Security Costs Approaching $3/4 Billion; Are Olympics Still Relevant?

When the Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Olympics were first being introduced back in 2004, almost nobody in the mainstream media (TV, print or radio) wanted to talk about security costs, including the two Campbell's - Premier Gordon Campbell and then Vancouver Mayor, Larry Campbell, which at that time were 'estimated' at a 'bargain' amount of $175 million. I even had CKNW talk-show host, Jon McComb, cut me off as I was trying to make the point that this amount flew directly in the face of all recently-held Olympics [Salt Lake City (winter 2002) - $310 million, Athens (summer 2004) - $ 1.5 billion [incl. $312 million for communications 'backbone'], Turino (winter 2006) - $ 1.4 billion, London (summer 2012) - est. $1.7 billion; 3 x bigger Summer games cost more than Winter] and that the taxpayers were the ones who would be paying.
Well, Stockwell Day, Federal Minister of Public Safety recently offered his own 'estimate' for security costs - $400 million to 1 billion (a 228 - 571% increase) and I would still question whether that is even going to be enough. VANOC, which has been missing deadlines for budgets almost since Day 1, now says that their entire, updated and approved budget, including security costs, should be released to the public soon after their next meeting on January 29, 2009 (just over a year before the Games are due to begin). Hang onto your hats for that one, folks!
We really need to ask ourselves (actually we should have done this years ago!) if, in today's dangerous world whether or not holding a 17-day event (plus the much lower profile 10-day Paralympic Games), where the security cost alone could well approach three-quarters of a billion dollars, makes any sense at all. It is expected that the Olympics will be good for a relatively small segment of the population (such as construction, hotels, restaurants and the athletes) but what does it really do for the rest of us, who will have to foot the bill if they blow the budget?
[UPDATE 09 02 19]
Five and a half years after winning the 2010 Olympic games for Vancouver/Whistler, the organizers finally come clean with the projected costs of these Olympics, announcing, on the same day that Obama-mania hit Canada, that the security costs, which they had been carrying on the books at $175 million for all that time (in spite of overwhelming evidence that it almost certainly would be significantly higher - see above), are now most likely to be in the order of $900 million, a five-fold ($725 million) increase!!
It's a little like making the big decision to have a house built and being told by the contractor that the costs of the roof will be $12,000 (but subject to revision), only to arrive at the paint, flooring and fixtures stage and then being told that they are now $62,000, a figure that, had you known at the beginning, you may not have taken that decision. So, the benefactors of the Games now tells us that the Olympic games are here and we should just enjoy them. That's pretty hard to do when you feel like you've been played for a sucker using that time-honoured tradition of understating costs in order to get a publicly-funded project approved. Will we never learn, why do we just keep "bending over"?! Once again, we've been "sold a bill of goods" by those paid to look after EVERYONE'S interests!
I, like the vast majority of British Columbians, will likely never ski the 'Super-G' at Whistler Creekside, fly off the Whistler Olympic park ski jump, experience the thrill of the ice track at the Sliding Centre, rent out a room, sell a meal or guide a tour - no, all I will ever get to do is help pay for it all - for how long, who knows?! Unlike the athletes, many of whom are already professionals earning millions of dollars with even the amateurs being provided the opportunity to earn lucrative contracts as a result of the Games - all at no cost to themselves!If we're going to be spending public money, how about doing it on something that will actually have a chance of benefiting the majority of us?!

Lantzville Provides The New Mayor of Nanaimo

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' of the Nanaimo Daily News (Canwest/Global newspapers) on Nov. 24/08. As with most of my letters, and especially anything that might be critical of them, time will tell if they publish it. If they don't, consider it just one more reason to support independent media when obtaining real news that is important to you.

Dear Editor,
So Nanaimo's Mayor-elect lives in Lantzville (Ruttan must live up to promises he made, Nanaimo Daily News, Nov. 17/08) - well, get over it! It's not like Lantzville hasn't been very good to Nanaimo over the years. Let's make a list, shall we:
- Nanaimo gained 3 large properties (and the commercial taxes they generate) from Lantzville, even receiving $100,000 for 'good works' from one of the benefiting developers
- Nanaimo received $200,000 from Lantzville for their Conference Centre in exchange for agreeing to provide emergency water
- Nanaimo received $96,000 over the past 11 years from Lantzville in support of the Port Theatre, the only other municipality to do so
- Nanaimo uses Lantzville land for their northern 'Welcome to Nanaimo' signage
Although your paper has been very vocal all along with the fact that John does not live in Nanaimo (while not going out of your way to make it clear that he is a business/property owner/taxpayer in the city), I'd be far more concerned about one household having more than one vote on a Council or Board such as Donna and Nelson Allen on SD68 School Board, Diane and Jamie Brennan on Nanaimo Council and SD68 School Board, respectively, Colin and Denise Haime on Lantzville Council and Sue, Greg and Evelina Halsey-Brandt on Richmond Council. In your view, it seems that a person's place of domicile is more important than fair and broad representation.