Independent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't get why people hate this. Every stadium is
> practically built, so they'd only have to build an
> Olympic village and other stuff. Besides, if you
> don't want to be in the area during the games,
> just rent your house out. Such a quick and easy
> way to make a little $$$.
>
> Some people are so clueless, it's not even funny.
> Why can't DC have the Olympics? Why should LA, SF
> or Boston, 3 cities that while iconic, don't match
> the history or economic potential that the DC Area
> has.
>
> Remember, if 95% of the crap is already built,
> what is the concern here? Would they have to
> extend Metro to BWI? Probably. Add more lanes to
> he Beltway? Maybe. But are we talking about
> sinking billions into shit we're never going to
> use again like those crooked Chinese and fiscally
> irresponsible Greeks?
>
> Think about it for a minute.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113351145
If making money were an Olympic event, no city hosting the games would win a gold medal. Or silver. Or bronze.
"There has never been an Olympic Games that has made a profit," says Robert Barney, director of the International Centre for Olympic Studies at the University of Western Ontario. Barney is also co-author of Selling the Five Rings: The International Olympic Committee and the Rise of Olympic Commercialism.
Fold in all the costs and revenues, he says, "including federal allotments, municipal allotments, provincial or state allotments, it's always been that a debt has to be paid somewhere."
The additional costs include security and infrastructure improvements not included in the Olympic budgets but provided by government.
Barney and others who have analyzed Olympic costs contradict the claims of Olympic boosters and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who was asked this week to justify President Obama's travel to Denmark to support Chicago's bid for the 2016 summer games.