I don't know, maybe this is an unreasonable question, but isn't just about anything we spend here going to be subsidized by other orders of government to our advantage?
That is, let's say that because of additional infrastructure costs (roads, transit, whatever) an additional $2 billion is tacked on to the cost. Obviously, Calgarians will bear the brunt of that overrun. However, won't it be at least partially subsidized by the Province and the Feds (to a greater degree than if we just decided to build it, unattached to any Olympic budget)? And if it's stuff we want to build regardless, isn't that a win overall? Or is the problem that we'll end up spending so much money on stuff we don't actually want that it'll remove the benefit?
I guess, to put it another way, I'm wondering if the economic benefit - and there will be a substantial one, even if it doesn't get back to breaking even - covers the stuff we otherwise wouldn't have paid for if there were no Olympics, while the stuff we otherwise would have paid for, we end up getting for less than we would otherwise have paid for it.
__________________
"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
|