The Times is trying once again to undermine support for the NYC 2012 Olympic bid. You can agree or disagree with the merits of the bid, but this article is so partisan that it leaves out so much basic information that one has to wonder whether they're on the Cablevision payroll.
For example, the article spends much time talking about the costs associated with the arenas and stadiums after the Olympics wrap up in 2012. The article complains that the host cities in Athens and Sydney are forced to subsidize the operations of certain venues, and that other venues have fallen into disrepair.
Well, there are a couple of differences between NYC, Athens and Sydney.
Difference #1: Population. The population in NYC is 8 million, and that number is millions higher taking into account the surrounding metropolitan area. The population of Athens, Greece is 750,000 and the surrounding area has about 3.5 million. Sydney's population is 170,000 and the surrounding area has a population of about 4 million. Higher populations mean that more people are in a position to use the venues.
Difference #2: The Olympic stadium. The NFL NY Jets would own and operate the stadium, which would also serve as an extension to the existing convention center. That is a significant cost that wouldn't be incurred by the City on an ongoing basis. Other venues would require upkeep, but all public spaces require ongoing upkeep. International level competitive facilities will have an easier time of generating interest in competitions because of the higher profile in NYC than in the aforementioned cities.
UPDATE:
The latest stadium vote is supposed to take place today. Silver and Bruno aren't sure if they want this jobs producer, which includes the expansion of the 7 line, the expansion of the convention center, and all the economic benefits associated with the stadium. Then again, this is NY and what makes sense economically is often overlooked.
Technorati: Olympics
No comments:
Post a Comment