The Olympics are a proven route to municipal bankruptcy.

[JackRiddler]

This is not about Obama, who is not exceptional in his support for the Chicago bid.

Politicians and power elites always support attempts to get the Olympics. Developers love the Olympics, and developers finance a lot of local governments. National governments love the Olympics for the supposed image boost and opportunity to front patriotic propaganda to the world.

In the modern history, cities' preparations for the Olympics have served as drivers for
- gentrification;
- centralized, spectacular developments that prevent more rational and environmental uses of urban space;
- the security industries (as with the high-tech police state that Beijing erected last year);
- neoliberal policies aimed at turning urban spaces into Disney landscapes for yuppies.

Even by those standards, results have been mixed. For the most part, what the host cities get is a bunch of underused arenas downtown and a big load of debt.

The practice of shifting venues amounts to a municipal disaster tour. Multiple cities are encouraged to sink vital planning and lobbying resources (and their local pride) into the quadrennial competition for the IOC's favor. The IOC has turned into a weird hybrid of unelected corporate planning authority and beauty pageant manager. Therefore I would support a permanent location for the Olympic Games. (Athens does come logically to mind.)

See the New York Times column today:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/do-olympic-host-cities-ever-win/

"A city looking for an economic boost, would be wise to not host the Olympics."

Not a Rosy Picture
Andrew Zimbalist

Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, is the author of “Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-time College Sports.”

The evidence from past Olympic Games hardly suggests that there’s a resounding economic gain from being the host city. Montreal’s 1976 Olympics left the city with $2.7 billion of debt that it finally paid off in 2005.

The Barcelona Organizing Committee in 1992 broke even, but the public debt incurred rose to $6.1 billion. Similarly, the Atlanta Organizing Committee in 1996 broke even, but the bottom line there is not encouraging. An econometric study using monthly data found that there was insignificant change in retail sales, hotel occupancy and airport traffic during the games. The only variable that increased was hotel rates — and most of this money went to headquarters of chain hotels located in other cities.

The Sydney Organizing Committee in 2000 also reports breaking even, but the Australian state auditor estimated that the games true long-term cost was $2.2 billion. In part, this was because it is costing $30 million a year to operate the 90,000-seat Olympic Stadium.

When Athens won the right to host the 2004 games in 1997, its budget was $1.6 billion. The final public cost is estimated to be around $16 billion — 10 times the original budget! Meanwhile, most of the Athens’ Olympics facilities are reportedly underutilized. Maintenance costs on the facilities in 2005 came in around $124 million and, reportedly, there is little use of the two Olympic soccer stadiums. The games are touted to bring in tens of thousands of tourists, and, if things go according to the hype, to keep them coming into the indefinite future. Here too the evidence isn’t rosy. Olympics participants and visitors often chase others away. In late 2004, Athens tourism officials were talking about a 10 percent drop in tourist visitors to Greece.

SNIP

Read more at link

[Joanne98]

1. Thankyou. I lived in LA when we got the Olympics. We got the battering ram.

Thanks a fucking lot!

[derby378]

7. If you don't want it, I'll take it

I could put it to good use during rush-hour commutes, especially for those texting behind the wheel and weaving in between lanes... :mad:

[truebrit71]

14. Daryl Gates would have gotten that either way..not the Olympics fault...

...

[EFerrari]

2. Amy did a segment on this today. Ex: It took Montreal 30 YEARS

to pay off its Olympic debt. Audio, video, transcript at link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/2/sportswriter_dave_zirin_on_obamas_olympic

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. I thought they were a waste of time and money...

...but some folks said they provided jobs (temporary, I pointed out).

Now this just cinches the proof they are a waste of time.

The president should never have pushed for them. Now the GOPers are taunting him and even if he had won the poor would have lost.

A lose-lose.

[damntexdem]

6. A waste of who's time?

The President obviously doesn't think it's a waste of his. Nor do I think so.

As for the Rethugs, they are idiots for opposing Obama on this -- they will lose politically whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics. If Chicago gets the Games, the GOP will have let it be an Obama victory. If Chicago does not, GOP opposition can be given part of the blame. For America as a whole, that is a win-win.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. *ring-ring-ring* Hello?

It's for you: It's 2 hours Ago.

The games are a corporatist indulgence and nationalist chest-beating exercise.

[JackRiddler]

19. "The games are a corporatist indulgence and nationalist chest-beating exercise."

thanks Nuclear Unicorn for condensing my post to a pithy sentence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Aw...thank-you

:pals:

[JackRiddler]

13. Apparently your motto is My President, Right Or Wrong.

But I don't care. As I said, this isn't about Obama, but about the drawbacks of making an Olympic bid at all.

[timeforpeace]

4. NOW it's a bad idea! We're nothing if not flexible here.

[JackRiddler]

11. I never thought otherwise!

[damntexdem]

5. Conflicting stats are thrown around regarding the economic costs/benefits.

It is not at all clear to me that the Olympics are a financial loss to host cities -- and may in fact be a major boon.

In any case, the build up to the Olympics, which involves a considerable amount of building, can provide a substantial local economic stimulus, which is something needed now and in the coming years.

As to the effects on the city and its residents, the issue is to look at the specific city's plan. For example, Chicago's plan involves creating low- and moderate-income housing. How that stacks up against housing and businesses that would be lost needs to be assessed.

The argument that Olympics chasing non-Olympics tourists away is somewhat disingenuous, given that the Olympics pulls many more visitors in; and their occurrence can certainly be used as a springboard for the marketing of tourism both before and after the actual time of the Olympics.

As to whether the Olympics themselves are 'worthwhile,' that is a topic best left as a closed can of worms.

I say: "Go, Windy City!" But if Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, I hope they go to Rio because South America deserves a chance at hosting the Olympics.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Just when do you think those construction jobs would appear?

Do you think that if Chicago won the bid for the Olympics in 2016 that construction would begin tomorrow or even a year or two years from now? First they would have to plan all the venues and then the engineers would have to design them. Only then, and after financing plans were put in place would any actual construction jobs actually appear.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Architects and engineers also work for a living.

And it is more than just construction that benefits - an empty building is pretty worthless. You need to fill it with furniture, carpeting, art works, etc. Every new building spawns hundreds of jobs. The Olympic village, with apartments for the competitors, can be converted into low-income housing once the event is over - and those apartments also need furnishing.

If the architects are local - as they should be - the couple hundred thousand dollars being poured into the development of the venue would begin filtering out into the general economy almost immediately. The firms take on more staff, they live in the community and spend in the community.

All the 'accumulated debt' is a red herring - five million dollars spent on an Olympic venue building would be paid off over 20 years, just as five million dollars spent on a non-Olympic highway overpass would be. The fact that it is paid off over 20 years, or more, is a simple fact of everyday financing. Just like a mortgage. Sure, it's "debt" but that doesn't mean there's no value, and that it isn't worth the debt.

[JackRiddler]

12. Oh really? Only one stat matters: two weeks.

That's the length of the Olympics.

Cities incur debt, invest, conduct major projects and distort their planning for about six years, so that they can host the Olympics for two weeks, and then never again. This is an irrational form of urban planning. We need to get to a more rational space where good things like low and moderate income housing can be financed because they are good, and not as a secondary benefit to landing a one-time, spectacular event.

[truebrit71]

15. LA, Atlanta, Salt Lake City all appear to have done rather well, no?

...

[JackRiddler]

16. Since you're saying so, please show us the numbers. Thanks.

[truebrit71]

17. LA $215 million

Atlanta $10 million
Salt Lake $56 million

[JackRiddler]

18. $10 million? Is that a joke?

How about you tell us what these numbers represent?

[truebrit71]

20. Nope. No joke. Google is your friend...

...

[JackRiddler]

22. Why don't you back your own assertions when you make them?

What are these figures?

Net profit claimed on Olympics-related operations by the city's organizing committee?

Surplus for the cities at the end, above and beyond tax expenditures and new debt?

Approximation of the impact on the local economy itself?

Etc.

Context-less numbers say nothing. "Google is your friend" really says nothing. People interested in being persuasive (and polite) can at least provide a link to whatever page they think makes their case.

And even if there is a surplus in one of these categories, it's not much of an argument for the Olympics. You have to show why it's more productive for a city to spend six years focused on planning and preparing and building for a single event that lasts two weeks and never happens again, as opposed to all the other ways the resources and funds could be deployed.

[JackRiddler]

23. k

[JackRiddler]

24. next day kick