OCR Text |
Show Olympic endorsement: an act of blind faith? At the Park City hearing, people favored the "pubic financing" alternative by about a 2-1 margin. But this opinion may change as the games draw closer, especiaUy if the Olympics continue to be used as a propaganda tool. Look at the recent history of the summer games. In 1980 they were boycotted by the United States and its closest allies. In 1984 they were boycotted by the Soviet Union and many East Bloc countries. In 1988 there may well be other boycotts by communist nations who refuse , to compete in South Korea. .; , ' With this kind of a track record, the Olympics'begin to -look like an uncertain investment.- - -r- There are other questions. How can the Olympics coexist with Utah's archaic liquor laws? What happens to the students if the University of Utah turns its housing over to the Olympic athletes? What impact would the Olympics have on those tourist-oriented businesses not directly involved with the games? What would happen if the Salt Lake Valley is hit by one of its all-too-frequent temperature inversions while the games are in progress? What if... With so many unanswered questions, any sign of approval from the voters of Utah would be an act of faith. It would be an expression of confidence in the judgment of the members of the Olympic Bid Committee, the Utah Legislature, and whoever else is involved. That's a lot to ask. For that to happen the people need to be convinced that their own interests are being represented. There have been charges that the 25-member Feasibility Committee was biased in favor of the ski industry, and that consulting firms used by the committee stand to gain from Utah winning the bid. i Any group authorized to make decisions on behalf of the people of Utah must avoid such conflicts. Especially if the taxpayers are expected to foot the bill. "1 -DH Utah; home of the 1996 Winter Olympics. It has a ring to it. Judging from the polls taken so far, the plan to hold the Winter Games here in 1992 or 1996 has a lot of public support. About two thirds of those polled favor the idea. Were you to take a poll of the Park Record staff you'd get a lot of different opinions. No one is adamantly opposed to the idea under all circumstances. The answer you'd hear most often would go like this : " I could support the Olympics if..." : And that is the problem. . How can the people be . expected to make a yes-no decision on the Olympics (a referendum is ..under discussion lor November). when.-there when.-there are so many alternatives being considered. For example: one of the three possible scenarios devised by the Olympic Feasibility Committee would have all of the alpine skiing events in Big and Little Cottonwood canyons. A2Vi mile tunnel would have to be bored through the mountains to connect the two areas. There is, understandably, a lot of opposition to this scenario. A construction project of this size would have a major impact on the two canyons, neither of which is equipped to handle large volumes of traffic. Dump trucks full of rubble would be, at the very least , a major source of irritation for those travelling in the canyons One man at the recent Park City hearing pointed out that hikers cannot take their dogs into those canyons because they may pollute the watershed. Yet the Olympics would bring thousands of spectators into the same area. What would that do to the watershed, the man wondered. At the risk of sounding self-serving, it's clear that other areas, such as Park City, would be better equipped to handle the influx of visitors. Another example: the financing. Are the people of Utah willing to back up possible losses with their tax dollars? Or should the Olympics be handled by a quasi-private organization willing to take the risk but also to take the profit, if any? |