• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Another location says no to Olympic bid

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
Ummm, how about $20 Trillion in debt?
I here that and I can understand.
But its just that (and not for an Olympics but for most anythings even off much less costs) there will always be better uses for money than simply creating for the sake of making nice things. And if that approach ends up the only approach there simply wouldn't be much around that is........well.....nice.
 

Lorenzzo

Be The Snow
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,984
Location
UT
SLC's approach to it's potential Olympic bid is so very Utah in that it is motivated by profit, underlaid with prudence and practicality and would leverage the populace's culture and desire to be seen on the world stage.

UT is a fiscally well managed state where industrialists have significant political control. It doesn't have a great deal of focus on progressive things and the mass of voters don't really push it in that direction. Because of that, prosperity is king. It insulated UT to a great degree during the last downturn. UT is something of a hybrid between the US and a third worldish country.

The 2002 Olympics paid off for many of the wealthy and powerful here. As the world struggled with the reality of staging future Winter Olympics it generated thought and discussion as to UT becoming one of several permanent venues, or at least periodic, as the potential for profit might be even greater the next time(s) around. There isn't likely much expensive infrastructure required for another hosting and that would likely be one of the conditions. The WO if held in UT wouldn't need non-revenue generating venues to be built for things like Snow Polo or Synchronized Snow Velodroming. The committee forming is charged with running the numbers and establishing more specific conditions.

As other potential venues succumb, UT's leverage and opportunity grows.
 

scott43

So much better than a pro
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
13,552
Location
Great White North
I here that and I can understand.
But its just that (and not for an Olympics but for most anythings even off much less costs) there will always be better uses for money than simply creating for the sake of making nice things. And if that approach ends up the only approach there simply wouldn't be much around that is........well.....nice.
Well..I think people are upset about the level of corruption. I personally get irked when a charity asks me to give time or money to their cause and then have them show up in a Bentley wearing an Armani suit. They're at that level..now add in the fact they're additionally taking money via the back-door for favours. I just don't see that as nice things. Nice things is healthcare for the poor. Lowered child mortality rates..those kinds of things.
 

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
Well..I think people are upset about the level of corruption. I personally get irked when a charity asks me to give time or money to their cause and then have them show up in a Bentley wearing an Armani suit. They're at that level..now add in the fact they're additionally taking money via the back-door for favours. I just don't see that as nice things. Nice things is healthcare for the poor. Lowered child mortality rates..those kinds of things.
yea sure there are crooks. And fwiw unfortunately so are many (or maybe most) politicians. Most are just corporate pawnsimo.

Sure health care or for that matter not having any poor people and/or unfortunate kids is nice. Heart breaking nice to be honest.

But nice is also having well maintained and nice pleasant places to go and see and do ......as we go about our daily routines and free time. We cant let everything crumble. There will always be something more needy to spend money on but other stuff has its importance and place too. That imo is not mean nor suggesting not to care. Everytime tax dollars repaves roads, improves a park, a shoreline or part of a countryside, restores a structure, an airport, an arena etc,etc or just have something nice.. we can always say that money could be used where it may be needed more as that stuff may not been in dire need . But then do we wait till things are in such decay? Do we let our infrastructure crumble? No longer have nice places to go , see and do? Do we go without some things all together? how pleasant would most anything really be with that approach? Its not imo mean nor is it considered not caring if we keep , maintain and build things while the money could be spent on more needy situations. It sounds mean but it would be a pretty ugly scenario and honestly in my neck of the woods its getting that way. Less and less is pleasant and nice because there is always something more needy of the money.

But with that line of thinking I would ask and I mean this not to judge nor to get personal in any negative way but just make an honest point/question for sake of discussion. I don't know if you own a home. But if you do or wherever you might live. Do you have things around and/or in your home that are not at all necessary but simply there for the sake of having them? Nice things to see/do and be around? Perhaps a pool or yard fixtures and furniture, perhaps certain electronics in your home, pieces of furniture, perhaps several items just for the sake of having and making a nice environment in and/or around your home? I mean things that are not at all necessary yet cost a good amount of money. If so then couldn't one then (with the applied logic) technically say....."there are so many things and people that money could truly help"? yet you (we all) at different relative levels chose to surround ourselves with things which we could do for a lot less money, are not really necessary and/or things we could easily even do without. Imo its the same with our tax dollars. That's our money and so its not so wrong imo to see it spent on things just for the sake of making things nice in and around the local environments we live our daily lives and spend our free time in even though there are more needy things for that money. If that makes us mean and non caring than imo so should we be labeled the same when we spend unnecessary money in/around our homes that could easily be more useful elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
But nice is also having well maintained and nice pleasant places to go and see and do

I believe that you are unintentionally arguing a straw man point. No one is saying that we shouldn't have nice things. But a lot of people resist building ungodly expensive "nice things" where a lot of money goes to corrupt officials, where those same officials (who aren't even government officials) determine what must be built to comply, and when in many countries, these facilities literally go to rot after the Olympics have passed through. Also, many residents don't consider hosting the Olympics to be all that grand because the construction and the traffic generated only serve to mess up everyone's life for a few years. It's classic Not In My Back Yard. And I can't say I'd blame anyone. Hey, I think Olympics in Utah would be great - but I don't want them in Colorado, where they'll impact me.

Add to this some vivid memories of how badly constructed all of the stuff in Sochi was, meaning it was an eyesore, not to mention the environmental impact of building so close to sensitive areas ...

No one is saying we shouldn't spend money for nice things. No one on a ski forum would have a leg to stand on in that argument. But no one wants to spend billions with a B dollars on massive infrastructure that will at best inconvenience the locals for a few years and at worst leave unused buildings to rot, in which a notoriously corrupt (even by government official standards) governing body attempts to dictate what must be built and how much it must cost.
 

Mendieta

Master of Snowplow
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Folks, I kindly suggest that we focus on the Olympics here, and stay out of hot topics.

Now, how much longer before we hit the snow? :) Some already started this season! Cheers!
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
I believe that you are unintentionally arguing a straw man point. No one is saying that we shouldn't have nice things. But a lot of people resist building ungodly expensive "nice things" where a lot of money goes to corrupt officials, where those same officials (who aren't even government officials) determine what must be built to comply, and when in many countries, these facilities literally go to rot after the Olympics have passed through. Also, many residents don't consider hosting the Olympics to be all that grand because the construction and the traffic generated only serve to mess up everyone's life for a few years. It's classic Not In My Back Yard. And I can't say I'd blame anyone. Hey, I think Olympics in Utah would be great - but I don't want them in Colorado, where they'll impact me.

Add to this some vivid memories of how badly constructed all of the stuff in Sochi was, meaning it was an eyesore, not to mention the environmental impact of building so close to sensitive areas ...

No one is saying we shouldn't spend money for nice things. No one on a ski forum would have a leg to stand on in that argument. But no one wants to spend billions with a B dollars on massive infrastructure that will at best inconvenience the locals for a few years and at worst leave unused buildings to rot, in which a notoriously corrupt (even by government official standards) governing body attempts to dictate what must be built and how much it must cost.
fwiw our conversing did manage to steer its way outside the Olympics and was in principle upon generalizations not specifically the topic related Olympics.

As for back to that specific topic. I agree with all you say. I certainly wouldn't want it in my backyard as iv already mentioned. It would create a miserable life within our already miserable daily commutes to/from nyc. No thanks! Not needed , not wanted imo.

But there are places where folks live which may feel differently. Places not so populated that could handle the temporary influx and also possible benefit from it in the future if done right. And yes I knoiw that's a big "if".

One place I look at where it didn't necessarily fail is Lake placid upstate ny. Two Olympics were there. They pull in a lot of tourists , maintain the facilities and even improve upon them. Major training centers are there and still host events and such. It is possible that the "miracle on ice" has helped the place become sort of a national treasure in a way therefore helps the U.S. tourism and perhaps not for that things might be different today up there I just don't know.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tricia

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
I am not sure, but I think @newfydog has some insight on Olympics,
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tricia

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Folks, I kindly suggest that we focus on the Olympics here, and stay out of hot topics.

Now, how much longer before we hit the snow? :) Some already started this season! Cheers!

Er. Olympics *is* a hot topic.
I agree that the Olympics can be a hot topic, especially as it pertains to the corruption, but we were getting a bit more of a thread drift into politics in general which is not a road we want to go down.
Thanks to all our members for understanding and keeping it on track.
 

TonyC

Contact me at bestsnow.net
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
678
Location
Glendale, CA
Earlier this week there was an article in the LA Times about the possibility of the winter olympics coming to the US due to the fact that "IOC President Thomas Bach has suggested that he would like to see the Winter Games return to a traditional location. American officials have taken that to mean a city in Europe or North America."

It also said there was speculation that the IOC could award two olympics at once, just as they did for the summer olympics (Paris, LA). One of the big selling points LA made in its bid was that the cost would be reasonable due to the fact that so many of the facilities are already built, and that athletes could be housed at UCLA.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-2026-bid-20171013-story.html
Yes at this point I would say prospective host cities should have a bit more leverage in negotiating with the IOC with marginal candidates now realizing that bidding for an Olympics might be a fiscal disaster. L.A. made it very clear that events would be held in existing facilities. The lack of willing candidates is even worse for Winter than Summer Games. Prospective hosts like Innsbruck, Calgary or Salt Lake should drive a hard bargain with the IOC. Are they really going to choose Kazakhstan instead?
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
SLC was arguably the Olympics that confirmed the system was broken. Calgary would make for a cool go- around though. Saddledome and COP with maybe a new Inception style biathlon involing assault rifles, explosives and heavy sedatives at Fortress.
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado

Lorenzzo

Be The Snow
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,984
Location
UT
Curious, as a PC resident, do you view this as a good thing or a bad thing?
I view at as inevitable. UT is for sale. If you come here it's a point of acceptance. It's why I have another place in another place.

I don't see how it benefits UT residents who don't profit from it. It's certainly not a plus for PC residents. But...this is a resort. If local residents think everything should be run for them they're going to end up disappointed.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top