Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
It's not hypocritical at all. If I look at the public benefit from an arena, vs that of the Olympics and the legacy of facilities and infrastructure, and decide the Olympic option provides more benefit, their is nothing hypocritical about it.
Personally I don't really see the Olympics working without a new arena(I'm a hard no on the Edmonton option) then I can look at the Olympic option as being the better choice because we can leverage provincial and federal dollars into an arena, and get both. This will probably require the cooperation of the Flames though, and given their demands for veto's over development, free transit etc it makes the starting point a lot tougher. It would probably be a totally different model than the ones they were envisioning.
|
Except the Olympics would cost the city 10X more. So it's not apples to apples.
Personally I'm in favor in both, it's just odd when people's main arguments against the arena were:
-Every study ever says it's a bad investment
-Why are we enriching already rich parties
-How can you justify spending for this when we need money for homeless, seniors...basically insert any disadvanatged group here.
Those arguments go against the Olympics just as easily.