Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue
why shouldn't calgary pony up more cash, though? it's their event and they want all the benefits. why should it be alberta or the feds? heck, the IOC must see nobody wants to do the Olympics. they should cough up more cash too.
If the Olympics contain all the ongoing benefits for the city that the yes side keeps telling me, wouldn't another 300 million from the city be no big deal? or at least Calgary should guarantee to cover any overruns. that should be ok shouldn't it? I keep hearing they can do it on the 5.3 budget. put their money where their mouth is.
|
That's a fair argument. The host city is the one that has the most direct benefit, followed by the nation as a whole. Municipalities, on the other hand, have the least fiscal capacity. One could argue that Olympics in particular should largely be considered a national endeavour though. It is the maple leaf that athletes are competing for, and there is a level of international prestige for the country that comes along with it. And you're spreading the cost burden across 37 million people, instead of just 1.3 million locally. Arguably, the Province as an entity has the least to gain.