Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Every big endeavour carries risk. The question is whether you believe a) the risk can be managed and b) whether the up-side is worth the risk. The Olympics is big and people will simply disagree whether it is too risky or not, and whether that upside is worth it or not. Calling it a "one-off" event is an indication you clearly don't think it is worth it, while others don't really view it as a one-off thing - others believe it has long lasting tangible and intangible benefit.
|
Right, but my argument isn't totally about the risk being carried by us. It's about that we can't secure funding for things without there being a flashy event tied in. Someone mentioned Edmonton has three fieldhouses and we have none. Well yeah, because they had the political will to get it done. We've had the fieldhouse on the wish list for like what, 30 years? And apparently the only way it can get done is the Olympics. Apparently not for Edmonton (thrice), but whatever. In some ways this whole bid actually seems more like a bailout package to make up for funding we didn't have the political will to commit to.