[TOperson]

But does spending in middle school benefit a single adult? no

Hoo boy. I can't believe you wrote that. Actually it does, because that adult will get older and the middle school kid will grow up to run the institutions, businesses, etc that the older adult needs and enjoys in their retirement. Today's middle school kid could be your future oncologist or nursing home aide or pension administrator.

Also, there is a huge difference between schooling a child and holding a colossally expensive two-week sports party. Education is necessary. Olympics are optional.

 

[Red October]

^ But is vastly improved public transportation, an expanded network, revitalised public realm and increased income from the tourism industry "optional" for the future?

 

[intoronto1125]

You have a point there but is allowing infrastructure to not be developed for years the right answer?

 

[Red October]

You have a point there but is allowing infrastructure to not be developed for years the right answer?

Nope, but unfortunately with the way this city council cooperates and operated it seems like an event like the Olympics is the only way to kick them in the ass to get moving.

 

[FNTS]

I'll bet that Gaudi and the Woody Allen movie shot there has more to do with it than the Olympics ever did.

When have you ever heard anyone say "I've got to go to X, the Olympics were once there"? Or "Ugh, I would never go there, they've never had the Olympics!"

People don't go to Barcelona just because the Olympic Games were held there once, and of course they go there because of Gaudi, but the thing is, most people didn't even know Gaudi before the Olympics. If done right, the Olympics put a city in people's minds, it enters another league, and cameras from all over the world come and let people see the best a city has to offer. Just look at this table to see precisely what the Olympics did for Barcelona:

It doubled its tourism activity. Hey, even if we get 30% more tourism, and a couple of transit lines out of it, I'm in.

 

[GenerationW]

Again, if Toronto needs athletic facilities, transit infrastructure, whatever, financed by some combination of the three levels of government, why can't it just get built? It's our (tax) money. Why involve the Olympics at all? Why spend millions just on the bid, when that money could go to some of the needed infrastructure?

I'm pretty much on the fence about the Olympics in Toronto, but, assuming a successful bid, the argument for is that there would be a substantial amount of money available for a wide variety infrastructure improvements from upper levels of government (especially Ottawa, which only occasionally puts money into purely local transit) that generally speaking isn't available now. Of course that assumes we'd put that money to good use.

 

[intoronto1125]

TOurism went to all time highs and the level remained. The Olympics are an expensive catalyst to get a city world attention and much needed infrastructure. The TTC is not good enough!

 

[TOperson]

But is vastly improved public transportation, an expanded network, revitalised public realm and increased income from the tourism industry "optional" for the future?

That's a false choice fallacy. It's not either/or. There are more straightforward, less expensive ways to get all of those things.

Re: Barcelona, it's often held up as the ONE exception to the rule that hosting the Olympics is a net loss for a city. The fact that there is only one city is a big red flag in itself, plus, it's very debatable whether the Barcelona claims are even true. It's one of those "depends how you count it" situations. The fact that EVERY other Olympics leads to cost overruns is a giant flashing "DANGER" sign.

When cities host the Olympics, they don't just pay for the infrastructure they want or need (that is, if they get any of the infrastructure they want or need). They also pay for:

1) infrastructure that is suited only to Olympic purposes and may be useless afterwards, or best get minimally used
2) the bid itself, which can cost over $100million
3) marketing and promotional costs
4) security (which after the G20 we can safely assume would cost over $1B)

Plus the opportunity cost of all the things that could have been done with that money. Plus the economic costs of the 7-year construction/traffic nightmare period which hurts many small businesses. Plus the ongoing hassle for the people who live there.

If the money is "available" for the Olympics, it's available for other purposes as well. Just like if you have money to go on vacation, then you have money to pay your rent. Want more tourism in Toronto? That $1B security budget would buy a spectacular marketing campaign.

Here's a clip re: the costs London was racking up FIVE YEARS ago. It only got worse from there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDbvIj3VyO0

Remember, YOU will pay for this. Do you really want to buy a car just to get a free cell phone?

 

[FNTS]

If you're talking about the £9,3 billion budget, £2,7 billions is contingency so there's a chance it won't be used, and that investment has already meant gains for the public. £7 billions have been invested by the private sector into the area, regenerating one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Europe. Add the extra tourism income, the legacy infrastructure and facilities, and I still think they have a winner.

 

[TOperson]

If you're talking about the £9,3 billion budget, £2,7 billions is contingency so there's a chance it won't be used, and that investment has already meant gains for the public. £7 billions have been invested by the private sector into the area, regenerating one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Europe. Add the extra tourism income, the legacy infrastructure and facilities, and I still think they have a winner.

One of the major issues with Olympic economics is that it is extremely difficult to get reliable figures, even just for the government expenditures. Groups in Vancouver tried again and again and got the runaround each time. Sure, some numbers are put out for the media and public, but trying to verify them is another matter. The IOC has closed books, pays no taxes in any country, and is not audited. Only IOC insiders know how much money sloshes through that organization. I'll have to look into the COC and see what I can find out, but I expect they keep their finances pretty quiet as well. Bid organizations have closed books too. FOI legislation doesn't apply to them.

Since London was already a major tourist destination, the Olympic effect really is limited to the few weeks of the games. There just aren't going to be radically larger numbers than usual and even Olympic tourists can only spend so much. And, BILLIONS of dollars to pump up an industry that was already pretty healthy? How can that be justified? When no doubt there are funding gaps and shortfalls in health care, education and the like?

Re: "regeneration one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Europe". Yeah, they always say stuff like that. It means that they drove poor people out, god only knows where to, to put in overpriced upmarket housing. The Olympics are largely a development scam. Hell, if the government somehow managed to find 6-7B or however much, why didn't they just spend it directly on these poor neighbourhoods? That probably would have been enough for ALL of Britain's poor neighbourhoods. Why all this Olympic runaround if the goal is to fix up one neighbourhood and attract a few more visitors?

 

[FNTS]

I'm not saying the Games were right for London, I'm saying they might be right for Toronto, we stand to gain a lot more than them in increased tourism, international visibility, much needed transportation and infrastructure, even as an ego boost for a city that's always self-deprecating. I trust Toronto's legacy could be closer to that of Barcelona's, Sydney's and Seoul's than Athens.

Hell, if the government somehow managed to find 6-7B or however much, why didn't they just spend it directly on these poor neighbourhoods?

I don't know, I wonder the same thing myself. I'm not a politician, but there's something about the Olympic Games that makes them open up their wallets and invest in things that are not fighter jets and prisons.

About East London's regeneration, their goal is to create 11,000 homes, of which about 35% are set to be affordable (they just changed the definition of affordable making it less so, but that affects all affordable housing in the country, not just the Olympic Park, and it's part of the reigning coalition's "austerity" agenda). I think we can be better at this than them, specially if the political climate is propitious a the time. We have the experience of Regent Park, and soon Alexandra Park as well, in which nobody will have to be moved to any other area even during construction, following the principle of zero displacement.

 

[TOperson]

I'm not saying the Games were right for London, I'm saying they might be right for Toronto, we stand to gain a lot more than them in increased tourism, international visibility, much needed transportation and infrastructure, even as an ego boost for a city that's always self-deprecating.

Then don't refer to London as an example of a successful Olympics. Many Londoners certainly don't feel that way about it, and that's true for every city that hosts the games. The affordable housing promises have been broken time and again. This has all been thoroughly documented. Bear in mind that most of the media coverage is just propaganda, the "Olympic chill" ensures that. Few news organizations can afford to alienate their advertisers. The Olympics are a huge corporate f--kfest, think any of those people really care about the financial burden imposed on the host city?

Billions for an "ego boost" and "international visibility" - can that really be justified? When there are dozens of less costly ways to achieve both? Assuming we need either. Anyone who needs the Olympics to feel good about where they live is truly a moron.

 

[TOperson]

but there's something about the Olympic Games that makes them open up their wallets and invest in things that are not fighter jets and prisons

Yes, it's another way to get billions of dollars of public money into the hands of their corporate cronies. That's where the money ends up.

Ask yourself, when nowadays most people see the games on TV anyway, why is it necessary to always host them in a new city and undertake all these massive development projects? Why can't they re-use venues, and spread the games around different cities? And why do past host cities pretty much never bid for the Olympics again?

 

[FNTS]

Whoa, that's a lot of anger, buddy. You lost me somewhere between "moron", and "f--kfest" and "corporate cronies". Nice talking to you.

 

[MisterDerp]

I just think the boon in infrastructure is worth the negative aspects of hosting the olympics entails. It believe overall it would be good for Toronto.