Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[TOperson]

Oh wow, I can't believe I'm reading this. The Nazis and their Fascist allies in Italy also built the first freeways. Am I participating in a Nazi ritual every time I drive on one?

Keep the context in mind. FNTS slammed anti-Olympic people for hyperbole, so I pointed out the hyperbole in the Olympic rituals, the Nazi thing was mentioned in passing, challenged, so I backed it up with research. The point was the hyperbole.

That said, Samaranch ran the IOC for decades and was an avowed Fascist, so bit of a red flag there. The IOC could have gotten rid of the torch relay on the grounds of its associations, but they've kept it, which is a curious choice. It contrasts weirdly with the tough stance on logos and brands etc. I mean, a butcher puts out some sausages shaped like the Olympic rings and gets threatened with a huge fine, but the torch relay is OK?

 

[TOperson]

^ let's parse this.....cause maybe we are talking at cross purposes.

Is £9.325B the budget for LOCOG putting on the games? I think it is. The criticism some have of that budget is that it excludes certain things (SkySports point out that it excludes transit spending....others say that is ok because transit definitely lives on and represents public expenditure reprioritized by the games but not directly for the games........Some point out that the Olympic village is not in the £9.325B and it should be....others counter with the fact that the bulk of that cost came from the private sector so is separate.....ironically, if the village was included the total budget would go up but so would the % share funded by the private sector).

If the answer to the bolded question is yes (as I think it is). And LOCOG gets revenue from a variety of non-government/taxpayer sources (TV Rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, post games land sales)....how do those not reduced the burden on the taxpayer?

Let's leave it there and take this one issue/question at a time.

I got this from the exec summary of the UK NAO budget:

References to the ‘budget’ for the Games tend to focus on those costs that are to be publicly funded and therefore exclude the staging costs to be incurred by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), which is intended to be self-financing. As required by the International Olympic Committee, however, the Government is the ultimate guarantor of funding for the Games, including LOCOG’s staging costs.

More info here: http://www.london2012.com/about-us/funding/

As you say, all kinds of things are not included but maybe should be and vice-versa.

I think the separation of the organizing committee from the govt accounts for some of the confusion re: whether certain Olympics were profitable or not, because it's possible for the cttee to do well, make a profit and so on, while the govt gets stuck with cost overruns and debts and whatever. And some cttees take a loss which the govt then has to pick up. The media could do a better job of covering the distinction.

The question of "does this lessen the burden on the taxpayer"? is a new one in this discussion. So, as compared with the scenario of no LOCOG, all costs borne by the public, with TV and sponsorship rights given away for free (?), yes, the current method is "cheaper". But not what you'd call cheap. It's still a colossal amount of public money, there is still a tremendous opportunity cost there. I mean, we don't need the Olympics, life would go on without them. So I don't know if the games could be sold on the "hey this could have cost $20B, so it's a bargain at $10B" platform.

I'm more worried about the issue of it being so difficult to sort all this out. With London, what's done is done, but let's proceed very carefully here in Toronto.

 

[MisterF]

Just reflecting here, I've been called a liar, a hypocrite, an a**hole, deranged, "Ford-like" (in a pejorative sense), linked to homophobia, and an "annoying child". I'm pretty sure I haven't dished out anything nearly as antagonistic in return.

I've slammed the Olympics pretty hard, but they are not off-limits for criticism. Anything that costs $10B in public money is fair game for a very critical analysis.

So I think there is another interesting question here: WHY do anti-Olympic comments get some people SO upset? It's not a religion, it's not a matter of life and death, people got by for thousands of years without it, most cities manage without ever getting it, so what is so challenging about someone saying they don't want it in their city, that there may be drawbacks to it? Why are some people so emotionally invested in the games, something they've probably only ever seen on TV? What's going on there?

Seeing as you're posting in this thread more than anyone else and your tone is no less aggressive than those you're arguing with, a fair question would be why do pro-Olympic comments get some people so upset?

Keep the context in mind. FNTS slammed anti-Olympic people for hyperbole, so I pointed out the hyperbole in the Olympic rituals, the Nazi thing was mentioned in passing, challenged, so I backed it up with research. The point was the hyperbole.

That said, Samaranch ran the IOC for decades and was an avowed Fascist, so bit of a red flag there. The IOC could have gotten rid of the torch relay on the grounds of its associations, but they've kept it, which is a curious choice. It contrasts weirdly with the tough stance on logos and brands etc. I mean, a butcher puts out some sausages shaped like the Olympic rings and gets threatened with a huge fine, but the torch relay is OK?

Like nfitz, I haven't bothered to read through the endless pages of bickering. But context or not, accusations of hyperbole while throwing around Nazi references is a little hypocritical. And a complete red herring.

 

[TOperson]

Seeing as you're posting in this thread more than anyone else and your tone is no less aggressive than those you're arguing with, a fair question would be why do pro-Olympic comments get some people so upset?[

I figured this question would come up without anyone trying to answer the first. For one thing, I've kept my composure here better than many, e.g. I haven't called anyone deranged or an a**hole. So I DO think my tone has been far less aggressive. Maybe on this forum aggressive = not backing down and supporting claims with evidence and research.

For another, I think by now I've made it quite clear why people oppose the Olympics: in a nutshell - the costs, the development hassle, the legacies that never come. The people who actually live in East London have made it very clear how disruptive the games have been for them. Something like 450 people were kicked out of their homes, 250 businessnes were re-located, park space was lost or closed off, and so on.

Maybe it's a question of empathy. It's pretty cold, imposing impacts like that on people (who usually don't have a lot to begin with) just for a big sports party. Maybe empathy has no place on this forum.

Like nfitz, I haven't bothered to read through the endless pages of bickering. But context or not, accusations of hyperbole while throwing around Nazi references is a little hypocritical. And a complete red herring.[

It would help a lot if you actually read what people are actually writing. Then you would know that FNTS made the accusation of hyperbole. I countered it with other examples of hyperbole, one of which happens to involve the Nazis. That's not hypocrisy. That's debate.

I think it's hypocritical that you call out the Nazi thing (actually everyone here is making a bigger deal of it than I ever did) and accuse ME of hyberbole, but you don't call out the insults. Hello - calling someone an a**hole, you're OK with that? That's not hyberbole?

BTW, it's not a red herring if it's factually, historically accurate, which the Nazi thing is.

EDIT: Reflecting on your comment, so "context or not", one shouldn't mention the Nazis? Like, ever? Say we're discussing anti-smoking campaigns, and I mention that the Nazis were the first do one, is that a red herring? Is it hyperbolic? Or does it depend on your views on smoking?

 

[TOperson]

I expect we'll be seeing more of this kind of port-mortem analysis re: London 2012. A Hackney councillor actually uses the word "sham".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJkYb8ME4fE&feature=player_embedded

Excellent job of excerpting various analyses on sports participation legacies here:

http://gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/1865/print

Of course, we'll also hear more about preparations in Rio.

I'm very interested to hear more about Sochi 2014, but between language differences and Russia's free-speech situation, there is less info available, at least so far.

The big milestone for Toronto is the Council report due in March 2013. Won't we have a raucous debate then!

 

[nfitz]

I expect we'll be seeing more of this kind of port-mortem analysis re: London 2012. A Hackney councillor actually uses the word "sham".

Last time I counted, London had over 1,900 councillors (1,952, with 1,919 councillors and 34 mayors). The Borough of Hackney alone has 57 plus a mayor, despite a population of less than 250,000.

I'm pretty sure you could get a quote on just about any subject from at least one London councillor. You don't have to much further east than Hackney to find member of the British Nazi Party who have been voted to council - at least in the 2006 elections.

 

[TOperson]

Last time I counted, London had over 1,900 councillors (1,952, with 1,919 councillors and 34 mayors). The Borough of Hackney alone has 57 plus a mayor, despite a population of less than 250,000.

I'm pretty sure you could get a quote on just about any subject from at least one London councillor. You don't have to much further east than Hackney to find member of the British Nazi Party who have been voted to council - at least in the 2006 elections.

Did you look at the video? It's not just about the one Hackney councillor. Good job on focusing on the big issues.

But if one person's opinion is so worthless to you, should the Toronto bid be decided on a majority-rule basis? I'd like to see it go to a plebiscite.

 

[nfitz]

Did you look at the video? It's not just about the one Hackney councillor. Good job on focusing on the big issues.

No, won't play here. Perhaps if you summarized the item in detail for those who can't access, you'd get better dialogue. You said that a single councillor called it a "sham". Were there more than one councillors who used this term?

But if one person's opinion is so worthless to you, should the Toronto bid be decided on a majority-rule basis? I'd like to see it go to a plebiscite.

Why the hostility?

 

[MisterF]

I figured this question would come up without anyone trying to answer the first. For one thing, I've kept my composure here better than many, e.g. I haven't called anyone deranged or an a**hole. So I DO think my tone has been far less aggressive. Maybe on this forum aggressive = not backing down and supporting claims with evidence and research.

For another, I think by now I've made it quite clear why people oppose the Olympics: in a nutshell - the costs, the development hassle, the legacies that never come. The people who actually live in East London have made it very clear how disruptive the games have been for them. Something like 450 people were kicked out of their homes, 250 businessnes were re-located, park space was lost or closed off, and so on.

Maybe it's a question of empathy. It's pretty cold, imposing impacts like that on people (who usually don't have a lot to begin with) just for a big sports party. Maybe empathy has no place on this forum.



It would help a lot if you actually read what people are actually writing. Then you would know that FNTS made the accusation of hyperbole. I countered it with other examples of hyperbole, one of which happens to involve the Nazis. That's not hypocrisy. That's debate.

I think it's hypocritical that you call out the Nazi thing (actually everyone here is making a bigger deal of it than I ever did) and accuse ME of hyberbole, but you don't call out the insults. Hello - calling someone an a**hole, you're OK with that? That's not hyberbole?

BTW, it's not a red herring if it's factually, historically accurate, which the Nazi thing is.

EDIT: Reflecting on your comment, so "context or not", one shouldn't mention the Nazis? Like, ever? Say we're discussing anti-smoking campaigns, and I mention that the Nazis were the first do one, is that a red herring? Is it hyperbolic? Or does it depend on your views on smoking?

I really have no intention of getting into a multiple page argument with you, so I'll just say let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[TOperson]

The thread topic is the Toronto 2024 Olympic bid, yet I've noticed posters keep drifting away from that. They resort to personal attacks because they don't have anything else. Few people have even attempted to provide evidence to support their own claims. They just keep bleating "You're wrong! You're lying! You're a POS!"

Attacking me personally doesn't do anything. It doesn't make the Olympics a good choice for Toronto, or any city, it doesn't wipe away all the evidence I've provided.

If the bid goes ahead, you're all going to hear many of the same points I've raised, plus many more. And if Toronto "wins" the bid, you'll get a seven-year earful of this debate - but it will be too late to do anything about it. Good luck to you if it affects you, your friends & family or your business through displacement, construction hassle, etc.

That's my sign-off, for now. I'll be back as new reports on London 2012's "legacy" roll in, and definitely when the Council report comes out next year.

 

[Tewder]

Well I guess we've all been served notice.

 

[nfitz]

Well I guess we've all been served notice.

I guess so. He must have a pretty poor case ...

... the irony is that I have no idea what his position is. Pro-Olympics ... anti-Olympics ... bad for Toronto ... good for Toronto. All I know is that we're all wrong about something ...

 

[JohnQCitizen]

Getting the Olympics for Toronto alone is a really terrible notion. Montrealers are still paying for the '76 version.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

A minor quibble - Montreal has retired their Olympics related debts since 2006.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Getting the Olympics for Toronto alone is a really terrible notion. Montrealers are still paying for the '76 version.

... yes, and why should we expect to have learned anything since then? We are doomed.... doomed I tell ya!!