Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
How do you see the Olympics boosting the city's image in the long term? And what positive economic benefits do you see attached it that? Being on the TV for a few weeks doesn't help us five or ten years down the road. Companies looking to invest are not going to say "well Calgary hosted the Olympics that one time, so lets make that a key point in our evaluation".
In my mind, there should be four main things that are firmly in place before a bid is submitted.
1) Commitment from the federal government for funding as a percentage of total costs
2) Commitment from the provincial government for funding as a percentage of total costs
3) Commitment from the IOC for either a lump sum amount plus share of generated revenues OR commitment for funding as a percentage of total costs
4) Scenarios presented to council showing impacts of the games on current and future debt loading, as well as predicted impact on future taxation rates. Not just best case scenarios either
If they are going to use the long term benefits of infrastructure created for the games, then those benefits should be able to be defined. There have already been enough games that the cost benefit analysis can be easily done. If it comes out positive, then go for it.
|
Years of construction boom. Downstream effects of such boom. Business opportunities. That's a lot of money earned and spent in this city.
Showcase what Calgary has to offer to promote business, tourism and migration.
Sure, things are different now than 88, but it is not a stretch to believe that this city would create a ton of buzz and money that comes with it. It's pretty much guaranteed.
And remember, infrastructure spending is an investment because you create jobs and boost the economy. This goes far beyond the actual length of the event. Years of booming economy.