--- Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > [This came up the other week, and either Woj or
> > > James H dismissed it
> > > as a problem.]
> > >
> > >
>
<<http://www.cohre.org/mega-events>http://www.cohre.org/mega-events>
> >
> >[WS:] Huh? This is the first time I hear of the
> >report, but even if I did not it is highly unlikely
> >that I would support spending public money on big
> >sporting events or kindred forms of entertainment.
> >You must have confused me with someone else.
> >
> >Wojtek
>
>
>
> This is just too easy:
>
>
>
>
> >Doug:
> >
> >
> >The history of Olympic cities is on Monbiot's side.
> The
> >"regeneration" usually consists of displacement and
> gentrification.
> >
> >
> >
> >[WS:] And what is exactly wrong with "regeneration"
> or "gentrification?" It
> >creates economic growth, it improves living
> conditions, it creates jobs -
> >what is wrong with that. Slums do not do that
> -they only perpetuate
> >stagnation and misery. I can assure you from my
> Baltimore experience that
> >most people who are "displaced" by gentrification
> love it, because it gives
> >them economic opportunities that they did not have
> before. The only people
> >who kvetch about gentrification are a handful of
> activistists who use it as
> >an opportunity to create publicity for themselves
> and blasé intellectuals
> >who hate the mainstream institutions. So
> regeneration is not bourgeois myth
> >but material reality. It is "gentrification'' that
> is a left-wing and
> >countercultural myth and a kvetching trope.
>
[WS:] Thanks for providing this opportunity to reiterate my position on thse issues. I did not read the entire thread when I wrote what you quote - I had no idea how it started and what was said earlier. I just replied to Doug's comment bemoaning gentrification - which I support and which in my book does NOT imply building stadiums. Such tangents in threads happen quite regularly on this list.
So for the record - I believe that gentrification is good because it eliminates slums and the culture of poverty that the slums often breed. The benefits of it outweigh the relatively minor inconvenience of a rather small number of individuals having to move - often to better locations. It is a small if any price to pay for city revitalization.
I also believe that pouring public money to large sporting projects is bad public investment because - it diverts money from other projects and investments(e.g. gentrification, transportation, etc.) - it does not create good high paying jobs but a few low paying service jobs; - it strains city resources (infrastructure, police, etc) mainly for the benefit of those who attand sporting events but do not live in the city and thus do not pay city taxes - it is a form of subsidy for the wealthy that does very little for city revitalization.
I hope this clarified the issue.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222