Olympic security

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Good news: the feds will cover most security costs (even though we pay fed tax we'll still share da load with the rest of canada):

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/19/bc-olympics-c...

Bad news: some say local activists are the top security threat:

http://orato.com/current-events/2009/02/18/vancouver-social-activists-to...

Battle in Vancouver, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Seattle

Does it qualify as Irony if people who are protesting the Olympics, mainly due to the cost, end up costing the Olympics (and tax payers) more money by protesting?

As always, happy to pay for things with Fed $$ rather than Prov $$ or City $$. Security is a hard issue, too much and it seems like a waste of money, too little and what happens if someone is killed. What is a life worth? It think that was another thread.

m2c

I'm sure the taxpayers in anywhere-but-Vancouver are thrilled to be footing the bill.

With all the news about taxpayers footing the olympics bill, I would love to know exactly how much of my $ will be used (and for how long). If someone has any idea how to calculate this, I'd appreciate the insight. Are we talking 1? 5? 10%? more per year in taxes? Just curious, thanks.

MC2:

I think the irony is in smart, numerate people like yourself believing such a ludicrous
proposition as the the anti-2010 protestors being the cause for a ten-fold increase in security
costs since this debacle began. Think about it. Suppose there's a thousand committed people
determined to screw up the games. Now assign round the clock surveillance and pull a number
out of thin air to cost that expense. Let's say $5K a day per individual. $50k per day to
ensure these people don't make trouble near the Olympic venues or VIPS for a month. $150
large per member of the Rebel Alliance X 1000 people would be $150 million.

The reality is that the supposed reason for the big hike is nothing more than spin
and an attempt to shift blame from VANOC for what increasingly looks like a deliberate low-
ball estimate... onto people exercising their democratic right to free speech.

Bitch Please! (Proper use, Urban Dictionary, look it up!)

If I did believe that protestors were the reason for the total of the increased security costs it wouldn't be irony, just ignorance. In fact, I don't think anyone has been saying this. Nowhere in my post did I say that protestors were the cause of all of the increase in costs. I did suggest that their existence probably contribute to the costs. If they are protesting because of the costs, and these protests do raise the cost by even $1 then there comes the irony. Take it or leave it.

Olympic Security costs are high, probably too high, and much higher than the original really bad estimate that nobody bought. But I guess better too high (nothing happens) then too low (something happens).

And in the end it's not like (as many Olympic protesters would have us think) that this money is being flushed down some toilet like all of our RSPs! The money is being paid to Canadians to do a job, to feed and house the people involved and a number of other ways that causes the money back into the Economy at a time when money flowing into the economy rather than sitting under people's beds is a good thing. The most efficient way to do this? Probably not, but still...

So Joe Security Guard will be hanging out on the street for a month watching the homeless, but he is then going to buy his wife Joanne the School Teacher a new dress and his son Joe Jr. the grade-schooler a bike and the whole family is going to go for dinner at Original Joe's...and in doing so, they will save the Economy.

Good thing that this Olympic thing was planned to help us out of the depression! It's ironic that anti-Olympic Protestors, in the name of the people, would have been happy to not have had much of the money spent, a course of action what would have increased the severity and length of the downturn and in doing so hurt the people they claim to be trying to help. Good thing nobody is listening to you!

m2c

Given our democratic society, planning and budgeting for protests should have been among
the first things in the security budget. Putting the reason for an increase in these costs at the
feet ofpeople exercising their right to free speech suggests to me VANOC is simply
scapegoating its critics. You might just as well blame Squamish residents for Sea to Sky
checkpoints because they have the temerity to want to live and do business in their
community during the Owe-lympics.

"Good thing that this Olympic thing was planned to help us out of the depression!"

You're surely not suggesting Glen Clark and Larry Campbell saw the current economic
downturn on the horizon and cooked up 2010 as an answer to a question that didn't even exist
at that time?

"So Joe Security Guard will be hanging out on the street for a month watching the homeless"

Last I checked homelessness wasn't a crime nor do I see how the homeless represent any
threat to the event. More scapegoating, this time towards people who for the most part suffer
from health problems, abuse, and substance abuse challenges.

The biggest chunk of this security money will go towards protecting VIPS and venues from
terrorism, a scenario that wouldn't exist w/out 2010. It just goes to show you how fast the
bills add up when you throw good money after bad.

"And in the end it's not like (as many Olympic protesters would have us think) that this
money is being flushed down some toilet like all of our RSPs! The money is being paid to
Canadians to do a job, to feed and house the people involved and a number of other ways
that causes the money back into the Economy at a time when money flowing into the
economy rather than sitting under people's beds is a good thing."

For starters, I'm surprised to hear you barracking for socialism. Government deciding how
Canadians are going to spend their money (beyond necessary services) is nothing less. I
would prefer the gov't let me decide where I'd like to spend my money rather than deciding
for us by saddling taxpayers with years of debt to pay off an initiative of questionable long-
term benefit.

Secondly, the money wasn't sitting under any beds, esp. given the debt to savings ratio in our
country. The money didn't even exist until it was financed into being for the venues and
associated costs. So what's really going on is future earnings are being taken away from all
Canadians and given to those few lucky enough to have a place at the Olympic table.

Given that we face thousand of problems more pressing than who's the slidey-est winter
athlete in the world, it's hard to imagine a bigger waste of money.