[TOperson]

So what you're saying is that there is some kind of IOC sleeper cell embedded in every level of the Canadian government, willfully blocking infrastructure projects? When a bid for the Olympics is due, this hidden cell will be paid out in infrastructure dollars based on the number of politicians it has on their payroll...

Sounds pretty silly.

No. That's a pretty weird interpretation. Every level of the Canadian government has assorted cronies in assorted industries, who are always looking for ways to profit. The development and construction industries LOVE mega-projects, so they buy politicians who will advocate for them. The Olympics is one such mega-project, among others. That's why nearly all Olympic bids originate with the development and construction industries. Politicians know that the starve-the-beast approach gives them leverage, so they run with it. Austerity ideology really helps too. That's why all these supposedly fiscally conservative politicians are suddenly willing to write blank cheques for a mega-project. They're keeping their masters sweet.

The IOC takes care of itself through the TV and sponsorship rights.

 

[animatronic]

No. That's a pretty weird interpretation. Every level of the Canadian government has assorted cronies in assorted industries, who are always looking for ways to profit. The development and construction industries LOVE mega-projects, so they buy politicians who will advocate for them. The Olympics is one such mega-project, among others. That's why nearly all Olympic bids originate with the development and construction industries. Politicians know that the starve-the-beast approach gives them leverage, so they run with it. Austerity ideology really helps too. That's why all these supposedly fiscally conservative politicians are suddenly willing to write blank cheques for a mega-project. They're keeping their masters sweet.

The IOC takes care of itself through the TV and sponsorship rights.

And what's the point of being a politician if you can't snort coke off a hooker's chest while relaxing at a 5 star resort that's hosting some unaccountable international sporting organization's annual meeting?

 

[TOperson]

So then the construction/development industry is willing to wait it out for decades of government austerity before the full bingo of the Olympics kicks in? Still silly...

Obviously they'd prefer to get cracking ASAP, but laws, regulations, market forces, etc don't always allow that. The Olympics create a "state of exception" where the usual laws, regulations, market forces, etc don't apply. It's a great way to snap up land you might never get access to through the usual process, get contracts with less competition, at higher prices due to the deadline, and so on. THAT is the appeal of the Olympics, for those industries. Notice that often, a couple years after the games, the government sells the sites on at a discounted price.

 

[Tewder]

You mean like research by actual economists and urban planners who studied what happened in other host cities?

Oh this is fun, I can quote 'actual' scientists who claim there's no global warming or cigarettes are good for you. It's called spin, and it works both ways. A little independent critical thinking is good for you.

That's... not how logical fallacies work. What did happen tells us nothing about what could have happened and even less about the possibilities for a totally different event/development.

Fantasizing about what could have happened is not helpful, particularly when you're comparing the achievements fuelled by the panams with a long term lack of achievements. I mean, who can compete with fantasies, right?

YOU think it's worth it to host the Olympics to get all this other stuff. OTHER people - whose money is also at stake, if they pay taxes in this country - disagree. They think it's a bad bargain and want to pass on it, as more and more cities are doing.

Hmmm, they didn't pass on it in Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary. Apparently only in Toronto are we to wring our hands over stimulus/injection spending to come from the federal/provincial governments that would only get spent elsewhere anyway without the games? No thanks.

 

[sixrings]

As a Torontonian I am a bit confused why Torontonians would be against this. This is basically an opportunity to buy something for 66% off. I say that because three levels of government will split up the price tag. Sure apart of our federal taxes and provincial taxes will go to it. So lets say its 50% off. All I know is on Boxing day and on Black Friday people buy all sorts of shit just because its 50% off. In this case sure it would cost alot but if it helped get our infrastructure going then I am all for it.

Also people are acting as if there is an either or situation here. As if the three governments have come to Toronto and said you can either have an Olympics or a DRL, Smarttrack, Hybrid Gardiner, and new Ontario Community Housing. If that was the case obviously we pick the second one. But in all likelihood if we say NO to the Olympics we will get more of the same we cant spend money because we don't want to raise taxes, respect for taxpayers and gravy train nonsense.

 

[TOperson]

Oh this is fun, I can quote 'actual' scientists who claim there's no global warming or cigarettes are good for you. It's called spin, and it works both ways. A little independent critical thinking is good for you.



Fantasizing about what could have happened is not helpful, particularly when you're comparing the achievements fuelled by the panams with a long term lack of achievements. I mean, who can compete with fantasies, right?



Hmmm, they didn't pass on it in Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary. Apparently only in Toronto are we to wring our hands over stimulus/injection spending to come from the federal/provincial governments that would only get spent elsewhere anyway without the games? No thanks.

Linking global warming and cigarettes to this discussion? You might as well go full Godwin.

 

[TOareaFan]

As a Torontonian I am a bit confused why Torontonians would be against this. This is basically an opportunity to buy something for 66% off. I say that because three levels of government will split up the price tag. Sure apart of our federal taxes and provincial taxes will go to it. So lets say its 50% off. All I know is on Boxing day and on Black Friday people buy all sorts of shit just because its 50% off. In this case sure it would cost alot but if it helped get our infrastructure going then I am all for it.

Just like those people on Boxing Day and Black Friday....if you buy something that you can't afford and/or that adds no real intrinsic value then the financial hangover can prevent you from doing things in the future that you might need.....even if you bought those nice things on a 50% sale.

 

[TOperson]

Nailed it. It's the mentality of the Boxing Day shopper, the person who falls for "free gift with purchase", the Beanie Baby collector.

 

[sixrings]

You're right. We should have nothing but a hybrid garner and a Bloor subway extension to STC because that's money well spent. Respect for tax payers.

 

[TOareaFan]

You're right. We should have nothing but a hybrid garner and a Bloor subway extension to STC because that's money well spent. Respect for tax payers.

Not sure if that was aimed at me or not but I will respond......I am not for nor against automatically bidding for the Olympics...I just think we have to study this and figure out the net benefit(s) if any and we should not just rush into meeting that September bid deadline for 2024....the net benefits will still be around in 2028 if they exist.

I simply pointed out the folly of spending on things just because you can get them for 50% off because someone seemed to be saying there is no risk in these games because 1/2 - 2/3 of the funds might be covered by province/feds.

 

[animatronic]

As a Torontonian I am a bit confused why Torontonians would be against this. This is basically an opportunity to buy something for 66% off. I say that because three levels of government will split up the price tag. Sure apart of our federal taxes and provincial taxes will go to it. So lets say its 50% off. All I know is on Boxing day and on Black Friday people buy all sorts of shit just because its 50% off. In this case sure it would cost alot but if it helped get our infrastructure going then I am all for it.

Also people are acting as if there is an either or situation here. As if the three governments have come to Toronto and said you can either have an Olympics or a DRL, Smarttrack, Hybrid Gardiner, and new Ontario Community Housing. If that was the case obviously we pick the second one. But in all likelihood if we say NO to the Olympics we will get more of the same we cant spend money because we don't want to raise taxes, respect for taxpayers and gravy train nonsense.

There's only one taxpayer. It's not a discount, it's a shell game. You (as a citizen) own all three levels of government.

The problem with the Olympics is you get a very bad return on your investment - by any measure. Say we spend $5B on Games infrastructure, $10B on general infrastructure and $5B to run the thing. $2B of that Games spend is for a stadium we don't need, and the remaining $3B is spent on overbuilding venues and paying a premium to accelerate construction. The $5B in security and logistics is just money flushed down the toilet. The $10B in true infrastructure spend is the real legacy, but if it's that important we should be building it anyways. Wrapping it in the Games is just a hack move by visionless politicians who lack the ability to sell a plan based on its own merits.

In contrast, we could spend $1B to improve our regional sports & recreation infrastructure and get far more bang for the buck. A few hundred million of the $5B in event spending (for what one assumes would actually be a pretty decent party) could fund a shitload of Pride Parades, Caribanas, NXNE and who knows what other events that would actually bring tourist dollars into the city. Olympics don't result in tourist booms before or after the games and spending for the two weeks is partially offset by all the Torontonians who would get out of dodge for the two weeks. Meanwhile, the $10B in basic infrastructure (DRL etc...) should be spent regardless of whether we get to run around with a flame on a stick.

So basically we'd be wasting about $5-10B by hosting the Olympics in order to secure $10B in infrastructure spending we should be investing regardless. Not to mention the time and effort and agenda-hijacking for seven years at all three levels of government. That's why someone who is serious about city building should be against the Olympics, not for it.

 

[diminutive]

As a Torontonian I am a bit confused why Torontonians would be against this. This is basically an opportunity to buy something for 66% off. I say that because three levels of government will split up the price tag. Sure apart of our federal taxes and provincial taxes will go to it. So lets say its 50% off. All I know is on Boxing day and on Black Friday people buy all sorts of shit just because its 50% off. In this case sure it would cost alot but if it helped get our infrastructure going then I am all for it.

No this isn't a good analogy at all. A more accurate analogy would be if a bunch of kids in a family all of a sudden went nuts on their parents' credit cards on Boxing Day. There is only one taxpayer in Canada. Maybe in the short-run a subnational jurisdiction can extract resources its residents didn't pay for, but that will almost always be compensated by reduced transfers in other areas, or increased transfers to other jurisdictions that we would be paying for.

Despite what you say, spending is always a question of 'either-or.' The very nature of spending on one thing is that you're not spending on something else. QP and Ottawa don't have infinitely flexible pools of money.

And it's even more bizare to think getting senior levels of government to waste billions of dollars on a party that would never have happened will somehow also induce them to spend billions they otherwise wouldn't have spent on useful infrastructure. If you reduce the argument to its basic elements it's self-obviously absurd.

 

[sixrings]

There is only one tax payer until you want a lrt converted to a subway Mr ford. That logic is fine but you have to beconsistent with it and it basically discourages any spending at all. By the way some people who shop can afford to especially at 50% off. Anyways I'm from North York so apparently I am the least likely to support an Olympics. But I am 36 so I will bealive to watch the games. Looks like 2/3rds are supporting it.

 

[sixrings]

"Despite what you say, spending is always a question of 'either-or.' The very nature of spending on one thing is that you're not spending on something else. QP and Ottawa don't have infinitely flexible pools of money."

Perhaps you are right that the money will infact be spent elsewhere. My argument is that money won't necessarily be spent on or in Toronto. That federal money may head out west or the provincial money may go to rural Ontario.

 

[animatronic]

There is only one tax payer until you want a lrt converted to a subway Mr ford. That logic is fine but you have to beconsistent with it and it basically discourages any spending at all. By the way some people who shop can afford to especially at 50% off. Anyways I'm from North York so apparently I am the least likely to support an Olympics. But I am 36 so I will bealive to watch the games. Looks like 2/3rds are supporting it.

Rob Ford didn't understand what "one taxpayer" actually means and based on the example above it's not clear that you do either.