Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
I think that's kind of unfair... you can't just ignore the (presumably life-extending) renovations and housing. Yes, it's very light on "new stuff" but "new stuff" shouldn't be the be all end all of it.
But like I said I think it's done now. The province doesn't want to pay the ask, who knows what the city's willing to pay (but it clearly isn't the difference between the provincial ask and the provincial give), and the Feds policy is matching dollars (so that 300M shortfall from the province becomes a 600M shortfall).
|
I think it's fair because the majority of yes voters' profess reasoning that the Olympics have a lasting economic benefit...that's not always true. I can't find the article but there is research that shows quite clearly that there is no lasting benefit if the host city isn't getting significant new infrastructure and amenities.
We can spend our 800 million and get most of what we need that was coming via the Olympics and not take on the risk/likelihood of a massive shortfall. Or we could build an arena and know exactly what our net economic benefit will be over years.