Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[TOperson]

Then don't bring it up. And i did offer to give you a lesson.

I brought it up in passing as an example of hyperbole, in response to another poster's complaints about anti-Olympic hyperbole.

Well according to his previous post, that's why we have a democracy. If majority says ok then surely he must be willing to accept that.

Did the majority of citizens in past Olympic host cities/countries say OK to hosting? Is there any research to show that? Even if they did, that doesn't make it the right choice for Toronto.

But then again he has been bouncing back and forth on every topic.

Nope, I've been consistently anti-Olympic in all of my posts.

 

[TOperson]

From the haters at the University of Oxford:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120625.html

This juicy tidbit jumped out at me:

'The figures that are in the public domain are unlikely to be the full final cost of the Games, but represent "politically acceptable" costs. The real costs are often not reported in a single place, unless significant auditing and investigation are conducted after the Games.'

That alone is reason enough to oppose hosting. You don't even really know what you've signed on for.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Nope, I've been consistently anti-Olympic in all of my posts.

Well i haven't been much involved in these discussions, but am pro-Olympics and hope this great city of ours gets one in my lifetime

 

[TOareaFan]

Can you provide a source for those figures?

For the purposes of this discussion, I cut them from Wikipedia but they were figures I had seen before. Before you question the use of Wiki here is corroboration. Page 8 of this report has a table which they credit the guardian for their info.

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-062211-112745/unrestricted/Final_Report.pdf

Are you asking because you think those revenue sources don't exist?

Even though they only represent about a third of the cost they are, by no means, all inclusive revenue sources. For example, there are several bids now for post-games use of the main stadium....that will bring more (TBD) revenue.

So, how does that fit in with the "tax payer pays like 90% of the costs through taxes" claim above.

As for your final question, there have been a lot of complaints in Britain about London 2012 for years now, it's well-documented in the media and online. So it's highly debatable whether the taxpayers thought it was worthwhile. By the time the games actually rolled around, there wasn't much they could do about it anyway. Your experience does not necessarily reflect the views of the population. (Just like if someone came to Toronto for a couple weeks and didn't happen to hear any complaints about Ford, it doesn't mean that all Torontonians approve of him.)

No it does not prove anything....anectdotal evidence never does conclusively prove anything. It is/was, however, very surprising to me that during the entire time I did not hear one person in Scotland, Northern England or N. Ireland (some of the more heavily unemployed areas of Britain) complain that tax dollars were being wasted while they spent their time on the dole! Not proof....but must indicate something.....no?

 

[TOareaFan]

From the haters at the University of Oxford:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120625.html

This juicy tidbit jumped out at me:

'The figures that are in the public domain are unlikely to be the full final cost of the Games, but represent "politically acceptable" costs. The real costs are often not reported in a single place, unless significant auditing and investigation are conducted after the Games.'

That alone is reason enough to oppose hosting. You don't even really know what you've signed on for.

Should government just stop spending? Is there anything that government spends money on that is not open to the "that is not the true cost" criticism from its opponents?

 

[TOperson]

For the purposes of this discussion, I cut them from Wikipedia but they were figures I had seen before. Before you question the use of Wiki here is corroboration. Page 8 of this report has a table which they credit the guardian for their info.

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-062211-112745/unrestricted/Final_Report.pdf

Are you asking because you think those revenue sources don't exist?

Even though they only represent about a third of the cost they are, by no means, all inclusive revenue sources. For example, there are several bids now for post-games use of the main stadium....that will bring more (TBD) revenue.

So, how does that fit in with the "tax payer pays like 90% of the costs through taxes" claim above.



No it does not prove anything....anectdotal evidence never does conclusively prove anything. It is/was, however, very surprising to me that during the entire time I did not hear one person in Scotland, Northern England or N. Ireland (some of the more heavily unemployed areas of Britain) complain that tax dollars were being wasted while they spent their time on the dole! Not proof....but must indicate something.....no?

I was more just curious about where the figures came from because they contradicted other info I've seen. I'm going with the Oxford study that says it's very difficult to know the true costs because they get spread around various budgets. The 90% figure I heard on the news and so don't have a link for it. I'll see if I can find one. Anyway, no one claims that the Olympics are even close to self-financing (if they were I wouldn't object to them so much), so either way the taxpayer is on the hook for a lot of money.

As for your personal experiences, they definitely mean that you didn't hear any complaints about the games during your time in Britain.

 

[TOperson]

Should government just stop spending? Is there anything that government spends money on that is not open to the "that is not the true cost" criticism from its opponents?

Again with the all-or-nothing argument.

Of course the government should keep spending. But when it comes to a non-essential like the games that has a history of staggering cost overruns, yes, I think the government should stay away from it. At the very least, bid proponents should be frank with the public about the costs and then see how the public feels about it. If they said "We figure it will cost $10B, but worst-case, we could be looking at $20B", and the majority of the public still agreed to it, i.e. agreed to spending $20B, then so be it.

I'd like to see a bid put to a plebiscite, to really gauge the public's acceptance.

 

[TOareaFan]

I was more just curious about where the figures came from because they contradicted other info I've seen. I'm going with the Oxford study that says it's very difficult to know the true costs because they get spread around various budgets. The 90% figure I heard on the news and so don't have a link for it. I'll see if I can find one. Anyway, no one claims that the Olympics are even close to self-financing (if they were I wouldn't object to them so much), so either way the taxpayer is on the hook for a lot of money.

Yes....lots of things cost money. My personal view is that government should only be involved in things that do not make money.....things that are important to significant numbers of the constituency but, because they don't "make money" the private sector will not provide.

Things like, libraries, schools, a lot of sporting facilities, a lot of transit...etc. etc etc.

If your measure of desirablity is "self-financing" .....what would/should government spend on?

As for your personal experiences, they definitely mean that you didn't hear any complaints about the games during your time in Britain.

That is exactly all that they "prove".....does it not seem odd to you, however, that in my travels during the Olympics (ie. when all of the press is covering the Olympics ... through areas not seeing direct benefit of their taxpayer expenditure but seeing their unemployment rates stay stubbornly high) that I did not hear a single complaint....not once. Talked to lots of strangers....but not one complaint.

 

[TOperson]

Yes....lots of things cost money. My personal view is that government should only be involved in things that do not make money.....things that are important to significant numbers of the constituency but, because they don't "make money" the private sector will not provide.

Things like, libraries, schools, a lot of sporting facilities, a lot of transit...etc. etc etc.

If your measure of desirablity is "self-financing" .....what would/should government spend on?



That is exactly all that they "prove".....does it not seem odd to you, however, that in my travels during the Olympics (ie. when all of the press is covering the Olympics ... through areas not seeing direct benefit of their taxpayer expenditure but seeing their unemployment rates stay stubbornly high) that I did not hear a single complaint....not once. Talked to lots of strangers....but not one complaint.

I would prefer the Olympics to be self-financing. Other government expenditures are another matter, for another thread.

Re: personal experiences, I lived in New South Wales before, during and after the Sydney Olympics and I heard LOTS of complaints. (Watch "The Games" on YouTube, an Australian mockumentary about the games organisers. Very funny and dangerously accurate.) Which proves that not everyone is OK with hosting the Olympics in their city/country. It's an awful lot of money to spend on something that the public has mixed feelings about.

 

[TOareaFan]

I would prefer the Olympics to be self-financing. Other government expenditures are another matter, for another thread.

Well, I think we would all prefer that everything be self financing....it would lead to lower taxes I (and I suspect others) are ok with some things (including Olympics) not being totally self financing.

Re: personal experiences, I lived in New South Wales before, during and after the Sydney Olympics and I heard LOTS of complaints. (Watch "The Games" on YouTube, an Australian mockumentary about the games organisers. Very funny and dangerously accurate.) Which proves that not everyone is OK with hosting the Olympics in their city/country. It's an awful lot of money to spend on something that the public has mixed feelings about.

So the only things that government should spend "a lot of money on" are things that have 100% public support? Anything less than that is "mixed feelings".

 

[TOperson]

Well, I think we would all prefer that everything be self financing....it would lead to lower taxes I (and I suspect others) are ok with some things (including Olympics) not being totally self financing.



So the only things that government should spend "a lot of money on" are things that have 100% public support? Anything less than that is "mixed feelings".

Your argument is totally false. Concerns about hosting the Olympics in Toronto having nothing to do with the funding of all government programs and initiatives. It is quite reasonable to assess them by different criteria, just as you would when deciding between a big blowout overseas vacation and contributing to your RSP. And public support is just one criterion.

 

[TOareaFan]

Your argument is totally false. Concerns about hosting the Olympics in Toronto having nothing to do with the funding of all government programs and initiatives. It is quite reasonable to assess them by different criteria, just as you would when deciding between a big blowout overseas vacation and contributing to your RSP. And public support is just one criterion.

Possibly true....but when spending public money....public support should be a pretty significant criteria...no? Anyway....I think you and I have exhausted our conversation. You oppose spending on Olympics...fair enough.

 

[Automation Gallery]

So the only things that government should spend "a lot of money on" are things that have 100% public support? Anything less than that is "mixed feelings".

Huh, there is basically politics in everything this government touches, let alone sports, therefore you will never see 100% public support...you'd be lucky to see 50%

 

[TOareaFan]

Huh, there is basically politics in everything this government touches, let alone sports, therefore you will never see 100% public support...you'd be lucky to see 50%

There was meant to be a question mark at the end of my post...it was a question in response to something TOperson said....not a statement of my own opinion.

EDIT....there was a question mark!

 

[Tewder]

The games are full of sports that hardly anyone follows the rest of the time, so it's not like the general public actually cares about them. But hype it up for months beforehand, start it up with a massive previously-secret spectacle, and those eyeballs will come. It's pretty standard in this culture to use marketing and advertising to get people to buy/pay attention to stuff they don't need or is a waste of time and so on.

TOperson's argument is dangerously like Ford's, in the 'I don't like it so it shouldn't be funded' vein. People who don't like gays don't want to fund Pride either, and they can point out all the reasons why we shouldn't be 'wasting' money it, and why the gays should fund themselves. It's so unbelievably myopic, not to mention ego-centric...

... and time and again his 'evidence' has been debunked yet he continues to saturate the thread with more and more of his biased and bogus links. He is hoping that if he slings enough mud some of it will stick.