Chicago's Olympic bid: An expensive proposition

[IndianaGreen]

Chicago's Olympic bid: An expensive proposition

The Windy City would face a tough financial challenge in hosting the Olympics, experts say, but it's well prepared with stadiums, infrastructure.

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: September 30, 2009: 8:46 AM ET

Chicago 2016, the organization leading the effort to host the games, expects a cost of $3.8 billion, including a "rainy day" fund of $450 million in case of unforeseen increases.

But there's good reason to be skeptical of that projection, said Robert Livingstone, producer of GamesBids.com and a leading expert in the Olympic selection process. Host cities routinely overrun their Olympic budgets, he said.

"It's going to be more expensive than we think it's going to be, because it typically is," Livingstone said. "I think every city is going to lose money. It's not an efficient event."

The bidding process alone is costing Chicago about $100 million, even if it doesn't win, Livingstone noted.

An argument often made by host city advocates is that presenting the international spectacle is good for a local economy. But such "trickle-down effects," like benefits to local businesses, are "almost impossible to measure," Livingstone said.

"I think a lot of people look at the Olympics, and they try to justify it by how much money it adds to the economy," said Livingstone. "(But) if you're in this to make money and improve your economy, you're in it for the wrong reasons."

A Chicago 2016 spokesman, who asked not be named, stood by the $3.8 billion projection. "Our numbers are completely feasible thanks to the infrastructure already in place, the number of venues already built and the temporary nature of the majority of those we're planning to build," he wrote, in an e-mail.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/news/economy/chicago_olympics_economics/index.htm?postversion=2009093008

[stray cat]

1. Probably cheaper than the bail out and stimulus packages with better job creation

[bhikkhu]

2. Its really hard to say, but I think it would be a positive thing

I'd challenge anyone to find a negative assessment of the net effect of the 96 Olympics on Atlanta, for instance. I lived there in 93/94 and recall all the investments in infrastructure going on. Since then I've heard only good things about how the Olympics benefited the city. I haven't been back, but a google search didn't find any complaints or negatives.

I'd suspect that the Chicago Olympic bid "controversy" is just another avenue of criticism open for the RW. I've no doubt that China overspent, but that's far from necessary, and there are plenty of benefits to hosting the Olympics if its done right.