WASHINGTON — The White House abruptly announced Monday that it had scuttled plans to hold the upcoming G-8 economic summit in Chicago, and would instead host world leaders at the presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland.It was an unusually late location change for a large and highly scripted international summit and came with little explanation from the White House. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel — the former White House chief of staff who personally lobbied President Barack Obama to hold the summit in Chicago — was informed only hours before the official announcement.White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor simply said that Camp David, the rustic retreat in the mountains of Maryland, was a setting that would allow for more intimate discussions among the G-8 leaders. He said security and the possibility of protests were not factors in the decision*, noting that Obama would still host the NATO summit in his hometown of Chicago from May 20-21.[*You know what they say about official denials.I think Tim had the best idea for deterring demonstrators: hold the meetings on a cruise ship at sea.]The White House said the G-8 summit would take place May 18-19.<snip>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-...
com'on Ddave,this aint so econ related.....the subject line and content is not with the program.....Dave
com'on Ddave,this aint so econ related.....the subject line and content is not with the program.....Er... in the little burg I live in a national level bowling tournament is touted as bringing in a million dollars in "outside" money for hotels, food, rental cars, hookers etc.If bowling for dollars can bring in that much in flyover country, how much did Chicagoland lose when the G-8 summit was moved?As a businessman (albeit retired) I can see two levels of losses here:1. Loss of dollars actually spent to prepare Chicago for the event.2. Anticipated losses i.e. all the money they didn't make but probably spent or got loans against anyway. If you've ever participated in the planning for even a little event you know hotels, convention centers etc. require (often) non-refundable down payments to reserve space. This is because they'll be turning down business from others who what to use their facilities during the time you've reserved them.Even if they keep ALL of the deposits hotels etc, will loose money with this late date cancellation because it's unlikely they'll be able to rent out the space to any other group on such short notice.I through Tim's idea in because it has so much common sense unless you like riots.
Oh, and the costs to the Chicago taxpayers will be the same anyway:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-g8-sum...
I think Tim had the best idea for deterring demonstrators: hold the meetings on a cruise ship at sea.We need look no further. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2010/05/26/g8-g20-secu...Summit costs hit $1.1BLast Updated: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 | 9:55 PM ET CBC News The cost of hosting the G8 and G20 summits next month in Ontario now stands at $1.1 billion and further outlays are likely, federal documents show. The price tag includes $160 million for hospitality, infrastructure, food safety and extra staffing. That amount is in addition to the $933-million security bill the Tories revealed earlier this week.My other suggestion if these fellows weren't able to provide a ship for the world leadershttp://www.google.ca/search?q=italian+cruise+ship+pictures&a... was to hold the meeting in Resolute NWT. Of course the leaders would take up all of the sparse hotel space (at six to a room) so the reporters would have to build igloos to sleep in. There might also be a problem with the cameras at -70F? Tim <did his arctic survival course up there> 443 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute,_Nunavut
The cost of hosting the G8 and G20 summits next month in Ontario now stands at $1.1 billion and further outlays are likely, federal documents show. The price tag includes $160 million for hospitality, infrastructure, food safety and extra staffing. That amount is in addition to the $933-million security bill the Tories revealed earlier this week.We hear the same arguments for every government bond issue for a sports stadium or entertainment venue:It's all about "jobs" and providing extra business for local merchants. Everyone seems to think that government money is free.btw, we have had the same argument in Michigan wrt the state's subsidies to film production companies. The new Governor has the subsidy program on the way to zero, and you should hear all the locals cry about their investments in facilities and equipment, built to cash in on the subsidies, that are now unused. Movie dream turns to nightmare,,,the Unity Studio and Village project was announced less than three years ago.Sadly, Unity has become the poster child for everything that's wrong with the Michigan film subsidies, and the aftermath of the project's failure leaves the city on the verge of laying off police and firefighters or, worse, needing intervention from an emergency manager.http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120217/OPINION03/202170...Steve
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |