Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Winter Olympics 2030 Vancouver

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Just now, gurn said:

And the other things they could have done with that money?

Hospitals

Schools

Payment against the provincial and federal debt

Didn't happen, so it doesn't matter?

but thats a false argument, that money wouldn't have been there for those items. Its these false "us vs them" arguments that the anti-development community seems to need to lean on. When you look at the actual benefits it just isn't what they portray it to be.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

But we did break even. 

Depending on what costs you put on to the Olympics.

iirc the road to Whistler did not count, because as I said earlier "we would eventually need that road anyway" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gurn said:

Depending on what costs you put on to the Olympics.

iirc the road to Whistler did not count, because as I said earlier "we would eventually need that road anyway" 

I think you'd agree you need major infrastructure to grow new communities and actives. I'd hope you'd also agree that Whistler is a major economic engine for BC. 

 

We also happen to get access to everything between here and there for more actives anyone can enjoy. 

 

Once you strip away the 'its just for rich people" thing its pretty hard to argue that the 99 upgrade is a bad thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

that money wouldn't have been there for those items.

So the argument is the government would only pay out money for a 3 week party? So let them?

They 'found' the money to party, then say 'we have no money for the other stuff'

or they say 'we have no money for other stuff, but we do have the money for a 3 week party?

 

If the money can be found to do A, the money can be found to do B

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we lived there for 5 years, loved it. Yes there's some homeless issues, but thats Vancouver. 

 

But there are also 3 major co-ops there, with a large number of young families. They are now building a school in the area to service them and there's a great long term plan for south false creek for another community centre, more rentals and more market housing, and more social housing - none of that exists without 2010 to kick it off.

 

Its easy to overlook these things if you don't live in the area, but there's a real community growing there thats not just all about rich yuppies. 

So did he, moved out, because he needed a home for his growing family. I'm over 70 years old, and come hell or high water I'll never move into a condo. I like our community too, and I know everyone of my neighbours on a first name basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gurn said:

So the argument is the government would only pay out money for a 3 week party? So let them?

They 'found' the money to party, then say 'we have no money for the other stuff'

or they say 'we have no money for other stuff, but we do have the money for a 3 week party?

 

If the money can be found to do A, the money can be found to do B

Come on now, certainly you can see that there are investments that continue to help the economy that are unique opportunities. Again, strip away the false us vs them pov and you can see that. 

 

If it was just a 3 week party with no lasting benefits you'd have a point, but there are many lasting benefits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm on it 3x per week, all year round. I can tell you it is far safer than it was.

 

how is the YVR line a questionable investment? 

 

 

But we did break even. 

 

IMO we are very lucky to have a strong tourism and business anchor like the convention centre. I don't understand how its not eco-friendly? particularly compared to other industries. 

 

yes I do support free enterprise, and so does Horgan as long as there are good union jobs attached. 

What's wrong with good paying Union jobs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

So did he, moved out, because he needed a home for his growing family. I'm over 70 years old, and come hell or high water I'll never move into a condo. I like our community too, and I know everyone of my neighbours on a first name basis.

and thats fine, it doesn't have to be for everyone. We had a house for years, very happy to downsize from it. I'd rather be hiking than mowing a lawn. We also happen to know our neighbours. 

 

Its not a competition or you vs. me. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

and thats fine, it doesn't have to be for everyone. We had a house for years, very happy to downsize from it. I'd rather be hiking than mowing a lawn. We also happen to know our neighbours. 

 

Its not a competition or you vs. me. 

no, it isn't. my/our preference. Buy a house and I'll mow your lawn, for a price though! 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johngould21 said:

no, it isn't. my/our preference. Buy a house and I'll mow your lawn, for a price though! 

now you tell me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but thats a false argument, that money wouldn't have been there for those items. Its these false "us vs them" arguments that the anti-development community seems to need to lean on. When you look at the actual benefits it just isn't what they portray it to be.

 

 

For the record, I think it's academically dishonest to conflate questioning the games with "anti-development".  The games aren't the only driver of development, and one can be in favour of development without the games.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

For the record, I think it's academically dishonest to conflate questioning the games with "anti-development".  The games aren't the only driver of development, and one can be in favour of development without the games.

I never said they were the only option, but they can be a good one. Our 2010 games proved that in spades. Using the infrastructure still here to host 2030 make a great deal of sense. 

 

Its also a favourite talking point, sometimes quite justified, by anti-development folks, but thats not the case for Vancouver. 

 

I just don't see a good reason to not host them again in 2030 given the realized benefits from 2010, and being able to use most of the facilities once again. 

 

I also think this time around theres a big opportunity to create more actual social housing. Vancouver has started to use pre-fab style buildings, and we could construct 100's of new units to house IOC and media staff all over the city. That seems like another great opportunity to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...