![]() |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by JonboyE
(Post 8242273)
Because of the Olympics we have some necessary infrastructure spending e.g. Sea to Sky Hwy, Canada Line. We also have some desirable infrastructure spending such as the Richmond Oval which will be a community facility after the games are over. This spending gave pople jobs and put money into the local economy and will prove a lasting benefit to the city and province for many years.
These would not have happened without the impetus of the Olympics. If we hadn't had the Games would the Evergreen line have been built? I very much doubt it. I fail to see how the province will gain overall in the long term from the Olympics. Unfortunately only a small proportion of the province will gain from the Olympics, in and around Vancouver and along the Sea to Sky, the rest of the province will pay for it though. If it as good and profitable for the province as we are told, why are Vanoc so secretive and selective in accounting for expenditure? One would expect them to be shouting from the roof tops as to how much it costs vs how much we gain. There seems to be some very selective costs analysis done on this event. It does seem to me to be more of an ego trip for a few who wanted the Olympics in BC. When an Olympic committee gets authority to close streets, virtually shut down the airspace around Vancouver, Whistler and Pemberton, threaten legal action against anyone who even remotely associates themselves with the name Olympic and the concept without the authority of Vanoc, regardless of how long they have been in business, to me its gone too far. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...icle814075.ece Did AB gain from the Olympics? I guess they ended up with the COP. |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by The Aviator
(Post 8242401)
-business/article814075.ece[/URL]
Did AB gain from the Olympics? I guess they ended up with the COP. All the above said, many here question if there trully was a long term benefit to the '88 Olympics yep it was part of the bid process by the looks of things http://www.pengrowthsaddledome.com/b_history.html |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
On arrival in Vancouver, every Olympian should be given a homeless person for the duration of the Games, as a sort of flunky to carry their bags, and open their steroid bottles etc. The homeless person can sleep at the foot of the athlete's bed. The Olympians can show the homeless people that there is dignity in honest labour, in striving to reach one's potential, and how to cut their toenails properly etc.
During the Games, they can get to know each other, and become friends. Then once the Games are finished, it would be the turn of the homeless people to be a support to their athlete buddies who now have to come to terms with the fact they spent 4 years training for something and they came last/fell over/crashed/broke their leg. The homeless people can show all the failed athletes where to find the soup kitchens and the best alleys to sleep in. Shurely a win-win proposal? |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 8242390)
Vancouver has a fairly diverse economy but it's not a high wage economy - this doesn't fit well with having the highest real estate costs in the country. I don't see the economy turning either - I see it floating on a sea of stimulus money (if I can labour a metaphor far too much)
|
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by JonboyE
(Post 8242273)
Because of the Olympics we have some necessary infrastructure spending e.g. Sea to Sky Hwy, Canada Line. We also have some desirable infrastructure spending such as the Richmond Oval which will be a community facility after the games are over. This spending gave pople jobs and put money into the local economy and will prove a lasting benefit to the city and province for many years.
These would not have happened without the impetus of the Olympics. If we hadn't had the Games would the Evergreen line have been built? I very much doubt it. FYIW, Burnaby's government is also anti-Olympics, so it's not like all the cities are singing Kumbaya over it either. You can say you very much doubt it but it's a hard case to prove unless we find a Tardis and warp into an alternative reality. What I do know is it's very unlikely now Translink is so in debt from the Canada line and all the rest of it. I also don't see what's so necessary about sea to sky except for the Olympics. Where's the population? There is much more population in the east that really needs better infrastructure and is growing fast. Why encourage pop'n growth up there when it's already happening down here without needed upgrades? I don't have a problem with spending on infrastructure, I have a problem with where the spending is going. About the only thing I agree with is the Canada line. |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 8242275)
From a purely financial viewpoint the cost of a nut-house and maybe some half way place for the mildy insane is insignificant when compared to the cost of budget overruns so far.
e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8gtUJfb3PM |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Lord Vader
(Post 8242542)
Those factors existed before the economy went south though, so something is making it tick.
I stand by my prediction of significant inflation in the medium term unless by some miracle the BOC grow a pair and do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing. Edit: Sorry, don't wish to take this thread into another one of my economy rants... I've made too many of those recently:o |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 8242642)
Not to the extent they do today. Take away stimulus and GDP would be negative; that's not the economy keeping itself afloat.
I stand by my prediction of significant inflation in the medium term unless by some miracle the BOC grow a pair and do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing. Edit: Sorry, don't wish to take this thread into another one of my economy rants... I've made too many of those recently:o |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Alan, I fear you're right about inflation. *swiftly changes subject* However, let's talk Olympics!
Inukshuk, anyone? |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Kiwilass
(Post 8242561)
I also don't see what's so necessary about sea to sky except for the Olympics.
Vancouver Sun, March 3, 2001 I don't know how to put a value on human life, but I think the $600m it cost is very good value for our tax dollars. |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by JonboyE
(Post 8242737)
In their blind hurry, people are oblivious to the fresh flowers and crosses laid along the road where people died, and ignore statistics. Last year alone there were 400 crashes, 10 people died, 123 were injured. Crashes occur up to three times more often than the provincial average, and average annual ICBC claims for the road are over $11 million.
Vancouver Sun, March 3, 2001 I don't know how to put a value on human life, but I think the $600m it cost is very good value for our tax dollars. Personally, as a reasonable well off middle class skier I'm very happy for everyone else to disproportionately subsidise my quicker journey to whistler. Thanks everyone! |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 8242536)
On arrival in Vancouver, every Olympian should be given a homeless person for the duration of the Games, as a sort of flunky to carry their bags, and open their steroid bottles etc. The homeless person can sleep at the foot of the athlete's bed. The Olympians can show the homeless people that there is dignity in honest labour, in striving to reach one's potential, and how to cut their toenails properly etc.
During the Games, they can get to know each other, and become friends. Then once the Games are finished, it would be the turn of the homeless people to be a support to their athlete buddies who now have to come to terms with the fact they spent 4 years training for something and they came last/fell over/crashed/broke their leg. The homeless people can show all the failed athletes where to find the soup kitchens and the best alleys to sleep in. Shurely a win-win proposal? |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 8242756)
10 people isn't so many and if saving lives is a measure you can get better value elsewhere.
Pretend they were 10 homeles people though. Personally, as a reasonable well off middle class skier I'm very happy for everyone else to disproportionately subsidise my quicker journey to whistler. Thanks everyone! |
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by bsmith
(Post 8242768)
....I like your thinking on this one. However, the only flaw in an otherwise brilliant scheme, is that you may have inadvertently stumbled upon a way of virtually doubling Vancouver's homeless problem - but as I say, apart from that minor technicality - brilliant!
|
Re: Vancouver Winter Olympics
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 8242793)
Well, just send them all over to the London Olympics in 2012, as trained "Athlete Liaison Co-ordinators", or ALC-ys.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:47 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.