If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Go Fig writes:
For lack of a better word, it comes down to the 'prestige' of being a Host City... being in the club. Prestige with respect to what audience? I don't care if a city has been host to the Olympics, except that cities that have might be a bit more likely to have corrupt governments. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Go Fig writes:
So you think the http://www.franceguide.com/prehome.asp should shut down ? You think hoteliers don't want more tourists ? I don't think it matters. Tourists will come either way. Even in my own case I've had to turn clients down because I have too many. Of course, this is high season. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
nitram writes:
Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you had found the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden and a host city to the Olympics are mutually contradictory. Why is it the perfect place for the Olympics? Because it's away from Paris. Anyplace but Paris would be perfect. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Go Fig wrote:
In article , Mxsmanic wrote: Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". But isn't it the case that Barcelona did well out of the games, both in terms of infrastructure and a PR boost? One of the main reason that I oppose the London bid is precisely that they resolutely vowed not to tinker with the Tube, which is deeply in need of having money (intelligently) thrown at it. Des |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Des Small
wrote: Go Fig wrote: In article , Mxsmanic wrote: Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". But isn't it the case that Barcelona did well out of the games, both in terms of infrastructure and a PR boost? Yes it did, but it is the exception. Expenditures were equal to income, but only a government can survive with that accounting model. But the taxpayers of Spain did foot the bill for about 20% of the investment. Is it fair to ask the people of Madrid to subsidise all the benefits in infrastructure to Barcelona ? They were, at least, reasonably good shepherds of the monies entrusted to them... particularly with operational expenditures. One of the main reason that I oppose the London bid is precisely that they resolutely vowed not to tinker with the Tube, which is deeply in need of having money (intelligently) thrown at it. Are the people of London going to pay for it, or the greater UK tax base ? jay Sat Jun 04, 2005 Des |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
nitram wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:49:32 +0100, (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco writes: It's not bogus. What the hell do you know about it? I see a lot of people losing time and money whenever the Olympics come to town. A few people get rich, everyone else suffers (including, in many cases, the taxpayers). You didn't answer the question. My Greek dentist told me that it would take at least two generations to pay off the debts incurred by holding the Olympic Games in Athens, I'm sure it probably will, but I'm interested in why the proposed urban regeneration deprived areas of London is supposed to be "bogus" exactly, and all Mixi has in 'evidence' is that other host countries lose money. well, duh. Does he have evidence it's fraudulent- it's not going to happen? No, and besides, if urban regeneration of that part of London 'lost' money (given taxpayers are always ultimately involved in these kinds of regeneration projects) that may be neither here nor there anyway. -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Go Fig writes:
In article , Des Small wrote: Go Fig wrote: In article , Mxsmanic wrote: Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". But isn't it the case that Barcelona did well out of the games, both in terms of infrastructure and a PR boost? Yes it did, but it is the exception. Expenditures were equal to income, but only a government can survive with that accounting model. But the taxpayers of Spain did foot the bill for about 20% of the investment. Is it fair to ask the people of Madrid to subsidise all the benefits in infrastructure to Barcelona ? Yes. They were, at least, reasonably good shepherds of the monies entrusted to them... particularly with operational expenditures. One of the main reason that I oppose the London bid is precisely that they resolutely vowed not to tinker with the Tube, which is deeply in need of having money (intelligently) thrown at it. Are the people of London going to pay for it, or the greater UK tax base ? For what? I live in Bristol, but I would not object to my taxes being spent on the Tube, which I use, as they are on motorways up and down the country, which I mostly don't. Des |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:22:15 -0700, Go Fig wrote:
Are the people of London going to pay for it, or the greater UK tax base ? The current funding proposals are UK Lottery and London Council Tax. So no general taxation other than for London residents. Jim. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Well, people will stlll be coming to London, Paris, Madrid, NYC or
Moscow. They're hardly out of the way destinations. I don't see your point." England should put money into the London Tube and into economic development in the Midlands cities. Forget stadiums. "The regeneration in Manchester just because of the _Commonwealth_ Games was pretty significant, and proved a real boost to the city." It was probably 10% or less than the cost of hosting a real Olympics. Here in New York, I don't know a single person who wants the Olympics. We're hoping some European city gets suckered into hosting it. The construction projects would create massive disruptions for city residents for months if not years leading up to the games, and our taxes are high enough without having to pay off Olympics debt. Who really cares about the Olympics anymore anyway, with ten different 24-7 sports channels on the telly? What sport would anyone want to watch that you can't watch normally - synchronized diving? team handball? ribbon gymnastics? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"For lack of a better word, it comes down to the 'prestige' of being a
Host City... being in the club." Which is not worth billions of dollars in debt. If transportation improvements and other infrastructure projects are important, then just build them and forget the useless stadiums and athlete housing. Atlanta, Seoul, and Salt Lake City haven't exactly become tourist destinations. Barcelona is the one arguable case of a city that raised its profile by hosting an Olympics - although it's certainly possible that it would have become a major destination anyway. But the argument that the Olympics give a city visibility definitely wouldn't apply to Paris, London, Madrid, or New York. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Guardian: Paris for a day | Kuacou | Europe | 8 | February 25th, 2005 11:10 AM |
RER and bus tariffs in Paris and around | Giovanni Drogo | Europe | 2 | February 23rd, 2004 08:18 PM |
need advice on european itinerary | sean | Europe | 7 | February 9th, 2004 03:12 PM |
American Restaurant in Paris | Earl Evleth | Europe | 387 | December 22nd, 2003 07:59 PM |
Paris metro: Carte Orange Vs Paris Visite | Eugene | Europe | 27 | October 17th, 2003 02:32 PM |