Athensfan Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I live in California. I like a lot of things about the state, but the government isn't one of them. The state government is totally inept. The state's credit rating has plummeted and business is leaving California in droves. We are swamped with illegal aliens and keep passing expensive propositions that have no business being on the ballot in the first place. The government has mortgaged the future of the state and in the decades ahead we are going to be gasping for breath under an impossibly heavy tax burden. It's a mess. And San Francisco is the worst city in the state when it comes to bureaucracy run amok. Forget about a San Francisco Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 And San Francisco is the worst city in the state when it comes to bureaucracy run amok. Forget about a San Francisco Olympics. Well that's always been my caveat about a San Francisco games. If you search, you'll see I've said IF (and it's a big IF) San Francisco could get it's act together politically. The problem in San Francisco is NOT bureaucracy. It's all the hippie dippy special interests and crazy whacked out nuts (and please don't infer from that that I am some sort of right-winger or a conservative, I am not). I mean, buildings in SF stand empty and dilapidated and you can't build anything new it it's place because there's always some one against a "chain" store, or how the new building will look, or it's going to be too high or the workers building it are not fair trade south american abuse survivor transgendered construction workers. Just look at the Pagoda Theatre building in North Beach for a perfect example. You know what I mean? And there's the dysfunctional Board of Supervisors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 The government has mortgaged the future of the state and in the decades ahead You can place blame first and foremost on Proposition 13...the voters back then didn't care about future generations, only themselves. Let future generations worry about it was basically their attitude. Proposition 13 has done more harm to the state of California then almost any other thing I can think of. It was bad then and it's been killing the state slowly for over 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 There was a poll recently done by WGN I think, which asked if Chicagoans would want to bid again and last time I checked it was 72% yes. I'm sure it's not a scientific poll, but then again WGN was the same poll that released 47% of Chicagoans supporting the Games before the decision. Amazingly, with the defeat, it seems that it actually united everyone in Chicago with continuous reports even days after the decisions. Chicago Tribune and Crain's Business Chicago, one of the earliest media outlets that voiced concerns about the Olympics are now asking for Chicago to bid again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 It's true that the Board of Supervisors would prevent an Olympics in SF. Just by looking at Chicago's City Council, Daley had a hard time convincing them until the last minute about financial guarantees. And to think that many view Daley as the most powerful mayor in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 It's true that the Board of Supervisors would prevent an Olympics in SF. Just by looking at Chicago's City Council, Daley had a hard time convincing them until the last minute about financial guarantees. And to think that many view Daley as the most powerful mayor in the US. Actually, this isn't true. Newsom got everybody on board for both the 2012 and 2016 stabs but for 2012, NYC won the domestic title. And for 2016 which would have been an eminently better plan (I volunteered on both bids), the fricking' 49er owner, what's the name of that pervert, Dr. John something, basically threw us under the truck!! In terms of timing, it rivalled the dumping of the NY2012 stadium plan a week before the IOC vote. But without a tenant for a new stadium at Candlestick, it AIN'T gonna stick. It being an Olympic dream. And the land that had been reserved in Hunters Point for the OV willbe long gone and parceled out. Go with my USA 2024 plan. We have ALL the room in the world to build ANYTHING!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted October 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Somewhat ironic, his name was York and he was previously a cancer researcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Somewhat ironic, his name was York and he was previously a cancer researcher. I thought he was a failed dentist or someting and just married a rich gal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Actually, this isn't true. Newsom got everybody on board for both the 2012 and 2016 stabs but for 2012, NYC won the domestic title. And for 2016 which would have been an eminently better plan (I volunteered on both bids), the fricking' 49er owner, what's the name of that pervert, Dr. John something, basically threw us under the truck!! In terms of timing, it rivalled the dumping of the NY2012 stadium plan a week before the IOC vote. But without a tenant for a new stadium at Candlestick, it AIN'T gonna stick. It being an Olympic dream. And the land that had been reserved in Hunters Point for the OV willbe long gone and parceled out. Go with my USA 2024 plan. We have ALL the room in the world to build ANYTHING!! San Francisco 2016 was indeed a better plan, though I did not like Gymnastics being all the way down in San Jose. Would prefer everything kept compact between SF/Oakland/Berkley (including Marin and East Bay hills). I think Palo Alto was the furthest distance south acceptable (not ideal, but acceptable). And yeah, Hunters Point is going to be gone. Where would they build the Olympic Village once that disappears? But Chicago faces the same problem. The Michael Reese Hospital land is going to go bye-bye and no more Chicago Olympic Village with private beach on Lake Michigan for any potential future Chicago bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soaring Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 San Francisco 2016 was indeed a better plan. I disagree. I looked through SF's plans, and Chicago was a much better choice. Come on, 20 sports along the lake? With the OV and stadium close by, it was much better. I agree, Chicago's most difficult challenge in a future bid will be to secure a nice area for the Olympic Village. If they bid for 2020, I expect that they would still be able to work with the Michael Reese site, but it will not be available come 2024 or 2028. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I disagree. I looked through SF's plans, and Chicago was a much better choice. Come on, 20 sports along the lake? With the OV and stadium close by, it was much better.I agree, Chicago's most difficult challenge in a future bid will be to secure a nice area for the Olympic Village. If they bid for 2020, I expect that they would still be able to work with the Michael Reese site, but it will not be available come 2024 or 2028. NO. San Francisco 2016 was better plan over San Francisco 2012. I wasn't talking about Chicago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 NO. San Francisco 2016 was better plan over San Francisco 2012. I wasn't talking about Chicago! That's also what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 well dont know why... if u ask 3 cities from usa any one firts they will say NYC the LA That's irrelevant though. New York was not interested in bidding again after their 2012 loss & Los Angeles has already hosted the Olympics *twice*. And Chicago is still America's #3 city after NY & LA. So it's really a no-brainer why the USOC chose Chicago over Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I understand the reasoning behind Chicago as the #3 city, but I sort of think that ranking is a bit unfair. The three cities are all completely different. Chicago's character is definitely most conducive to hosting an Olympic Games. Incidentally, whenever the U.S. does decide to bid again, they need to offer comprehensive financial guarantees right out of the gate. None of this eleventh hour business. It's encouraging to hear that there's some interest in Chicago bidding again. Perhaps a dramatic loss was just what the city needed to galvanize it's people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I understand the reasoning behind Chicago as the #3 city, but I sort of think that ranking is a bit unfair. The three cities are all completely different. Chicago's character is definitely most conducive to hosting an Olympic Games. Incidentally, whenever the U.S. does decide to bid again, they need to offer comprehensive financial guarantees right out of the gate. None of this eleventh hour business. It's encouraging to hear that there's some interest in Chicago bidding again. Perhaps a dramatic loss was just what the city needed to galvanize it's people? But you got to TIME IT RIGHT. '20 and '24 are NOT conducive to a US bid. You gotta make them want ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTimeOnly Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I understand the reasoning behind Chicago as the #3 city, but I sort of think that ranking is a bit unfair. How is the ranking unfair? New York is the largest city, Los Angeles, the second largest. New York is the #1 DMA, Los Angeles, is the #2 DMA, etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 How is the ranking unfair? New York is the largest city, Los Angeles, the second largest. New York is the #1 DMA, Los Angeles, is the #2 DMA, etc. etc. I'm not arguing with the statistics. I just think the #3 label is unfortunate when it comes to putting up an Olympic bid. Being the #3 city should not translate to being the third best potential U.S. host, but I think it has that irrational visceral effect on some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'm not arguing with the statistics. I just think the #3 label is unfortunate when it comes to putting up an Olympic bid. Being the #3 city should not translate to being the third best potential U.S. host, but I think it has that irrational visceral effect on some. I wouldn't be too worried. Rio and Barcelona are #2 cities and maybe Munich was also #2 in 72 (I never know if Frankfurt is bigger or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 But you got to TIME IT RIGHT. '20 and '24 are NOT conducive to a US bid. You gotta make them want ya. I agree that 2028 is definitely the best shot. Europe and Africa are too eager. The only way 2024 might work is something like this: 2018 Pyeongchang 2020 Capetown 2022 anywhere in Europe 2024 Chicago I don't see that scenario playing out though. I don't see the Europeans compromising their chance at 2024 by hosting in 2022. It could happen like this: 2018 Munich 2020 Capetown 2022 anywhere in Asia 2024 Europe In this scenario, the U.S. would be foolhardy to jump into the 2024 race - especially with a European-dominated IOC. Yet another alternative: 2018 Pyeongchang 2020 Berlin 2022 Denver 2024 Capetown I hate to say it, but I can really see something like this happening. You could also flip-flop the European/African SOGs. In terms of continental rotation, an American WOG fits more naturally into the rotation than an American SOG. USOC: Resist the temptation! NO WOGS! Focus on a Summer Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 WITHOUT a Brand new Spanking T&F stadium, they can't get arsed. Those farts CAN'T imagine a temporary concept well. London's is a HALF-temporary thing...so they can visualize HALF a stadium. Rio has 2, OK older ones, to choose from--so I am sure that helped. Without a new stade, forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 WITHOUT a Brand new Spanking T&F stadium, they can't get arsed. Those farts CAN'T imagine a temporary concept well. London's is a HALF-temporary thing...so they can visualize HALF a stadium. Rio has 2, OK older ones, to choose from--so I am sure that helped. Without a new stade, forget it. If the U.S. or any European or Asian nation proposed Rio's 2 existing stadiums concept, it would fail. Rio got a pass on that. I don't think future hosts are likely to (unless they are also in developing nations). They are making noise again about trying to downsize and make the Games more manageable, but talk is cheap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I agree that 2028 is definitely the best shot. Europe and Africa are too eager. The only way 2024 might work is something like this: 2018 Pyeongchang 2020 Capetown 2022 anywhere in Europe 2024 Chicago I don't see that scenario playing out though. I don't see the Europeans compromising their chance at 2024 by hosting in 2022. It could happen like this: 2018 Munich 2020 Capetown 2022 anywhere in Asia 2024 Europe In this scenario, the U.S. would be foolhardy to jump into the 2024 race - especially with a European-dominated IOC. Yet another alternative: 2018 Pyeongchang 2020 Berlin 2022 Denver 2024 Capetown I hate to say it, but I can really see something like this happening. You could also flip-flop the European/African SOGs. In terms of continental rotation, an American WOG fits more naturally into the rotation than an American SOG. Agreed. However, I think SOG will probabily be like this: 2020 - Europe (any city) 2024 - Africa ( most probabiliy Capetown) 2028 - North America - Chicago or any other city the USA chooses) 2032 - Asia ( any city Japan chooses) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 NY Times' article on New York City's reaction to the Chicago loss. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/...ork-empathizes/ A sobering report that life goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 WITHOUT a Brand new Spanking T&F stadium, they can't get arsed. Those farts CAN'T imagine a temporary concept well. London's is a HALF-temporary thing...so they can visualize HALF a stadium. Rio has 2, OK older ones, to choose from--so I am sure that helped. Without a new stade, forget it. Actually Rio's Joao Havelange Olympic Stadium is now 3 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Danny, old as in pre-existing, new as in built for the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.