Breaking news: Some politicians
do understand budgets and respect their constituents
wishes. Yesterday the Norwegian government voted against
guaranteeing finances for the 2022 Winter Olympics, thereby
ensuring the capital of Oslo would have to back out of the bidding
process. Five other cities already jumped ship, leaving Beijing,
China and Almaty, Kazakhstan the only two in the running.
Deadspin
notes that “in a non-binding referendum in February, 55.9
percent of Norwegians said they didn’t want the Games.” The site
also highlights some of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC)
ridiculous, costly demands, like a cocktail party on the king’s
dime:
- Cars and drivers for IOC members, with special dedicated
highway lanes - Street lights synchronized to prioritize IOC traffic
- Separate airport entrance for IOC members
- Hotel mini-bars must have only Coca-Cola products
- Samsung phones for all IOC members
- All meeting rooms must be kept at exactly 68 degrees.
- All furniture must have “Olympic appearance.”
- “IOC members will be received with a smile on arrival at
hotel”
“The overall price tag was put at $51 billion, scaring off
politicians and taxpayers and leaving the International Olympic
Committee with a major image crisis,”
reports the Associated Press. Who could blame those Norwegians?
The IOC, apparently. The committee shot back with this zinger:
“Senior politicians in Norway appear not to have been properly
briefed on the process and were left to take their decisions on the
basis of half-truths and factual inaccuracies.”
Seriously? Just look at
Russia which this past winter hosted the most expensive games
to date, or Greece
which hosted the then-most expensive games 10 years ago. The
Olympic stadiums are in ruins, the former country is on the brink
of recession, and the latter still has one of the world’s stinkiest
debt problems.
Explains Yahoo:
Public expenditures on sports infrastructure and event
operations necessarily entail reductions in other government
services, an expansion of government borrowing, or an increase in
taxation, all of which produce a drag on the local economy. At best
public expenditures on sports-related construction or operation
have zero net impact on the economy as the employment benefits
of the project are matched by employment losses associated
with higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere in the system.
It’s a recurring problem with big events that require big
stadiums and promise big money, and America isn’t immune. In the
bankrupt city of Detroit, political leaders are still pushing for a
taxpayer subsidized hockey stadium that
simply cannot bring in the revenue the politicians promise.
Even when money isn’t the primary issue, the process reeks of
bad juju: Orlando only recently decided to drop an eminent domain
case against
a family-owned church that the city hoped to pave over for a
Major League Soccer stadium.
In the National Football League (NFL), the teams of which are
owned mostly by billionaires who are good at twisting the arms of
legislators: eighty-seven
percent of stadium capital financing comes out of taxpayer
dollars, according to ESPN columnist Gregg Easterbrook. While the
NFL promises Super Bowl host cities will make $500 to 600 million
from all the tourism, sports economist Robert Baade
figures “$50 to $60 million would be a generous
appraisal.”
No smart city should want an NFL team, explains Reason TV’s
Alexis Garcia. The same applies for the Olympics:
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rAkLCu
via IFTTT