>>The host city has to do whatever the IOC wants.
Patently not true, and an unbelievably disingenuous statement.
Oh, but it is true:
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/olympics/ioc-contract-binds-city-olympic-rules/5809
You can read the London 2012 host city contract here:
http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/553
The clue is that in clause after clause, things are "subject to IOC approval". The IOC gets what it wants by withholding it approval until the host city delivers.
Really, what's the point on having this discussion if you aren't even going to be reasonable?
Backing up my claims with research, citing sources that others can check for themselves – how is that not reasonable?
>>I have been looking at the evidence. I've posted links and mentioned books where all of this stuff gets discussed in great detail, and there is plenty more where it came from. Do you think all those academics and economists are, what, just kidding when they criticize the Olympics? Have you read any of this material, yourself?
As I've stated before you are cherry picking what you decide to read or believe. This is not balanced in any way, which discredits your point of view. I've acknowledged that there have been failures and that there are issues.
How can you know whether I am cherry-picking without having read all of the material yourself? There is a LOT of it, just in the English language alone. I doubt that you just happen to have read that widely on Olympics issues, just in time to debate them on this thread.
The blogs and books I've posted about all cite numerous sources. I can't blow out this thread listing every resource available. You'll have to do some research on your own. The stuff is easy enough to find.
Clearly, you aren't reading in a balanced way to make a statement like this:
>>But are there are no cities that "did it right",
So all the economists who have published books and articles that say the same thing are also "not reading in a balanced way"? Here's one:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/07/why-hosting-olympics-bad-cities/2689/
... and finally,
>>What is so special about Toronto that we could host a successful Olympics when so many others have failed?
Whoa, stop with the boosterism there! I mean, this is the most troubling of statements you have made yet! It's so sad you believe so little in the abilities of the people of this country, province and city. It is beyond defeatist.
Really? You're resorting to the "national pride" argument? As if there is nothing else about this city or country to be proud of (sheesh, we've already hosted THREE Olympics in Canada) or nothing else we could do with $10B that we could be proud of? It's the Olympics or nothing? It's a wonder this city has made it this far.
It's sad that you think our pride hangs on whether we ever host a two-week sports jamboree.
So to summarize TOperson ultimately believes that Toronto is incapable of achieving success where others have failed. Thankfully the Canadian forces at Vimy Ridge weren't as enlightened as him!
Actually there is plenty to criticize about WWI and Canada's involvement in it, but that's a discussion for another thread.
He also believes that the Olympics are a complete waste and burden even though cities all across the world, established ones and great ones, vie for them, and repeatedly (London's third time). Obviously he knows something they all don't!
The fact that cities vie for the Olympics is meaningless. For one thing, the bidding process usually starts with a group of business people, usually in the development industry, who then sell the idea to the municipal and other levels of government, and the general public. Often they fail, which is why many cities talk about bidding but don't actually do it. Bidding rarely begins at the grassroots.
London's other Olympics were so long ago, when the games were much smaller with far less money involved (no TV rights to sell), that they aren't even comparable anymore. There were fewer building projects, and none were really massive, so the public expenditure was far less. As far as I know, it wasn't necessary to displace whole neighbourhoods to host games in the old days. If the modern games were like that, more about making do with the facilities already available, I'd wouldn't object to them.
It's not that I think Toronto is so hopeless that we couldn't pull off a decent Olympics. I think the Olympics are
so corrupt, and so huge, that NO city is capable of managing them responsibly. The modern games so routinely run way over budget, disrupt so many lives (people who get kicked out of their homes), hurt local businesses (construction projects keeping customers away), and end up with so many white-elephant facilities that they simply do not make sense as a public investment. And I cannot help but think of all the worthwhile things that could be done with the money. The opportunity costs are staggering.
