On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:18:15 +0000, wrote:

On 15 Mar 2007 14:17:59 -0700, "alex_t"
wrote:


Its probable that a certain amount of tourist income will be generated,
but experience shows that it usually falls well short of the estimates
(remember those thousands of empty seats in the broadcasts from
Athens?).

There are many other ways that the money will be returned - one of the
major is cost of broadcast rights. Plus selling the new flats in
Olympic village, etc.
And what may I ask are these things going to do for the poor and
homeless of London .

They will generate a great deal more homeless and poor, if history is any guide.

Salt Lake City promised 2500 units of low-cost houing; only 150 were delivered,
and prices for residential hotels increased 300%. The year before the Sydney
Olympics, tenant evictions increased by 400%. In Atlanta, Project Homeward
Bound gave the homeless a one-way ticket out of town before the Olympics began.
In Calgary, none of the promised low-cost housing units were delivered, only a
few university dorms. (Not Olympic-related, but Habitat 67, a low cost housing
project for the 1967 World Fail in Montreal, became luxury condominiums.)

And how will London's £600 million security budget be spent? In racist
repressions, most likely. In Los Angeles, 1984, the black communities
surrounding the olympic sites were cordoned off and police required IDs from
everyone entering or leaving the areas. Similar arrangements for Atlanta, 1996.
Muslims in Athens, 2004, were subjected to increased surveillance in their
mosques, and mass document checks. Amnesty International said "security for the
2004 Olympics is used in Greece as a pretext to systematically break
international treaties on the right to refugees". Laws were passed in Sydney to
allow increased surveillance, search and seizure, and military involvement in
law enforcement, just for the Olympics, but, surprise!, they are still in force.

I lived in Montreal for the 1976 Olympics - great party, but the bill was only
finally paid off in 2002. I lived in Calgary for the 1988 Olympics - great
party but a $910 million debt, and no measurable long-term economic benefit.
Sydney was proud to host a "self-financing" Olympics in 2000 but still got
burdened with a $2.3 billion debt.

And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs, but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games? WTF?

I can see the PR spin now -- "Complaints have been raised that cash fares are
far in excess of Oyster fares. To make the system fairer for everyone, Oyster
fares, as of next week, will rise to the level of cash fares, which are also
going up by an amount only modestly higher than inflation. This will help make
the Olympic experience the best that it can be for residents and tourists alike.
This is a temporary measure, and will last only as long as we are paying off the
Olympic debt."

They will generate a great deal more homeless and poor, if history is any guide.

Rents in London are already extremely high - noone really poor cannot
afford them already. The only potentially damaging change would be
rise of the council tax - but so far it was promised that it won't
increase for the Olympics.


Salt Lake City promised 2500 units of low-cost houing; only 150 were delivered,
and prices for residential hotels increased 300%. The year before the Sydney
Olympics, tenant evictions increased by 400%. In Atlanta, Project Homeward
Bound gave the homeless a one-way ticket out of town before the Olympics began.
In Calgary, none of the promised low-cost housing units were delivered, only a
few university dorms.

All those places had quite low housing prices to start with.


Not Olympic-related, but Habitat 67, a low cost housing
project for the 1967 World Fail in Montreal, became luxury condominiums.

It was planned as "affordable" housing, not "cheap" housing. And it
was planned to be several sizes of what was originally build - thus
inflating the prices.


And how will London's £600 million security budget be spent? In racist
repressions, most likely.

Paranoid much?
Never gonna happen.


Laws were passed in Sydney to
allow increased surveillance, search and seizure, and military involvement in
law enforcement, just for the Olympics, but, surprise!, they are still in force.

Don't worry, UK is already surveillance society - nothing to change
here.


I lived in Montreal for the 1976 Olympics - great party, but the bill was only
finally paid off in 2002.

Yes, that were the most expensive Olympics in history, coupled with
very bad management - not typical for the most other Olympics.


I lived in Calgary for the 1988 Olympics - great
party but a $910 million debt, and no measurable long-term economic benefit.

Wrong! It turned a profit of around $150 million + significant
regeneration of the city.


Sydney was proud to host a "self-financing" Olympics in 2000 but still got
burdened with a $2.3 billion debt.

Pure speculation.
Did you read article by Maryann Abbs and really believed it?


And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs, but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games? WTF?

Well, that was only speculation of journalist. The BBC one.

"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...

And now London's TfL budget is being raided to finance construction costs,
but
they also have to deliver better public transportation for the games?
WTF?


Of course, what may actually happen is that the ODA will directly fund
transport improvements, like the £104m announced today for Stratford
Regional:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6457359.stm

Paul

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:25:21PM -0700, alex_t wrote:

Well, I live in London only for a year (and 15 days), but I totally
support the Olympics ;-)

Then may I politely suggest that if you think they're such a great idea
you pay for them? I certainly don't want to.

Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

What profiteth a man, if he win a flame war, yet lose his cool?

Then may I politely suggest that if you think they're such a great idea
you pay for them? I certainly don't want to.

Well, amazing logic.
So... can I get a refund of all my National Insurance contributions?
(as a migrant on work permit I cannot get any benefits, so why should
I pay NI?) Also I'd like to get some of my taxes back, especially the
part spent on roads (as I don't have a car), trains (as I don't use
them), buses (don't use 'em either), child support benefits (as I
don't have a family).

And back in the real work - I live in London and pay my council tax in
full, so I guess I already pay for the Olympics in some way. I also
suffer from constant construction work - as I live on the border of
the Olympic park site.


Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.

It is certainly not up to me to decide whether Olympics should be in
London (not to mention that I can't vote).

You know up here in Lancashire we got all this claptrap about some
big games and athletics fiasco that was being held in Manchester maybe
a couple of years or so ago ,was it the commonwealth games or
something ? . Oh yes the fiasco was going to do wonders for the city
of Manchester and would place no burden on the tax payers of
Manchester in the event the fiasco did bugger all for Manchester
except cause a lot of traffic congestion cost a mint in police
resources and also put up the council tax for the people of Greater
Manchester and two of the built venues are now unoccupied and dropping
to pieces .

Commonwealth games is minor event, which is not known outside
Commonwealth (and I suspect not very popular inside Commonwealth too).
Olympics are one of the most well known sport events with genuine
interest worldwide.


WHY ?????? .

Because they stink!

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:37:13 +0000, David Cantrell
wrote:

Until you and like-minded people do that, I will vote for *any* political
party that promises to cancel the games.

You will vote for a political party that promises to do something
that, legally, it can't?

To you and all people like you I have only one thing to say
if you do not like the way you are treated in this country because no
one asked you to come here .

Please, elaborate, who exactly do you include in category of "people
like me"?

And in case if you didn't get my point from the original message - I
was making a joke in response to David Cantrell's message. I find his
suggestion to me quite stupid, since nobody has ultimate control over
spending of their tax contributions (and in case if I still need to
spell this out - I am paying all taxes, and not complaining).

Although I may not feel any direct attack on my wallet due to the
games I feel sure this poxy government will invent some devious scheme
to get more cash out of us all to help with the funding of the fiasco.

Hear hear!

Well known for causing extra financial commitments for the host
country the UK cannot afford to buy the games so it shouldn't.
End of story.

Well, actually - to be completely fair I'm slowly drifting to the same
point of view:

1. The games could be managed much better (reusing existing venues,
spreading venues around the country, etc).
2. There could be much more commercial sponsorship (as far as I
remember last Olympics in the US were finances without any tax-payers
money used). One could imagine banks with their super-profits
participating in that.
3. And of course ability of New Labour to mess everything hardly adds
any optimism.

But still - Olympics are fun and interesting event. I was actually
conceived during 1980 Olympics in Moscow ;-D