Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
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.
|
my problem with the 5.2B is when people in their arguments take it as the final all in cost.
has an Olympics, or any sporting event of similar size ever been on budget?
is it clear who pays for cost overruns? the IOC won't. the sponsors won't.
so I'm wondering if all levels of government split the overspend or does it all fall to Calgary? the answer to that might sway the votes of some people on the fence.