discounted price" bucket