That’s right, New York is an Olympic winner – whether or not the decision, which was scheduled to be made and announced after our deadline last night, is for holding the games here in 2012. Whatever the International Olympic Committee, meeting at Singapore, decides this morning – whether the games will go to Paris, London, Madrid, or Moscow – New York is a winner.

By our lights, New York deserved to win on the merits of its bid alone. Its bid looked terrific, and, despite our concerns about the imposition on taxpayers of certain elements of the plan, the facilities described in New York’s bid are splendid. And the great diversity of New York’s population makes the city a magnificent host and venue for any major international institution.

The realpolitik of such events, however, is that votes are swayed by other considerations as well – which may have worked to New York’s favor. The IOC vote is a secret ballot. If no country has a majority of votes, which is likely, the bottom-placed country is eliminated and voting starts again. This continues until one country has an absolute majority.

Paris went into the meetings in Singapore as the favorite, counting on receiving the support of other Europeans together with French-speaking African states. As we write, we don’t know how the voting will come out. But it’s possible to imagine other European IOC members reckoning as they voted that if a European country – say, Paris – wins 2012, it is highly unlikely a European country will be chosen to host the 2016, or even the 2020, Olympics, on the theory that the IOC likes to move around the globe.

So it seemed on the eve of this vote that Europeans, after seeing Paris take a first-round lead, might in the secrecy of the final tally vote for New York in subsequent rounds – so their country still has a chance for 2016 or 2020. It was possible to imagine this logic also working against New York’s chances when considering non-European countries. Their chances of hosting 2016 or 2020 would be improved by a European win. In any event, if New York hasn’t won the 2012 games, New York still looks like a winner, because it will automatically be a front-runner for 2016.

Beyond the Olympics, the bid has shown the huge potential New York has for infrastructure improvements. Plans for new apartments, improved water transportation, parks, and other projects show how the city, and the quality of life for its inhabitants, can be improved.

The bid also disclosed how much more New York can achieve when its leaders work together. The bid has also shown the world that New York has bounced back stronger than ever from the September 11 attacks, and is ready, and able, to even host the Olympic games. A strong signal to anyone considering doing business with the Big Apple.

Despite our misgivings about some elements of the drive for the Olympics, particularly plans to make taxpayers fund stadiums, overall we’ve been proud of it. Credit goes to Mayor Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor Doctoroff, and NYC2012 executive director, Jay Kriegel – who have all worked hard on behalf of the city. The debate over the Olympics should continue – either how to best prepare for 2012 or how to bid for 2016. Whatever the outcome, the city’s in a strong position.