There's one question: can the games break even, or come within striking distance, while allowing for new infrastructure to be built. That's all that matters.
If the answer is yes, and the city (and region, because Banff) gets new facilities and transit and road improvements built a large portion of which is covered by the revenue that the Games generates, awesome. Even if it takes a bit of a loss, that's manageable, because it's a great thing for the city to host and we end up better than we were before. If it's a money pit, then obviously, no dice.
The 2010 games were good for Vancouver. It was, in hindsight a good idea for that city to host them, and that's even with the many mistakes that were made in the process that increased the costs. That's possible here, too, isn't it? If not, hard pass, obviously.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|