Cost to B.C. to Host Olympics Higher than Promised

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You need to take that with a grain of salt, as they're comparing it to last year's Great Recession figures. The proof will be a sustained rise in tourist visits over the next couple of years.

I'd modify that statement further:

"The proof will be a sustained rise in tourist visits over the next couple of years, directly or indirectly attributable to the Games."

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

I'd modify that statement further:

"The proof will be a sustained rise in tourist visits over the next couple of years, directly or indirectly attributable to the Games."

I'm reminded of a family vacation in Hawaii at the end of 1986. When one of the other vacationing couples found out we were from Vancouver, the husband said he'd heard so many good things about Expo'86 from some friends that he's decided to take the family to see Expo for themselves the following summer.

We tried to explain that Expo'86 was already over & being dismantled, but he'd had enough beer already to prevent reasoning with him.
I wonder if they made it here for Expo'86 '87

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

No, just darkness and sour skittles. Which is just as bad, if not worse.

I don't have an ideology to protect. I come down on the side of reason, and fact, regardless where it falls.

The fact that you see your opinion as the one true objective one and mine as a "biased" lunatic leftard fringe shows that you are protecting your ideology.

People like me are not wishing for failure. We're just taking in all the facts. We're not cheerleading for one side or the other and ignoring/attacking anything that disproves our pre-determined opinion. Sure, there are people on my side of things whose tunnel vision is as bad as mr.x's, but I'm not one of them.

I'll fully admit the olympics went much better than I thought it might, from a civil liberties and city morale perspective, and I'm happy for it. But from a financial perspective? Still not convinced.

Originally Posted by EdinVan

I'd modify that statement further:

"The proof will be a sustained rise in tourist visits over the next couple of years, directly or indirectly attributable to the Games."

I'd agree with this too. No one can yet claim success or failure yet.

[Yume-sama]

I don't think I was ever the one who prescribed anybody to be "Left", "Right", or "Centre"

But, you are right, there are many many people who ignore anything that doesn't fit their view.

[Hourglass]

Promises get broken by politicians of all stripes all the time (fast ferries, cough cough). While I agree there should be accountability, unfortunately these issue mainly find traction with people who have an axe to grind.

To be fair, though, the inherent fallacy in long-term forecasting is that one can only try to predict "known knowns" (gosh, that sounds disturbingly like Donald Rumsfeld). When the Games were awarded to Vancouver in 2003, who could have predicted with any certainty the skyrocketing cost of labor and materials in 2007-2008 (although I'm sure they would've made forecasts for inflation etc etc)? How could anyone have predicted with certainty the impact of the Great Recession in 2008-2009 on sponsorships and even attendance -- although, again, I'm sure they tried.

In light of that, did the Libs REALLY mislead the public?

Trying to quantify the exposure Vancouver received globally won't be measured over months or even a couple of years, although there will likely be immediate spin-off benefits. Try like a decade or more.