Monte wrote:
Imagine how well the investment will pay off if we get the olympics. Jobs, construction, lots of money in the economy. Think it through.
Really? Really?
"Lots of money in the economy". The vagueness of this statement doesn't really speak to any point, so I'm not going to bother with a rebuttal.
Jobs and construction to do what, exactly? Host an international competition? I think I've made it clear that I'm a huge fan of athletic competition in almost any guise. But this is not about my fandom of such a thing, it's about how funding the construction of the facilities to host the Olympics diverts resources away from other projects. Now yes, there is an increase of patronage in terms of local services and products vendored at the city to support the organizers, athletic teams, and spectator who take up residence for the duration. But it's trivially small compared to the cost to build such facilities. Chicago will benefit, no doubt, but the cost is to the rest of the country.
It's not a like-for-like, it is a net loss. Those facilities being there, the increased patronage, any rennovation and done to restructure the city to support the event and the benefits associated with those civil/architectural upgrades are not going to result in some miraculous boon to pay for itself, let alone make returns in the future.
That said, I absolutely love the city of Chicago; the first time I went outside of a family vacation was 2006 on a flawless 70 degree, cloudless day in summer of 2006. The lake is stunning when the weather is nice and the winds are calm. I can't think of a more picturesque backdrop as far as urban settings are concerned. Cruising down Lakeshore Dr. is a memory I still remiscense about. However, I am clearly stating my support for having the event hosted there purely from non-fiscal perspective. Chicago is not so different from any other of the ubiquitous large, non-capital cities that dot the globe.