I think we all saw this coming.
Since 1984, no city has ever won the Olympic Games without giving the IOC (International Olympic Committee) a fiscal guarantee against any deficit. After telling us for months that the taxpayers would not be responsible for any Olympics-related expenses (while spending $60 million to put the bid in place), the mayor says Chicago won't win the Games without a fiscal guarantee.
Chicago's bid could turn on this issue. The only drawbacks at this point are the missing guarantee and the city's pathetic public transit system. With the president so popular worldwide and the competition being so light, the Games are Chicago's to lose. As Mayor Daley pointed out, the IOC would need to violate its own policy to award the Games to Chicago without a guarantee.
If the City Council decides to add the guarantee to Chicago's bid, I believe the IOC will award the Games to Chicago. I hope there's enough of a public outcry that the City Council will not do so.
Showing posts with label Chicago Olympics 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago Olympics 2016. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Why Olympic opposition matters
Case study: Berlin.
Berlin city officials wanted to host the 2000 Olympic Games, which ultimately went to Sydney and turned out to be a huge success there. A major reason the bid failed was due to local opposition to hosting the Games. In the 1993 selection process, Berlin placed fourth (out of five) in the first round of voting but finished last in the next round, which meant elimination from the voting. Its rivals were Sydney, Beijing, Manchester and Istanbul. The Chinese were furious after their final-round loss, especially since they had the most votes in the first three rounds! They regrouped and won eight years later. The British changed their bid to London and won 12 years later.
Opposition works. Solid local support of the Games is a major component of a city's bid. Strong opposition is embarrassing, and the International Olympic Committee doesn't like it. In Chicago's initial proposal, the City proudly proclaimed, "There is no organized local opposition." Well, there is now.
Berlin city officials wanted to host the 2000 Olympic Games, which ultimately went to Sydney and turned out to be a huge success there. A major reason the bid failed was due to local opposition to hosting the Games. In the 1993 selection process, Berlin placed fourth (out of five) in the first round of voting but finished last in the next round, which meant elimination from the voting. Its rivals were Sydney, Beijing, Manchester and Istanbul. The Chinese were furious after their final-round loss, especially since they had the most votes in the first three rounds! They regrouped and won eight years later. The British changed their bid to London and won 12 years later.
Opposition works. Solid local support of the Games is a major component of a city's bid. Strong opposition is embarrassing, and the International Olympic Committee doesn't like it. In Chicago's initial proposal, the City proudly proclaimed, "There is no organized local opposition." Well, there is now.
Another Olympics fan weighs in
Mark writes:
I've been following the Olympics issue with some interest. To be honest, I've been torn on the subject, mainly because I come at it from the perspective of someone who was a resident of Lake Placid, N.Y. from 1968 through more than half of 1980. Lake Placid, you'll recall, hosted its second Winter Olympiad in 1980. It is true that anybody who is able to cash in on the Olympics makes out like a bandit, and that includes owners of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses in and around wherever the Games take place. It is also absolutely true that the public gets saddled with the debt. Ironically, it's a Republican style implementation of redistribution of wealth, from the public coffers to private pocketbooks. (Note that Lake Placid, like most of rural New York State, is heavily Republican, and both the 1932 and the 1980 Winter Olympics were welcomed with open arms.) An Olympiad always leaves behind an infrastructure that can be publicly beneficial, assuming there were practical plans in place from beforehand to make that benefit happen. For example, Lake Placid's Olympic Village was destined to become a medium-security prison after the games were over. (Yes, the Soviet propaganda machine had a field day with that when they caught wind of it!) Without that forethought, though, you end up with structures that just sit there and rot afterward - isn't that what happened in Atlanta? The best-case scenario is that amenities like the CTA and Navy Pier see vast improvements that we enjoy, albeit at a cost, after the games are over. My concern, of course, is that since this is Chicago, the games will end up costing the public 10 times as much as they should, and the primary beneficiaries will be Mayor Daley's cronies, who will be allowed to double-dip by getting sweetheart contracts to build the stuff in the first place and then be handed title to the unneeded facilities to dispose of as they like for additional profit.
I've been following the Olympics issue with some interest. To be honest, I've been torn on the subject, mainly because I come at it from the perspective of someone who was a resident of Lake Placid, N.Y. from 1968 through more than half of 1980. Lake Placid, you'll recall, hosted its second Winter Olympiad in 1980. It is true that anybody who is able to cash in on the Olympics makes out like a bandit, and that includes owners of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses in and around wherever the Games take place. It is also absolutely true that the public gets saddled with the debt. Ironically, it's a Republican style implementation of redistribution of wealth, from the public coffers to private pocketbooks. (Note that Lake Placid, like most of rural New York State, is heavily Republican, and both the 1932 and the 1980 Winter Olympics were welcomed with open arms.) An Olympiad always leaves behind an infrastructure that can be publicly beneficial, assuming there were practical plans in place from beforehand to make that benefit happen. For example, Lake Placid's Olympic Village was destined to become a medium-security prison after the games were over. (Yes, the Soviet propaganda machine had a field day with that when they caught wind of it!) Without that forethought, though, you end up with structures that just sit there and rot afterward - isn't that what happened in Atlanta? The best-case scenario is that amenities like the CTA and Navy Pier see vast improvements that we enjoy, albeit at a cost, after the games are over. My concern, of course, is that since this is Chicago, the games will end up costing the public 10 times as much as they should, and the primary beneficiaries will be Mayor Daley's cronies, who will be allowed to double-dip by getting sweetheart contracts to build the stuff in the first place and then be handed title to the unneeded facilities to dispose of as they like for additional profit.
Chicagoans Opposed to the 2016 Olympics
I started a Facebook Group yesterday, Feb. 16, called Chicagoans Opposed to the 2016 Chicago Olympics. We're up to eight members in just one day! Feel free to join! The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will announce the winning bid Oct. 2, 2009. Some of the reasons I hope Rio, Madrid or Tokyo wins the Olympics:
1. Traffic. For 17 days during the Games and for about a week beforehand, Olympic tourists, media, athletes and security will make roadways almost impassable for residents.
2. Security. Chicago will be Lockdown City in a way similar to Washington is when a major international conference is in town. Per tradition, the president will attend the Opening Ceremonies. Beyond that, security is always the primary concern after the 1972 Munich tragedy and the 1996 Atlanta bombing. The world is watching, and terrorists love that.
3. Cost. The official effort to bring the Games here assumes $1 billion in revenue above and beyond every other bid city's estimate, yet there is no guarantee against revenue shortfalls. Where is all this extra money going to come from? Who knows? Will people shell out $1645 for top tickets? The mayor and everyone else involved insist, promise and swear taxpayers will not bear any costs whatsoever. Right. When has that ever been true? Furthermore, the organizers are assuming a massive influx of tax revenue associated with international visitors to Chicago without accounting for thousands of residents leaving town for three weeks. Locals who aren't home aren't spending money, either.
4. Cost overruns associated with upcoming Games. Both the Vancouver 2010 (Winter) and London 2012 (Summer) Olympic Committees are struggling with massive cost overruns. Their costs are soaring with no end in sight. London organizers are quietly regretting their decision to bid for the Games. Why would the 2016 Games be any different?
5. Security cost. The federal government provided security at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City at a cost of $250 million. The security bill for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago is estimated to be $1 billion. That $1 billion would buy a lot of ____________ (pick your favorite federal program, or invent your own).
6. Construction of white elephant buildings we don't need, don't want and won't use. The Chicago bid is planning a number of temporary structures and new construction of permanent buildings near some of Chicago's worst neighborhoods. No one will want to go down there once the Olympics end. Furthermore, permanent buildings along the lakefront will do more damage to our once-proud lakefront skyline. We only need to look at Soldier Field to realize how a bad decision by Hizzoner Da Mare can ruin our skyline for decades.
7. Hassle, headache, nuisance. Why should we put up with all the commotion? Our city regularly and proudly inhales conventioneers, sports fans and visitors of all types on a constant basis, and no one really notices. If the Olympics were to come to Chicago, everyone would notice, and putting up with it would be a major hassle. Going to work downtown or near any Olympic venue would be a major event in itself. Most of us would be unable to acquire tickets for any but the most minor events, so we would watch the Olympics the way we normally do: on tv or online. Does it make a difference if it's in Chicago or elsewhere?
8. Very poor planning. A top Chicago 2016 official referred to Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City in a discussion of transportation. Either he has no idea what he's talking about, or he thinks we're stupid. With guys like transportation director Doug Arnot in charge, the Chicago Olympics is going to make the Iraq war look like a well-executed strategy. Here is why the comparison makes him look so bad:
Los Angeles: the 1984 Games was about one-third the size of the modern Summer Olympics. And L.A. has a much better roadway system.
Atlanta: the 1996 Games was by all accounts a logistics disaster. The transportation failed numerous times. Media, fans and even athletes were stranded, unable to reach event venues.
Salt Lake City: the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City were Winter Games. It is a much smaller set of events and offers no reasonable comparison.
9. We don't need the attention. Cities vie for the Olympics because they want the world's spotlight for 17 days. Is this something we really need? When people living outside the U.S. think of "the States," as they call us, they think of Manhattan, Hollywood and Washington. So Chicago is a second thought. And yet the crowds come anyway. Most visitors live within a 500-mi. radius. They visit for shopping, museums, sports, and the beautiful lakefront. A Chicago Tribune contest in 1987 asked for a new slogan. "Hometown heart, big-town beat" won. Thanks to Al Capone, Michael Jordan and more than a century of government corruption, we're still famous worldwide. There's no reason to pay for additional exposure.
1. Traffic. For 17 days during the Games and for about a week beforehand, Olympic tourists, media, athletes and security will make roadways almost impassable for residents.
2. Security. Chicago will be Lockdown City in a way similar to Washington is when a major international conference is in town. Per tradition, the president will attend the Opening Ceremonies. Beyond that, security is always the primary concern after the 1972 Munich tragedy and the 1996 Atlanta bombing. The world is watching, and terrorists love that.
3. Cost. The official effort to bring the Games here assumes $1 billion in revenue above and beyond every other bid city's estimate, yet there is no guarantee against revenue shortfalls. Where is all this extra money going to come from? Who knows? Will people shell out $1645 for top tickets? The mayor and everyone else involved insist, promise and swear taxpayers will not bear any costs whatsoever. Right. When has that ever been true? Furthermore, the organizers are assuming a massive influx of tax revenue associated with international visitors to Chicago without accounting for thousands of residents leaving town for three weeks. Locals who aren't home aren't spending money, either.
4. Cost overruns associated with upcoming Games. Both the Vancouver 2010 (Winter) and London 2012 (Summer) Olympic Committees are struggling with massive cost overruns. Their costs are soaring with no end in sight. London organizers are quietly regretting their decision to bid for the Games. Why would the 2016 Games be any different?
5. Security cost. The federal government provided security at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City at a cost of $250 million. The security bill for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago is estimated to be $1 billion. That $1 billion would buy a lot of ____________ (pick your favorite federal program, or invent your own).
6. Construction of white elephant buildings we don't need, don't want and won't use. The Chicago bid is planning a number of temporary structures and new construction of permanent buildings near some of Chicago's worst neighborhoods. No one will want to go down there once the Olympics end. Furthermore, permanent buildings along the lakefront will do more damage to our once-proud lakefront skyline. We only need to look at Soldier Field to realize how a bad decision by Hizzoner Da Mare can ruin our skyline for decades.
7. Hassle, headache, nuisance. Why should we put up with all the commotion? Our city regularly and proudly inhales conventioneers, sports fans and visitors of all types on a constant basis, and no one really notices. If the Olympics were to come to Chicago, everyone would notice, and putting up with it would be a major hassle. Going to work downtown or near any Olympic venue would be a major event in itself. Most of us would be unable to acquire tickets for any but the most minor events, so we would watch the Olympics the way we normally do: on tv or online. Does it make a difference if it's in Chicago or elsewhere?
8. Very poor planning. A top Chicago 2016 official referred to Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City in a discussion of transportation. Either he has no idea what he's talking about, or he thinks we're stupid. With guys like transportation director Doug Arnot in charge, the Chicago Olympics is going to make the Iraq war look like a well-executed strategy. Here is why the comparison makes him look so bad:
Los Angeles: the 1984 Games was about one-third the size of the modern Summer Olympics. And L.A. has a much better roadway system.
Atlanta: the 1996 Games was by all accounts a logistics disaster. The transportation failed numerous times. Media, fans and even athletes were stranded, unable to reach event venues.
Salt Lake City: the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City were Winter Games. It is a much smaller set of events and offers no reasonable comparison.
9. We don't need the attention. Cities vie for the Olympics because they want the world's spotlight for 17 days. Is this something we really need? When people living outside the U.S. think of "the States," as they call us, they think of Manhattan, Hollywood and Washington. So Chicago is a second thought. And yet the crowds come anyway. Most visitors live within a 500-mi. radius. They visit for shopping, museums, sports, and the beautiful lakefront. A Chicago Tribune contest in 1987 asked for a new slogan. "Hometown heart, big-town beat" won. Thanks to Al Capone, Michael Jordan and more than a century of government corruption, we're still famous worldwide. There's no reason to pay for additional exposure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
