Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, it was a water pipe that distributed tap water, not a sewer network that carried dirty water away. Also, in defense, Boston isn't exactly the newest city, so I'd expect some pretty old water pipes on the verge of exploding, also. The average age of a broken water main is 47 years, the one that ruptured, was 100. This is actually a nationwide problem, and not just exclusive to Los Angeles.

Get yo' facts straight! :angry:

Actually, Boston has a pretty damn great water system, with the main lines presently around 26 years old, an absolutely gargantuan treatment plant, and a reservoir system that could support a population roughly 3 times its current service area (at least, thats how much it was when I was studying it back in '09, but its not like our population is increasing that quickly). Plus, California's kinda infamous right now for budgetary woes and shortfalls, whereas MA's... well, its not the poster boy of fiscal responsibility, but its not California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually never heard of it either, but it's Wikipedia, dammit! Look at all the sources!

I remember it, but only because I was on the Cape and the grocery stores down there had a run on bottled water for those heading back to the Boston area. As is typical, the media blew it out of proportion. I think drinkable water service was disrupted in about a dozen towns for a couple of days. IIRC, people still had water for things like washing, gardening, etc.

Let's get back on topic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, California's kinda infamous right now for budgetary woes and shortfalls, whereas MA's... well, its not the poster boy of fiscal responsibility, but its not California.

Uhmmm...look at this list. Actually, CA (#46) is better than...Massachusetts (#47). ;)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368415/how-solvent-your-state-veronique-de-rugy

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not that big of a deal. There was no flooding of buildings or anything like that. Just a precautionary "boil your water for a few days." And for all the supposed runs on water that were in the area, I had no trouble finding bottled water.

However, it was an election year, and the Governor wanted to look like he saved us all from disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Biased <_< ... Kidding, but the "compact" venue plan wouldn't necessarily help them. I don't think there has been any releases as to their current (or future) preference. They really should be careful anyway since, y'know, the current bid race is... scary. LA is the type of city that is spread out, and if that isn't Olympic worthy, then I don't think it would've been possible to host two Olympiads successfully (granted they were the only options). iirc, another article mentioned how the compactness of Boston itself may hurt if because there would be no place for temporary venues (which would make it a not-so-compact plan if they had to build it elsewhere) or something like that. Not sure if that's true. Any Bostoners want to tell me if that's true?

Anyways, I found an image from Boston Globe that speculated how close the venues were for each city. It seems Boston isn't alone on the "compact advantage" if you base it purely on this:

olympicsbid.jpg

(Source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/15/why-boston-could-have-edge-bidding-for-olympics/bgGdIzqsXtFRhDPs8L7ddJ/igraphic.html?p1=Article_Graphic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this little snippet right here says it all;

"but even if Boston is selected, it's still not clear that the city is ready to commit to staging the Games".

That right there is going to knock them out of contention. "Compact" or no compact Games.

Out of the four, L.A. is the one that seems the most committed towards this effort. And I just can't see the USOC whatsoever selecting a bid that would still be in commitment limbo. The USOC isn't going to go down the NYC2012 road again. They want something very, very firm this time out.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this little snippet right here says it all;

"but even if Boston is selected, it's still not clear that the city is ready to commit to staging the Games".

That right there is going to knock them out of contention. "Compact" or no compact Games.

Out of the four, L.A. is the one that seems the most committed towards this effort. And I just can't see the USOC whatsoever selecting a bid that would still be in commitment limbo. The USOC isn't going to go down the NYC2012 road again. They want something very, very firm this time out.

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...look at this list. Actually, CA (#46) is better than...Massachusetts (#47). ;)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368415/how-solvent-your-state-veronique-de-rugy

Hmmm, interesting read. Looks like the National Review picked a solvency statistic that - and I'm sure this is a coinincidence - makes red states look good, and blue states look bad. Shocking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this little snippet right here says it all;

"but even if Boston is selected, it's still not clear that the city is ready to commit to staging the Games".

That right there is going to knock them out of contention. "Compact" or no compact Games.

Out of the four, L.A. is the one that seems the most committed towards this effort. And I just can't see the USOC whatsoever selecting a bid that would still be in commitment limbo. The USOC isn't going to go down the NYC2012 road again. They want something very, very firm this time out.

Bingo! Pokeno! Somebody get this man a twenty dolla!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this little snippet right here says it all;

"but even if Boston is selected, it's still not clear that the city is ready to commit to staging the Games".

That right there is going to knock them out of contention. "Compact" or no compact Games.

Out of the four, L.A. is the one that seems the most committed towards this effort. And I just can't see the USOC whatsoever selecting a bid that would still be in commitment limbo. The USOC isn't going to go down the NYC2012 road again. They want something very, very firm this time out.

There's another damning line right after the one you quoted.. "it is still investigating the feasibility and availability of sites in the vicinity"

How long has it been said that there will come a point that this committee needs to put up or shut up. My view on them remains unchanged. To me, they're still in the game based on the potential of what they can deliver, but at some point, they need to transition from investigation and feasibility studies into something resembling a plan. Maybe they have that cooking but simply don't have all the pieces in place, but I remain less than confident they're going to be able to sell this to the people that matter. And again, John Fish is well-connected in some local businesses, but the fact he's in construction makes me a little leery of the perception that he and his interests stand to benefit more from this than the city. I give him the benefit of the doubt that it's not an ulterior motive on his part, but when it comes time for him to put this all together, I hope for his sake he doesn't get pushback as a result.

I said it before and I'll say it again.. prove me wrong, John Fish. Prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, interesting read. Looks like the National Review picked a solvency statistic that - and I'm sure this is a coinincidence - makes red states look good, and blue states look bad. Shocking!

It's a chicken or egg thing. Can New York City afford social services because it has successful businesses, or do its social services lead to successful businesses? Your opinion is going to depend on your political persuasion.

Boston's bid is similarly a matter of perspective. I think a bid without an Olympic Park will never win unless that bid is from Paris, and since Boston is never going to use eminent domain to carve out a 250+ acre site for even a small Olympic Park then the city is wasting its time. If you are a Boston booster, on the other hand, you probably just want to see a bid from the city irrespective of its viability in the eyes of the IOC. Or maybe you think the IOC will make an exception on its demand for an Olympic Park for your great city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...