Sal Paradise wrote:Wow you really need to think before you post...
Irony alert!
Sal Paradise wrote:The OG was funded in the main out of lottery and taxes - lottery funding could be spent in our area instead of more superb facilities and regeneration for the wealthiest city in the country.
The decision to apply and fund the games was taken by democratically elected bodies, the fact you disagree doesn't mean you weren't consulted...
The decision to bid for the Games was never put to the electorate.
Sal Paradise wrote:... If we run a good games it must have a positive impact on the outside view of the country - it can only show the UK in a good light which will have positive commercial benefits later down the line. An example - Dave Brailsford the UK cycling bossman - he skills are already in big demand as the elite performance director in UK sport. Given what has happened in the OG do you think his reputation and demand for his services will have diminished? The benefit to the community - for one they don't have to look at the eyesore that was the olympic pary before its regeneration...
Hang on – you're having a guess about a beneficial impact on one individual?
And as for the "eyesore" – I do hope they got rid of all the radioactive material they rather casually started uncovering.
It is hootingly funny to see some on the right suddenly coming out in favour of state spending on things.
Sal Paradise wrote:For every small business that is suffering - I think they will be few and far between - there will be many more small businesses who are benefitting from the increased footfall at the olympic venues. It isn't a massive leap of faith to suggest that many of the independant retailers arounf Eton have seen a boost to their turnover?
In Greenwich, on the first weekend, stewards shepherded arriving fans away from the local market; at one point, actually putting barriers up, blocking off the road to the market. One stallholder, for instance, having paid his regular £50 for his space, actually only made £25.
I've mentioned before the case of the husband and wife catering team at the Excel – they have two vans and have been there since it opened. They have had to remove the vans and put them somewhere else, at their own cost, for the duration.
I have also mentioned the local furniture maker who was told that he could only open his workshops after 11pm each night – in an area where there are no buses etc running at those times, so most of his workforce wouldn't be able to get there. Locog didn't want "unnecessary traffic".
Then, as I think I've also mentioned, there's the cafe just off Euston Road where trade has plummeted to levels that, apparently, the owner says he has not seen since the week or so after they first opened.
These are examples I know about specifically. I suspect that I don't somehow know the only examples.
Sal Paradise wrote:The fact you may not want to use any of the facilities doesn't mean you will not get any benefit - these facilities enhance the city and as such will be a revenue stream for many years to come. It is unrealistic to say these revenues and the spin off from them will not benefit the ordinary citizens of London.
One wonders if they'll be affordable to many of the public in the area. And as I touched on (which you have chosen to ignore), it's fine to be opening swanky sports stadia when you're closing libraries at the same time – and, indeed, after successive governments have ordered and presided over, the sale of sports fields and grounds (especially those connected to schools), and the closure of sports facilities that already existed, and which local people used.