Olympics Cost BC $925 ? Less than G20 ?

[Michael Hardner]

cbc

he 2010 Winter Olympic Games cost the B.C. government $925 million to stage and host, according to the latest figures released on Friday.

The report said the province spent $765 million staging the Games, and an additional $160 million for activities "designed to maximize the benefits of hosting the Games."

In 2002, as part of the Olympic bid, the province originally committed $600 million to host the Games.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/09/bc-olympic-games-cost.html#ixzz0tCy4CJhP

Ok, it was a cost overrun but not obscenely so, as was the case in Montreal. And people seeing the Olympics likely thought " I would like to go there. " Those seeing images of the G20 probably didn't get that same 'touristy feel'.

[GostHacked]

Interesting comparison. Mr. Hardner.

Olympics ran for 2 weeks, and the cost included everything. Even the facilities in which these events took place.

G20 ran for 3 days and it was just for security.

[Smallc]

Ummm...that's just the cost to BC, not the total cost.

[M.Dancer]

Ummm...that's just the cost to BC, not the total cost.

Indeed....subtract the revenues that were earned from international broadcast rights, attendence, sponsorships...I am shocked at you Harner....shocked.

[dre]

I thought the 900 for the olypics is outrageous as well... but the G20 thing is just insane.

[Wilber]

I think the Olympics were a good deal for BC but I wouldn't want Campbell and Hansen teaching my kids math.

[msj]

According to Gary Mason the cost for security was another $1 billion on top of the $925.

After the G20/G8 nonsense this seems quite reasonable; which is sad.

I was against the Olympics coming to Vancouver/Whistler in the first place and I would not support another run for them again.

But, overall, it wasn't nearly as bad as I feared, and even I like a good party once in awhile.

[sharkman]

And does that 925 include the Canada line, the Sea to Sky Highway and all of the Olympic projects? I know BC got some federal money for some of these, but I'm curious as to the total amount spent, not just BC's amount.

[Bonam]

And does that 925 include the Canada line, the Sea to Sky Highway

I don't know if you can really classify these as purely Olympic expenses. Certainly the requirement to have them ready by 2010 sped these project along, but they were nevertheless important improvements to the regional transit system, that should have eventually been carried out Olympics or no. The Sea to Sky had long been a source of safety concerns and improving it was inevitable. Expansion of the sky train system has also been a long multi-stage process, and a line to the airport was certainly a logical step to take, as is a proposed line to UBC.

[sharkman]

Without the promise by the BC government to upgrade the Sea to Sky highway, the Olympics would not have been awarded to Vancouver. But I see your point about the Canada line.

My point is that the total amount spent specifically on the Olympics, not just the amount spent by BC, surely dwarfs the G20 amount, no matter what the OP thinks.

[msj]

The Canada Line, Sea to Sky highway and the new convention space would have been built eventually anyway.

The other infrastructure (oval in Richmond, luge track etc) may or may not be put to good use but we will see.

The point is that it cost about $2 billion for security/photo ops/advertising for the Olympics for several weeks (arguably years - I bet the cost for the olympic ads on the side of the new ferries that traveled from Germany to BC via the Panama Canal is included in the $925 million number) whereas it cost around $1 billion for security/photo ops/advertising for the less than one week G20/G8 [a note about that advertising - as a subscriber to the New Yorker magazine I was quite impressed with the $3 or $4 million spent by Canada/provinces but I'm sure the Walrus wasn't impressed].

While I would have preferred to never have hosted the Olympics in the first place at least we got some bang for our bucks in terms of positive worldwide attention.

The G20/G8 does not and did not provide much attention and will provide little lasting benefit to Canada with the exception of any agreements that the politicians could have agreed on anywhere at any time without thousands of police around.

[42OtterBC]

If you ask me, both events were meaningless to Canada in the long run.

With or without the Olympics Canada is well-known world wide both for it's populace and beautiful landscape. It was needless posturing for the global community in both cases.

The several billion dollars wasted on these events could have easily been pumped into areas that need it such as economical stimulus or given to the provinces to reduce educational cut-backs and other cost measures that WILL effect Canada in the long run.

More poor decision making both in Ottawa and Victoria.

[sharkman]

Did we need any extra stimulus? It doesn't appear so and one could argue that we don't need the olympics, we don't need expo, we don't need space exploration, we don't need the UN, we don't need scientists studying Mars. But these things are greater than the economics, the benefits or costs they add up to. They help people dream, to give them hope and a vision of what could be. And such benefits can not be analyzed so easily.

[NA Carter]

If you ask me, both events were meaningless to Canada in the long run.

With or without the Olympics Canada is well-known world wide both for it's populace and beautiful landscape. It was needless posturing for the global community in both cases.

The several billion dollars wasted on these events could have easily been pumped into areas that need it such as economical stimulus or given to the provinces to reduce educational cut-backs and other cost measures that WILL effect Canada in the long run.

More poor decision making both in Ottawa and Victoria.

Marketing Canada is a key government function. Was the Olympics vital to the survival of rank and file Canadians? No; however, marketing this country does have a wider impact than providing a venue for athletes to shine. The Olympics was as affective as the South Asian trade junkets that Chretien used to drum up trade deals. It's an opportunity for job creation, not only through tourism and Olympic support occupations, but for future business development as well.

If we look at government spending on strictly economic terms, there are many programs that could be questioned on a dollars and cents basis. Should we spend the money on the Canadian flags that we give to retiring Canadian Forces members? It doesn't produce anything for the vast majority of Canadians, but it is a morale booster for our soldiers, and it helps instill pride in our country. Do the vast majority of Canadians need a First Nations community centre in downtown Toronto? Of course not, but for the users of this facility, it's a vital link to their culture and an employment support network.

Economically, I could argue that pumping more money into post-secondary education is counterproductive. By making university more accessable, we increase the number of students, graduates and entrants into a competitive job market. Some occupations that ten years ago offered $35-40K a year to start, now start at $26-30K because the labour pool is so much more competitive. Graduates will take less for the same work in order to secure any work at all. The value of a university education is degraded, and the EI and welfare rolls become more educated.