I think that is the key. A city that hosts the Olympics only to show it can will fail. A city that host the Olympics to build useful infrastructure and advertise, advertise, advertise will succeed. When people think of skiing in Europe they will still not think Lillehammer. If people think of must see destinations they will still not think Lillehammer. I'm not sure if Lillehammer could have done better or not.
Not all places can be successful at making themselves a destination through promotion. Any place that cannot turn themselves into a must see destination from not previously being one and who don't already have suitable facilities, really shouldn't host an Olympics. Places that are already major destinations on the tourism map and don't already have facilities will get little benefit from the Olympics. Places which cannot transform into must see destinations because their size or attractions beyond the Olympic facilities are insignificant should not host the Olympics. Places which can really be a tourist destination and simply need exposure to push them into the public eye will benefit most from the Olympics. Places which already have the facilities, like Los Angeles did, also can host the Olympics with a net gain.
When considering whether Toronto should host the Olympics we need to ask ourselves... could Toronto be a must-see tourist destination on the North American map, is it currently off the must-see list, and if new facilities are built will they be well utilized post Olympics. If the answers are Yes to all then we would benefit.
I think the answer is yes to all of those. I really see Toronto in the same light as a Sydney or a Barcelona. A secret that is waiting to be exposed. The product, the infrastructure, the ability is all there, it's just a matter of getting the word out that Toronto actually exists. It's an expensive marketing campaign, but there isn't anything else in the world that compares. A comparable example, though small, is from the 2006 Masters when tiger woods made that chip shot on the 16th hole that was replayed endlessly over and over. The replaying of that footage was worth $1million in marketing just a few days after the event. Imagine a great and memorable event happening in Toronto with the CN Tower behind it, or anything Toronto related really. How many millions would that be worth? And that's just one small bit of the pie. Having your city be the lead story in every paper and on every channal is a marketing dream really. Why every city wouldn't want that, I don't know.
There is no guarantee of an NFL team (I'd say the chances are slim), but the idea of taxpayer's money building a stadium for an American sports enterprise owned (in essence if not in name) by rich corporations like Rogers and/or MLSE is abhorrent to me. And the idea that tax revenue would pay for a stadium is laughable, unless one expects it to be used for a few hundred years. One only needs to see the history of the publicly-built stadium known as Skydome as a guide to the future of a Toronto Olympic Stadium. The public would get hosed when it's built and when it's ultimately sold.
Sorry, I don't buy the oil excuse. Oil didn't reach $80 until late 2007, but even with that, with Iraq already invaded when the bid was won in June 2003, wild fluctuations in oil should have been taken into account. But then that assumes the original cost estimates were made in good faith instead of with the intention of putting the bid in the best light possible (i.e. they lied).
I don't know if the NFL is coming to Toronto either. It basically comes down to Ralph Wilson's death. The team will be up for auction when he dies. It's the only way Toronto gets a team because an expansion team will never come to Toronto because it does nothing for the NFL's real money-maker - TV contracts. I'm not a fan of using public money to build stadiums strictly for a private entity as well, but whether we like it or not, an Olympic stadium would be built with public money. So if that's the case, the public could either sell it to the Rogers family or Tanenbaum (because MLSE and Rogers the company, cannot own the team. The NFL forbids corporate ownership, though I'm sure you already knew that), lease it to them, or hand it over. Either way, at least it's getting used once the Olympics are done, which is much better than building a stadium and having it sit there unused. Let's face it, once a stadium is built for the olympics, the leverage is in the hands of the professional sports franchise that wants to move in.
As for the oil. You don't have to buy it. I would like to see anything, whether its a condo, a highway, a transit line, try and stay within budget during a time when people though going above $50 oil was absurd. And maybe you're smarter than everyone and could foresee $100+ oil, but the rest of the world couldn't. Just look at this article when oil was about to break $40 for the first time in March 2003:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030302/ai_n12581182/ A good quote from it: "The level of uncertainty is now so high that the unthinkable of $50 a barrel is no longer unthinkable." You can ignore this and just suggest it was entirely based on the stupidity of the Olympic Organizers, but that's your prerogative.
