Bert Hyman wrote:
In
news:e0adc372-0e60-4d58-8b68-f7a2cd1cd3e9 at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
Suppurating Tool <kinkysr at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
But insiders are reporting that the IOC, as well as
other competing
cities' committees, stressed the U.S. obsession with and
easy access
to firearms as among the most compelling reasons for the
Chicago
turn- down.
They certainly prefer the government-run death squads
that regularly
murder people all over Brazil.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Brazil-Police-In-Rio-De-Janeiro-Murder-Three-People-A-Day-According-To-UN-Report/Article/200809315100536
http://tinyurl.com/y9mzax4
"Police in Rio de Janeiro are responsible for murdering
three people every day, a controversial UN report says."
(TIME Magazine)
Would Getting the Olympics Be Good or Bad for Chicago?
By Erik Heinrich
President Barack Obama has been doing his part to help
Chicago win
the 2016 Summer Olympics. He has taped messages of support
for the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and hosted a
reception at the White House to
help raise his adopted hometown's profile. Now he's flying
to Copenhagen to
personally help Chicago with its final push.
The IOC will make its decision on Oct. 2, after
considering rival
bids from Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro (which is
considered the
front runner). But in light of the heavy financial burden
that is associated with
staging the Olympics, the question is: Would getting the
Games really
be a good thing for Chicago?
For the Second City's business community, the answer is a
resounding
yes. "We view the opportunity as one of those pivotal
moments in our
history," says Lance Pressl, an executive at the
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
"Innovative juices flow, our broad shoulders get flexed
and
collectively we transform this great city into something
even
better." (See the long history of Olympic politics.)
But that hasn't always been true. The economic benefits of
the
Olympics for host cities are at best mixed, and the
opening bravado often descends
into recrimination and regret. Of course, there are
obvious benefits
for an Olympic host city — primarily the opportunity to
showcase
itself in front of a global TV audience numbering in the
billions. Indeed, many view the Olympics
as the ultimate infomercial to help attract business and
foreign
direct investment (FDI).
But that has to be balanced with the danger of runaway
costs, which
seem almost guaranteed when it comes to the Olympics. Brad
Humphreys,
professor of the Economics of Gaming at the University of
Alberta, keeps count on
Olympic budgets. His tally is a tale of excess: Athens
budgeted $1.6
billion for the 2004 Games but wound up spending $16
billion. Four
years later, Beijing budgeted the same amount, $1.6
billion, for the 2008 Summer Games yet
spent an enormous $40 billion. London originally planned
to spend $8
billion for the 2012 Games; the current estimate is $19
billion and
rising. "Once the Games leave town, there often isn't much
to celebrate," says Humphreys,
noting that host countries nearly always experience a drop
in GDP
growth in the year after the Games. (See highs and lows
from the 2008
Beijing Games.)
In terms of sheer financial disaster, however, it would be
hard to
match Montreal's 1976 Games. It has taken the city more
than 30 years
to pay off its extravaganza, the cost of which is still
not entirely
known, according to Humphreys. The Olympic stadium was a
particular
disaster; originally budgeted for C$156 million, it ended
up costing the city C$2 billion, including
numerous fixes to the roof and years of interest payments.
The Quebec
government had to introduce a special tobacco tax to help
pay down
its Olympic investment.
Vancouver, which will host the Winter Olympics in 2010,
has already
had its debt rating downgraded because its Olympic Village
has turned into a
money pit that could end up costing taxpayers as much as
$1 billion.
As for the total price tag for Vancouver's Games,
estimates vary from $1.6 billion to
$5.5 billion. (Read "In Hard Times, Olympic Plans Go On a
Budget.")
One reason for the wide disparity is how the costs are
allocated. In
Vancouver's case, there's a big debate about how to
account for two
major projects being built for the Olympics: a light-rail
link
connecting the city to the airport, and costly upgrades to
the Sea to Sky highway, which
winds north along Pacific fjords. Should these projects be
part of the
Olympic budget or (because they will presumably serve the
city for years
afterward) part of the general municipal budget? Either
way, the projects will
take decades to pay down.
If there is one Olympic city for Chicago to emulate, it
would be
Atlanta. The city's $1.7 billion privately funded Summer
Games in
1996 sparked a construction boom in the city's downtown
core and, according to the
Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, generated $5 billion in
economic
activity, including $1.8 billion in hotel, residential and
commercial
construction. What's more, the city found long-term uses
for its Olympic venues,
transferring the Olympic stadium and village to the
Atlanta Braves
and Georgia State University, respectively. "The Olympics
gave
Atlanta a tremendous boost in commerce," says Sam
Williams, president of the Metro Atlanta
Chamber. "We become a global city, not just the capital of
the
South." However, critics say Atlanta got too caught up in
the idea of
making the Olympics self-funding. As a result, it missed
out on state and federal money that could have
paid for upgrades to neighborhoods and sewage systems.
Chicago estimates that the cost of hosting the 2016
Olympics will be
$4.8 billion. If its bid finds favor with the IOC this
week in
Copenhagen, the city might be well advised to get venues
shovel-ready
as quickly as possible, for it has one advantage that
Atlanta didn't: access to a portion of
Washington's $787 billion economic stimulus package, much
of which is
still being allocated.
If, on the other hand, Chicago doesn't make the cut, the
city
shouldn't feel too bad. For municipalities, the Olympics
deliver more broken dreams
than gold medals.
