Watch this video where Nation magazine sports editor and columnist, Dave Zirin, lays out the history of the modern Olympics and explains why bringing the 2016 games to Chicago would be a disaster.
Crain’s Chicago reports that anew independent study of the 2016 Olympic plan debunks their inflated claims of economic benefits. The new study, by Anderson Economic Group of Michigan, estimates the games would generate $4.4 billion in total economic impact. Download the report. Since the 2016 folks say the games will cost about $5 billion (No …
Anita Beaty directs the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless and she was in Atlanta for the run up the 1996 Olympics and has lived through the delivery and aftermath. She warns us not to believe the hype. Will you listen to her?
You can also listen to and embed an audio player for her remarks (6 minutes) at Evoca.com!
In the Sun-Times, Mayor Daley says it would take an earthquake or a tornado to make us foot the bill for the 2016 games.
“They have been very, very fiscally responsible in regards to their presentation. I really believe that. Unless … ,” Daley said without completing the sentence.
Unless what? What would it take to put taxpayers on the hook?
“An earthquake or something or a tornado,” he said. “I really believe that, because we don’t have to build all of these facilities. That’s the difference.
————————–
Well, did you just feel something? The city has already spent or committed over $200 million for the purchase, demolition, clean-up and enhancement of the Olympic Village site.
David Zirin is The Nation’s sports editor. He writes about Chicago’s bid in his September 22 column: Recently Barack Obama criticized planned protests at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh because, as he knew from his Chicago days, “focusing on concrete, local, immediate issues that have an impact on people’s lives is what really makes a …
From the Chicago League of Women Voters (published in the Chicago Tribune, September 20):
The League of Women Voters of Chicago opposes the selection of Chicago as the site of the 2016 Summer Olympics. We do so in reliance on the principle of our organization that democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens and requires that governmental bodies protect the people’s right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible.
Preparation of the Chicago bid to host the 2016 Olympics did not provide us with adequate notice of the proposal as it developed, and we had no opportunity to comment or question aspects of the proposal.
Many questions exist; the bid proposal, ostensibly a privately developed plan, relies on substantial public funding and facilities. With declining revenue to fund existing city and Park District costs, what sources exist to fund construction of the Olympics facilities? Will TIF funds be used? And from which TIF districts? On what basis does the Olympics planning committee believe that the federal government will provide the funds for transit repair and extension or the security costs?
Our organization believes that the parks should be used for public recreation only, consistent with and enhancing their aesthetic quality. Buildings should be kept to a minimum. Funds should be distributed equitably for maintenance and development of parks throughout the city. Construction of the venues in the parks will eliminate open space for residents’ use. This is space in which an individual can walk, children can play games and families can gather.
(more…)
As reported in today’s Crain’s Chicago Business:
Mayor Richard M. Daley and Patrick Ryan assure Chicago taxpayers that a safety net of insurance would insulate them from the financial risks of hosting the 2016 Olympics.
But the insurance policies Mr. Ryan says he’ll secure would cover only about $1.1 billion of the $3.8-billion operating budget that the mayor’s Olympic point man has drawn up for the games. In many key areas, no insurer stands between taxpayers and the risk of revenue shortfalls or cost overruns.
For example, there’s no insurance against the risk that private lenders won’t shell out $1 billion to finance construction of the Olympic Village, as Messrs. Daley and Ryan predict they will. And there’s no coverage against shortfalls in corporate sponsorship sales, which they predict will rake in $1.8 billion, two-thirds more than London expects to collect for the 2012 games.
So, it’s official. Chicago’s premiere business publication has looked at the “insurance” and found huge holes. Guess who gets to fill those holes? JOIN US ON SEPTEMBER 29 AT CITY HALL, 5:30PM TO PROTEST THIS MESS!
No Games doesn’t know who these folks are but we love their sense of humor. They’ve obviously done their home work. They did expalin themselves to GamesBid.com.
From an essay by Steve Bartin in Newgeography.com:
Most American cities chose not to bid on the 2016 summer Olympics and with good reason. With the exception of the 1984 Los Angeles games, the Olympics has proved a big time money loser in city after city. More often than not, it has been staged more for the prestige – think of Berlin in 1936 or China in 2008 – it brings to regimes, particularly autocratic ones.
In Chicago, prestige is important, but graft is the real king. In Chicago, one of the most corrupt big cities, the Olympics represents, more than anything, a grand chance for a giant heist.
Economists have a technical term for profiting from the political process: it’s called rent-seeking. Chicago’s politically favored businesses, unions, and insiders with ties to Mayor Daley and Alderman Burke have perfected this activity. The Olympics just provide another opportunity to clean up at the public expense. – read the full essay –
According to the ETOA, in fact, “there is no strong link” between hosting any sporting event and growth in tourism. “The audiences regularly cited for such events as the Olympics are exaggerated [and] attendees at the Games displace normal visitors and scare tourists away. Both Sydney and Barcelona had ‘excellent’ Olympic Games, but their tourism industries have not significantly benefited.”
