Olympic carping

Conservatives used to grumble that the media always painted everything black. We need to read more "good news," they argued. (The subtext was that life in these U.S. of A. would be just dandy, if only TV and newspapers didn't keep calling attention to isolated problems and demanding public programs as solutions.)

I'm beginning to see their point, but from the opposite perspective. Time magazine has a story this week about the Olympic Village in Vancouver. Our neighbor to the north has built perhaps the finest housing for Olympic athletes ever provided, giving the athletes spectacular views out over False Creek inlet. Because of the banking disaster last year, however, the city had to provide unanticipated financing for construction of the Village, or end up staging the 2010 Winter Olympics with no appropriate housing for participants.

The private developers planned (and still plan) to sell the housing as condo units for about $1 million each after the Games are over. Once they sell, the city will recover the money it has advanced. Obviously, however, these are not the best times to be selling million dollar condos.

The development is well-designed, environmentally friendly, and close to public transportation. Aside from the cost, it's clearly a benefit to Vancouver and its residents. But Time chooses to picture the project as a boondoggle. The magazine quotes an ophthalmology professor (!), and "vocal Olympic critic," as declaring that "The whole Village fiasco leaves the city with fairly dangerous exposure." The Time article then points out that the project is only blocks away from a poverty-ridden neighborhood, where crime and drug abuse are common.

Time quotes, with apparent approval, its eye doctor source as suggesting the irony of the juxtaposition, declaring that it was the height of irresponsibility for the city to help build the Olympic Village while poverty existed so close at hand.

Yes, but. The poverty pre-existed the Olympics. Does Time believe that if the city had not guaranteed completion of the Village, it would have used the cash to end homelessness, crime, and drug abuse in that portion of town? I can't see that the city was robbing the poor to reward the athletes; combatting homelessness and poverty makes up a totally different agenda with different political and economic considerations.

I suppose Time could be commended for calling our attention to social problems amongst even the best run of North American cities, but the article strikes me as just one more attempt by the media to tear down every attempt -- by all levels of government -- to accomplish something for the community. After noting that visiting athletes were highly impressed by the Village, the article concludes by editorializing: "Rave reviews from the Olympians, for sure. But the taxpayers of Vancouver may sharply disagree."

Maybe. But maybe they don't disagree. Maybe they're hopeful that Vancouver's financing will be repaid. They may be well aware of the pockets of poverty that exist in their city, but also aware that more than doling out city money is going to be required to solve the problem.

And maybe they're proud of the fine job their city has done in hosting this year's Olympic Games.