Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Interesting conversation I was engaged with on Twitter.
Question to throw out there, particularly for opponents.
There's a claim that the Olympics are a bad investment. Bad for the host city.
But, in the two most relevant examples - was it bad for Calgary and Vancouver? On balance, considering the economics, infrastructure, tangible and intangible benefits, costs - would it have been better that they not hosted?
If it would have been better to not host, why? If on balance you think it was a good thing, is there good reason to believe it would be a bad thing this time if we did it? Why would it be something we ultimately regret this time?
|
I definitely think Calgary and Vancouver both benefited from hosting. But you have to look at what both cities got out of the deal, hosting in and of itself is not beneficial.
In 1988 Calgary got:
-Saddledome
-COP/Winsport
-New housing at U of C
-Olympic Oval
-Nordic Center
-Road upgrades
This bid gives us no beneficial infrastructure for a much higher bill due to how the world has changed in 30 years. I was ready to get behind a bid until I saw the details. The additional aspect of how Nenshi has seemingly applied almost none of the same skepticism he showed towards the Flames against this bid and the IOC also makes me not want to host.