Sounds like the place where you should have been. They certainly could have used your anger and misguided analysis!

Now, to address those arguments.

Article 1. This wasn’t about appealing. This was about the wrong decision. Time line presented is irrelevant.

Article 2. “Presumably” is a big assumption if you have any idea how government budgeting works. I have some. Besides, it’s spare change to the billions you mentioned otherwise. And on those billions, “figure” a number here, “add” a number there, “say” this number or that, and a “minimum, I’d guess”… for someone who writes like s/he is a lawyer with the “articles” and all, that’s a disgraceful standard to hold yourself to as if $1 billion in estimates was $1 to be added to the price of something. If you don’t know a value for certain, don’t project in your favour, cause psychology inevitably points it out that people do.

But have you still stopped to look at the big picture? It always amazes me how people who complain about money inevitably get stuck on money as their arguments and can’t see anything more.

First of all, nobody wants to take something on that’s a certain loss. There may be a risk, but it’s usually not that big of a risk if it’s that much money at stake to be lost. Second, long-term value. Do you think they’d close all these venues down, the highway, and all, once it’s all over in 2 weeks and generate no more revenue from all these things? Third, multiplier effect. Every dollar spent locally is multiplied several times in value to the local economy cause if you make some money and spend it locally, so will someone else. Most of that cash is coming in from the outside with visitors and much of it stays around for a while. What do you reckon the sum of revenues generated by all these facilities and such will be in the long run, even after subtracting their upkeep costs? Fourth, other revenues, like television, advertising, etc. It’s not just at the building level. Pretty much all is taxed so some comes back to the government. Fifth, social value. Ah, yes. Social value. You get a few local operations done. You get a few local people off the streets (and you’ll never solve that problem no matter how much money you have, btw). You leave the old local highway rotten.

But how many dreams do you kill around the world for not having an Olympics? And what would those who dream, whether they make it to the Olympics or not, do without that dream?

I’d bet you’d end up with a greater net number of people on the streets! And the Olympics can keep some off the streets. Clara Hughes, our Canadian flag bearer, was heading there once till she saw our Gaetan Boucher. Some Jeremy guy (also from Canada) in the luge (I think) got off the streets because of the Olympics.

So how’s about the conclusions being the Olympic Games will leave unquantifiable benefits to the future? And the case is about sexism, with some (not all) of the homeless having made the choice on their own to be there rather than having their freedom taken away. Some are there due to mental illnesses and other reasons, I know, but some got themselves there in the first place, and many are choosing to be there because they aren’t willing to conform to options our system gives them. Hey, nobody ever said life was fair or perfect, but if you don’t control yourself to take what’s there and work your way out rather than just demanding what you want, don’t expect sympathy. I’ll agree with the accountability and transparency part, but this isn’t an example. Proroguing Parliament is more the case.

Response 1. The IOC says it will not stage a woman’s ski jump event because there are not enough women competing at the highest levels of the sport. However, men’s ski jumping also does not fully meet the IOC’s criteria for inclusion but has been an Olympic sport since 1924 and was grandfathered into the 2010 games. Even if the current case is appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, it will not be heard prior to the 2010 Olympic Games.

Article 2. As for the size of the issue, if you look at the symbolic impact of it, it’s not that small.

Response 2. The government posted a $2.8 billion deficit in September, promising that cut backs would have to be made in order to balance the budget in the future. But such restraint has not been extended to spending in Olympic areas. They have, unfortunately, instead come from the health sector.

The government said it was forced to close 13.5 operating rooms in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority from September of 2009 until the end of the Olympic Games in order to meet the challenges of their massive budget shortfalls. They have postponed 5,800 surgeries in areas such as neurosurgery, vascular surgery, ortho trauma, ophthalmology and general surgery. They have reduced operating-room and hospital-ward staff by an estimated 112 full-time-equivalent jobs. And they have cut 13 anesthesiology positions.

The cuts to health care have presumably freed up some room to increase the operating budget of the B.C. Olympic Games Secretariat by more than $8 million, to reach $40.7 million. This is an overall increase of 26% to the budget.

The cuts made & debts created were put towards investments towards projects for the Olympics. All three projects have since been defended as needed infrastructure that would have been built anyway. But it is not clear that those were the top priorities for scarce public dollars, nor was it necessarily cost-effective to fast-track construction in the midst of a private sector boom.

In any event, for the Sea to Sky Highway, figure $1 billion, including the fixed construction cost, interest and some (but not all) of the future payments to the private partner. For the Canada Line, another $2 billion, not including possible compensation to outraged merchants along the route.

Add $1 billion for the wildly over-budget convention center project, plus renovations to B.C. Place, an added cost that was long denied by the B.C. Liberals.

Say $1 billion for security until the federal and provincial governments see fit to share a more precise number with the public.

Then throw in another $1.5 billion for contributions by federal, provincial and local governments and Crown corporations, including venue construction, staging, promotion and such supposedly non-Olympic undertakings as the budget for the Olympic Secretariat and 2010 Legacies Now.

Even without a reckoning for Vancouver’s share of the Olympic village fiasco — $200 million minimum, I’d guess — the running tab for the Games and Games-related projects is somewhere between $6 billion and $7 billion.

And still running.

Conclusion:
-The Olympic games will put BC in a huge financial deficit leaving an unknown costs in the future.
-The case is about the interpretation and application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not sexism but how the government is manipulating our rights as Canadians, it sucks for the skiers however the homeless are having there very freedom taken from them without choice, drastic changes are required towards violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
-The Canadian government needs to be fully transparent & accountable for all actions with legal implications on any violation they sanction.

And this is not a profession. It’s a hobby and platform for learning. I just take my hobbies and learning more seriously than some people take their work.

As for the size of the issue, if you look at the symbolic impact of it, it’s not that small. It’s called the bigger picture. Maybe some people have heard about it.

I do agree with “Bigger issues in this world then women ski jumping” comments excluding the profanity.

Enough real injustices occur in this world to focus on petty events that benefit a few individuals & cost many others, money, time freedom of choice.

If anyone needs to grow up it is you the writer of this article, though I doubt you will.