Those seeking to bring the Games to Florida in 2012 need to make a convincing case on how the good outweighs the uncertainty inherent in such an effort.

Central Florida's bid to host the 2012 Olympics is an ambitious attempt that, if successful, will transform the region for better and for worse. The bid committee, local governments and the public should be carefully assessing whether the prestige and benefits of hosting the games are worth the tremendous expense, civic effort and upheaval.

While the bid document leaves aside many details, it's clear organizers are relying on public financing and assistance to a much larger degree than they previously disclosed. Public financing is a reality of the modern Olympics. Should Florida host the games, Tampa would raze public housing downtown; new transit routes would link Pinellas County to Orlando; and the state and localities would spend a billion dollars or more on roads and public facilities.

The question is not whether taxes would augment the 2012 games, but rather where and how the money would be spent, who would benefit and what limits and controls would be placed on public spending.

Florida 2012, the organizing group, has not adequately explained the pros and cons, dealt candidly with the public or laid its plans before elected officials for an honest and open debate. Florida 2012 president Ed Turanchik, an attorney and former Hillsborough County commissioner, has given weak and conflicting excuses for putting what's clearly a public-private venture under a veil of secrecy. He risks a backlash by operating in the dark as many of these same organizers did in crafting a "community investment tax" to fund a new Tampa football stadium in 1996.

Let's be clear at the outset: This bid is not about urban renewal or, as Turanchik let slip, "social justice." Were that the case, we could forget the Olympics and spend $2-billion on housing and social needs. The bid is about sports, money and prestige -- all of which raise issues that need to be resolved before the region should commit.

What's a realistic estimate of the public costs? The big-ticket items, an Olympic village and stadium, would cost an estimated $770-million -- and probably much more. After the games, Turanchik said the village would convert into public housing in Tampa, meaning the federal and city governments would offset the costs. But how much would Olympic organizers and the private sector pay? Is a village the right concept for public housing? What would road, port and rail improvements cost, and who would pay? If Tampa is chosen by the U.S. Olympic Committee as America's bid city, would the Olympic effort overtake all other spending priorities for years to come? Why would the University of South Florida want the stadium after the Olympics? How would the state school afford the upkeep, and how would the facility affect the competitiveness of other public venues in the region?

What role will public opinion play? Aside from the sheer costs, an Olympiad would change the quality of life in Central Florida for years before and after the games. Yet the bid committee has not involved the very people who would be affected the most. The village and stadium, for instance, would require the demolition of public housing. Thousands of residents would be -- at least temporarily -- displaced. Why weren't the residents and the appropriate government agencies informed earlier? Is the plan practical, or is it just to evict residents from their homes? Would this burden even be suggested to residents who don't live in public housing?

Though the hardships could be diminished with planning, the scheme illustrates a larger point. Citizen Turanchik is framing commitments that are for elected bodies to make. Why haven't cities and counties in the region demanded that Florida 2012 operate under the state's open-government laws? The group is sanctioned to make a bid on Florida's behalf, and its plan, if successful, poses broad implications for housing, transportation, the environment and public debt. If governments don't make the process accountable now, what practical means will communities have to keep themselves from being swept away as the deadline nears to host the games?

What are the benefits? It is undeniable the games -- even a bid -- would have benefits. It could speed the improvement of area roads, create jobs, foster regional unity and propel central Florida beyond its status as a tourist destination, recasting the region as a hub for culture and global trade.

Florida 2012 needs to make a convincing case that the benefits outweigh the uncertainty inherent in an Olympic bid. Many benefits are intangible or difficult to quantify. What jobs would remain after the Olympics? How would the games alter the physical landscape of downtown Tampa, the Pinellas waterfront and the corridors between Orlando's theme parks? How would Florida capitalize on the marketing? What business opportunities would be open to local residents, and how would organizers spend any profits once the games ended?

Now that Florida 2012 has completed its bid to the USOC, it should answer questions from the people back home.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page