Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
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.
|
That's what the suitability of this bid boils down to really, at least to me. These details pulled from me being a tentative Yes to an almost definite No at this point because there was no new infrastructure projects, at least not useful ones (which would be the "stuff we otherwise would have paid for" from your example, minus the fieldhouse but that's minor). There was supposed to be greater capital efficiency with getting higher levels of Government to chip in to projects they otherwise wouldn't have, that was the main advantage touted. I was looking for something, anything to get excited about. New arena, new stadium, LRT upgrades, regional trains, hell even a widening of Highway 1. We got nothing out of that. Instead we have upgrades to niche facilities, the promises of a fieldhouse and a new 6000 seat arena for some reason. I'm not against those things per se, but when you add all the externality costs of an Olympics, security being the main one, it seems we could just build all those things ourselves and have excess money left over. The advantage of higher levels of Government, specifically the Feds, chipping in is essentially negated.
Or, put another way: The city's contribution to this bid so far is in the neighborhood of 1B, likely to grow. For that B we get niche upgrades, field house, and small arena, plus Olympic exposure and two week event. I don't know, it seems like a bad use of money.