What would a Chicago Olympics mean for the Midwest?
Posted at 6:00 AM on October 1, 2009
by Eric Ringham
(8 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Economy, International affairs
Members of the International Olympic Committee will vote Friday on the city that will host the 2016 Games. Among the contenders is Chicago, with strong support from Barack and Michelle Obama. What would a Chicago Olympics mean for the Midwest?
My husband is a trucker and he hates driving through Chicago now because of congestion. The Olympics are really going to make a bigger mess of that city. -Mechelle, Lake Park, MN
Share your reply in the comments: What would a Chicago Olympics mean for the Midwest?
Comments (8)
This could be both good and bad. Yes, it could stimulate new jobs and increase travel revenue for not only Chicago but traveler's going throughout the Midwest who eventually get to Chicago. It would also bring more attention to the roots of our President's political beginnings and reminisce the times of the Chicago World Fair and the international acclaim it brings. However, it could also bring more political agendas that may or may not be useful by either party. If Chicago is nominated...should we push for that high speed rail to impress the world? Should we move money that could have gone towards the Midwest's real needs to federally or locally fund the city to help for aesthetic reasons? This decision should be considered for inclusive, bipartisan and cultural pros and cons. If another city would benefit more than what Chicago would, then we should give those cities a chance to shine.
We could see first hand an event that has become little more than watching high priced advertisments which break up the time spent speculating on how the athletes might be cheating the system. We can wonder first hand about what drugs they may be taking that the doping agencies haven't figured out how to test for yet.
Just like the RNC was a 5-day nationally televised infomercial for the Twin Cities, the Olympics would be a three week internationally broadcast infomercial for the upper midwest.
It'd mean there'd be a bunch of rich and/or good looking foreigners ruining the romantic chances of the average local person.
Why isn't government doing all it can to cut back on this wasteful spending when the rest of us are having to do the same in our personal lives and at our jobs?
Let one of the other cities have the games this time - I personally don't think we can afford them right now.
Jobs- That is exactly what our economy needs right now. Not only will it create jobs for the actual Olympics itself, but also the years prior during the preparation. The only way to get people to spend money to stimilute the economy is to ensure they have that money to spend in the first place. This needs to be a priority...
It will bring in a lot of tourist money to greater Chicago, and vendors will just love it. People world-wide will learn about Chicago and some will visit after the event.
Chicago sports venues will receive a stimulus package-like infusion to upgrade them, and new facilities they don't now have.
People of the Midwest would be able to attend an Olympics with far less cost than they would incur abroad or in another US region.
We can marvel with excitement over the nearby spectacle and shudder at the dislocation the influx of people brings. People of Chicago can pack up their valuables and rent out their homes for a lot of money for a fortnight. Or just visit Minnesota for the duration to avoid the craziness.
Then those who belong to the tax base paying for it can raise their taxes for many years. (The Olympics has become very, very expensive.)
I am disappointed that President Obama has gone to Denmark. Supposedly, we should be concerned about carbon emissions and climate change, but there is that big plane flying thousands of miles so that the President can stand with Oprah and other Chicago-area celebrities and promote one U.S. city for the Olympics. Nothing going on in Washington for him to do?
| October 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- How have your views on nuclear power changed over the years?
- Where do you stand on requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote?
- Now that the caucuses are over, what are your three most important issues?
- What living writer might still be read 200 years from now?
- What do you think of Minnesota's system of party caucuses?
- How do you think the United States and other countries should respond to the situation in Syria?
- What do you think of constitutional amendments as a way to make policy?
- What changes would you like to see in campaign finance laws?
- What role should evaluations play in teacher job security?
- If you were energy czar, how would you change U.S. energy policy?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
