Of course as we all know, the IOC isn't politically motivated at all.

Good! The fewer Euro-Peons who come to our country, even for a short period of time, the better! Plus, Hillary won't be able to use this in her campaign.

Since when has hosting the Olympics been a good thing? It costs the host city heaps of money in one-time-use construction, extra police hours, and general disruption, and I doubt that the hotels, restaurants, etc., make anywhere near enough off of the visitors to cover the costs.

Honor? Is there honor in hosting games managed by a crooked committee, under rules that are tilted in favor of socialists to start with[1], and often with biased judges.

[1] I refer to the "amateur" rules. Someone who is paid by his government to train for the Olympic games somehow seems to remain an amateur. Someone who uses the same skills to earn the money to keep in practice on a free market is a professional and is ineligible.

I think it probably depends on the city. I don't know if they made money or not, but when Atlanta hosted the games in 1996, they tore down all the blighted areas and built nice condos. They are basically subsidized low-income housing, but they look like $350,000 homes. (and probably are)

The question is, was the increase in neighboring property values (people that pay more in taxes because they no longer live next door to "the projects") worth the investment?

I don't really know the answer.

"They are basically subsidized low-income housing, but they look like $350,000 homes. (and probably are)" If they're inhabited by the same people who lived in the slums that were there before, in a few years they'll look like slums again, and be virtually worthless. Considering that most of the rents will be paid by welfare, they'll be a continual cash drain (not that this is any different from before, except the rents might be higher). And a good part of the neighborhood businesses will be gone - they can't survive if you move their customers away for a year or two while building new housing.

OTOH, maybe Atlanta displaced the slumdwellers to some other neighborhoods, which are now becoming blighted... Also, the rents are probably higher there (which is why the lowlives didn't live there before), costing the welfare agency more.

Now, it's possible that the city made a net gain, if they managed to get federal funds to build those new condos, and the higher rent money the slumdwellers now pay comes from state and federal funds. That just means that the wasted money came from the pockets of taxpayers in other towns and other states.