andyt andyt:
Do you actually live in Vancouver? Do you understand the issues? Olympics don't make money for a city. A recent study found they break even at best.
Does that study take into acount the value of the infastructure left behind? Doesn't it take into acount all the money spent on construction that is entered into the economy? If so, that is a hell of a study and they should be working on a national economic plan.
$1:
But that doesn't consider all the infrastructure we built,
So everything built is just a free extra.
$1:
in a hurry, during a construction boom (ie expensive) and mostly the wrong stuff. Eg the Canada line that serves the airport - very nice and all.
Being able to take transit from Surrey to the airport is great. It also links the downtown area to the airport. Overtime that will be a huge benefit to the area.
$1:
But, the Evergreen line, that they keep talking about building, would actually serve the areas where the population growth is, take way more cars off the road so we don't have to keep building roads.
All in time, the growth of the Sky Train will be an ongoing long term investment in the area. I think that a connection to the airport was a very good plan.
$1:
Whistler highway - very nice, needed improvement. But, the owners of Whistler ski area are going broke - it's a recession.
You don't seem to want to plan for the long term. If the operators are having a short term issue, the long term improvement will help them over time. I wouldn't want to offer the operators a bailout, but I am willing to build a better road. Are you suggesting that money spent on road construction should have just been given to the operators as a grant or stimulus?
$1:
Convention center. Budget - 500M. Real price 1B, cause it was built in a hurry, with poor oversight. Meanwhile, convention business has tanked.
And in time it will recover. Honestly long term planning.
$1:
So a lot of money was spent on projects that were not the best use of the money. When the Olympics are over, the govt will cry poor, can't afford to build housing, and put more sorely needed money into health care or transit. But the developer buddies of Gordon Campbell, they're happy. The rest of us schlubs get to pay the freight.
Please look at the budget for the Games and look at the budget for health care. A single one time investment wouldn't do very much.
And why should the government be building houses? Isn't that something for private investors or home owners to do?
~
While not at all the point of the games, I think they have had a huge local simulus effect. I can only speculate but I think the money spent, being spent has had a very strong buffer effect on the economic downturn. So even if the money could have been better spent, the fact that it was spent at all is still a good thing.
