Spareink

July 06, 2005

Olympics: Losers and Winners

So the Olympics weren't given to NY--surprise, surprise.

Do the Olympics do more good than harm to a city? Let's compare:

Benefits wrought by the Olympics coming to your hometown:

1.) Tourists (and the spending that they bring)
2.) Momentary fame (and the sexiness that it brings)
3.) Permanent structures (and the utility that they bring; plus, these cool new builds are sexy, too)
4.) Real Estate owners make more money (who can make more money with higher rents & higher sales prices; especially small property owners in areas likely to be redeveloped)
5.) Temporary Jobs (always a good thing, everything else being equal)

Let's compare this with the negatives wrought by the Olympics coming to your hometown:

1.) Tourists (and the crowds that they bring)
2.) Momentary fame (and the problems that heightened attention brings, especially upon certain people)
3.) Permanent structures (massive new structures and complexes that most likely aren't needed, since the market hasn't caused them to be built thus far)
4.) Real estate owners lose more money (with higher taxes to pay; and, small property owners in areas likely to be redeveloped: in this post-Kelo era, their property is more likely to be taken through eminent domain)
5.) Higher rents (historically, rents zoom up tremendously during the Olympics and only go down slightly afterwards)
6.) Higher taxes (to pay for it all of the new construction & the costs of the Olympics that always run over)
7.) Heightened terrorism fears (Especially in NY)

The positives fall into two categories: money (for certain select groups) and sexiness (for everyone).

And the negatives fall into two categories: everyone paying out more money for all of this, in various forms (and, more generally, suffering inconveniences for it) and, secondly, select groups of people being hurt in particular by the Olympics.

The Olympics--in other words--take money from everyone, inconvenience everyone, and hurt certain groups in particular; in order to redistribute the money to certain other select groups--all while being really sexy and cool. Okay. That's it. This pattern sounds familiar...

Desperately seeking the Olympics, to me, is the sign of a second-rate city -- the way desperately seeking anything is the sign of a second-rate anything. I always think of the Olympics going to Sarajevo in 1984, and upon hearing that NY was a finalist competing to be the chosen city, I kept on thinking, "When did NY start competing with Sarajevo?".

But - interestingly - the finalists this year were all first-class world cities: Paris, London, Moscow, and Madrid. The summer Olymics always goes to a great city, but this year it was between the best of the best. This suggests that something has changed in the Olympics, or that this year is an aberration. I think it's a deeper change, because this is consistent with the ideology of the Olympics suggested above, if the above analysis is accurate. The inevitable consequence of that ideology in practice is turning the group into an exclusive club of elites--the best turns into the best of the best--and the only way of joining it is for the elders to declare their approval of you. As always in that world, life is great if you're chosen to be in the party, but that's it.

Separately - but still on the Olympics (and since I haven't yet launched my site to hold people to their predictions) - I'll admit here that I made a prediction in 2001 that came false. Shortly after 9/11, I predicted that in the first possible summer Olympics that were to be chosen after 9/11, NY would be chosen as the host city, as a 9/11 sympathy vote. I even almost invested in some NY real estate near the neighborhood in Greenpoint that would've been developed for the stadium, expecting to cash out then. (Instead, I started a company and invested my money in myself!). My analysis proved wrong and the reason is, after 9/11, NY briefly had the sympathy of the world. But what I didn't expect was for Bush to go into Iraq and for the world media opinion to turn against the US. I didn't know Bush well enough in 2001. Once it was clear that the US was going to go into Iraq and that the European media wouldn't stand for it, then it became clear that we wouldn't win this Olympics bid.

If this analysis is correct, then the natural question is, "How come it went to Blair, Bush's staunchest ally?". Blair's sin of following the strong man (as opposed by being the strong man) is forgiveable and he is, after all, fundamentally a good European who strongly supports the EU and, formerly, the EU Constitution.

Posted by Morgan at 06:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.spareink.com/mt-tb.cgi/52

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Olympics: Losers and Winners:

» thailand from thailand
thailand [Read More]

Tracked on August 6, 2005 10:36 AM

Comments

Posted by: Matt at July 8, 2005 01:21 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments:

E-mail this entry to a friend!

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):