Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
If the Olympics were the fast track to economic success, once again, cities would be tripping over themselves to bid instead of fleeing en masse as they currently are. The Olympics are a gamble that history tells us is far more likely to have no impact or negative impact than being some kind of financial windfall. I get the argument "Well if not this, then what is the plan", but perhaps the better question is "Why is this, as its proponents claim, the only plan that will work?".
|
There are very few examples to compare this too. I have said before that I may be less likely to vote yes should we be rolling along right now in a good economic climate. Fact is, everyone around us is not only doing good but many places are booming. Just about anything right now would help give us a boost and the example of comparing this to other games in cities that are not facing tough times is a comparison that can't hold much weight.
I guess the 1 thing we can agree on although worded differently is that "something" has to be done. Sitting on our hands and waiting this out isn't going to work. I see that something as a higher risk/higher reward Olympic bid that involves billion in outside money but also the potential of much of our own money while I assume you would like to see a much smaller risk taken but still something that involves pushing the economy up.
The bid for the 88 Olympic games came in the early 80s when the price of oil came crashing down and interest rates were sky high and all I ever hear people talk about was how it helped boost the city, morale was high and the games turned out to be great.