Paris the world's choice for the 2012 Olympics

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

"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?

"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.