Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
- they needed to have either a budget games that cost less than $5b, or have a $5b games that gave you more "stuff". Right now, it's a budget games, but still quite expensive. The City is trying to be ultra conservative with budget - which is great (a $1b, 20% contingency is good), but it also produces sticker shock.
|
I agree with this point. There's a contingent of people who are a sizable but vocal minority who are basically against this at any cost. They are the types who question why a jug of coffee for a cabinet minister's meeting costs $20 and why our premier can't stay at a super 8 for less than $100/night whenever they travel. You simply won't win over those people.
In the middle there's probably a reasonable majority of people who are open to the idea of hosting the Olympics, but acknowledge that if we're going to spend the money to host this thing we better solve/fund a number of infrastructure projects that are needed as well such as a new arena for the Flames, airport LRT line, major McMahon renovation or replacement, a green line LRT that actually services the north, and a field house. To these people they see a price tag of over $5 billion where we get none of these things as useless. To them the question becomes, why can't we just spend our tax dollars on the things we need and skip the Olympics altogether.
I actually think a higher sticker cost that included a few of these items would have had a better chance winning over the public rather than a bid that was attempting to accommodate the low cost crowd that was not going to vote yes in any scenario.