Public Eye: 2010 Winter Olympics
The cost of building venues for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics has risen by 23 per cent, boosting the price of the games to $508 million.
Vancouver Organizing Committee CEO John Furlong blamed the $96 million increase on ballooning construction costs in the city’s heated building industry. VANOC had estimated the cost of putting on the games at $411 million in bid documents.
"Do you believe the 2010 games will leave a legacy of debt for the taxpayer?"
Businesswoman, Vancouver
Why am I not surprised? It’s always the case when government handles a project. It’s so huge an amount of money that I can’t even begin to comprehend it. Putting the burden on ordinary taxpayers like us is not a good idea. Perhaps costs can be offset elsewhere like from big corporations which will be promoting their businesses as part of the Olympics.
Businesswoman, Richmond
It’s like the 1986 Expo in Vancouver. There were concerns about costs but it put the city in the world spotlight and there were greater benefits. The 2010 Olympics will promote not only Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler but Canada as a whole. It will boost the economy in the long term. The organizing committee should not only depend on government but must tap the private sector too.
It’s like the 1986 Expo in Vancouver. There were concerns about costs but it put the city in the world spotlight and there were greater benefits. The 2010 Olympics will promote not only Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler but Canada as a whole. It will boost the economy in the long term. The organizing committee should not only depend on government but must tap the private sector too.
Student, Delta
I don’t think there should be overcosts. It shouldn’t be this way. It means having to take money away from somewhere else. It could be from our province or from federal sources. This will definitely have an effect. Money needed to fill in the cost might mean taking it away from public services which our people will need.
I don’t think there should be overcosts. It shouldn’t be this way. It means having to take money away from somewhere else. It could be from our province or from federal sources. This will definitely have an effect. Money needed to fill in the cost might mean taking it away from public services which our people will need.
Accountant, Surrey
Whatever it takes we must push for the Olympics. Financial projections are not always on the dot because assumptions when these projections were made change over time. Accountants are aware of this. But we’ve committed ourselves to the games. The organizing committee can look for funds from a variety of sources from both government and private sector.
Whatever it takes we must push for the Olympics. Financial projections are not always on the dot because assumptions when these projections were made change over time. Accountants are aware of this. But we’ve committed ourselves to the games. The organizing committee can look for funds from a variety of sources from both government and private sector.
Sales, Burnaby
If spending more would help make the Olympics a success, why not. We have no choice in the first place. We have to go for it. We can’t back out. We can’t scrimp. A lot will benefit from hosting the games. It’s not something that will make the economy go down.
If spending more would help make the Olympics a success, why not. We have no choice in the first place. We have to go for it. We can’t back out. We can’t scrimp. A lot will benefit from hosting the games. It’s not something that will make the economy go down.
Elvira Hall
Realtor, Vancouver
Realtor, Vancouver
It’s unavoidable. Inflation is a constant factor so financial projections made now will change in the future. Costs are constantly on the rise so calculations made before won’t hold true after a certain period of time. If there is a way that extra costs do not have to be sourced from taxpayers’ money, then it must be looked into by the organizers.
Your reactions
