Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
A counterpoint to that would be that in the games - the City is projected to spend about $550m, and that includes various capital projects like the Field House, housing that will have a lasting impact over 40yrs. That’s compared to a $5.2b overall spend. So it is paying $1 and getting $9 spent from either IOC, Feds, Province or via event revenue. Pretty good ROI, arguably.
If the City was to spend $50m and have someone else spend $450m (the same ratio) on an arena, the deal would be done already. That said, of course the city should contribute a share, the issue is how much of a proportion is fair and reasonable? I also do think if both sides move a bit (the City said explicitly it WAS NOT their “final offer”), there is of course a deal to be made, and I think they will. I really do.
|
My problem with 5.2B though is a lot of it is spent on externalities like security and operating costs, it doesn't really leave us with anything permanent. I'm a bit dubious on the capital efficiency of the Olympics, it doesn't seem like it compares with just investing the money in infrastructure straight up, even with Ottawa and Edmonton chipping in.