While Colorado prep swimmer Missy Franklin was making headlines at the Olympic trials last week, Denver and the state were moving one step closer to pursuing a bid to host the Winter Games in 2022. It’s a move we welcome, although a tremendous amount of work still needs to be done.
Still, the Denver Olympic Bid Exploratory Committee’s recommendation last week is a start. The 22-member committee voted unanimously to urge the city and state to pursue a bid, arguing they are “in a very good position to make a strong bid at both the United States and international levels, and there are financially viable paths so as to not burden Colorado governments or the taxpayers throughout the bid process.”
But time is of the essence, since deadlines loom as early as next year and the final award will be made by the International Olympic Committee as soon as mid-2015.
The Denver committee argues that the city and state stand to gain even if the bid fails, and cites the example of how Lille, France, was able to attract international sporting events even though it lost a bid for the 2004 games. It also cites polling evidence suggesting an overwhelming majority of Coloradans support “going through the bid process, with only 18 percent opposed.”
Of course, putting together a first-rate national and international bid will be expensive — $27.8 million to $45 million is the committee’s estimate for the project. But the committee also says it’s confident the amount can be raised through private sources.
We think it would have to be raised privately, since it’s hard to see how Denver or the state could justify coming up with millions of dollars for what, at the outset anyway, will be a decidedly long-shot proposal.
Public expenditures will inevitably come into play, of course, should Denver actually be selected as the host city. But the committee offers somewhat reassuring words on that score as well.
Its report points out, for example, that “of the 12 major venues integral to competitive events at the Winter Games, Colorado currently has eight existing in the alpine and arenas categories. The four new venues necessary pertain to the Oval, Sliding, Jumping and Nordic events. Of these, legacy opportunities exist for each of them, ensuring a worthwhile investment. For non-competition venues, there are seven total structures required. Of these, only the city and mountain athlete villages will require permanent construction.”
Is the committee overly optimistic about limiting public expenditures? Possibly. Some cities have managed successfully to minimize public costs, but others — apparently including London this year — have badly underestimated expenses. We’d like to see a bid, but we also think a closer look at the likely mix of funding sources may be needed, too.
