Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what your arguing

I wasn't really arguing anything. Just looking for more information (Thank you for your reply).

A major contributor to the cost inflation has been the increased security after 9/11/2001, but I think those costs are traditionally borne by the US government, not by the individual host city (or am I mistaken?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boston, Massachusetts is taking the first big steps towards looking into the feasibility of a Summer Games bid for the earliest year 2024. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the MA State Senate file a Re

Oslo was an abortion - Boston is a miscarriage.

We prefer "Masshole" to "total douche".

I wasn't really arguing anything. Just looking for more information (Thank you for your reply).

A major contributor to the cost inflation has been the increased security after 9/11/2001, but I think those costs are traditionally borne by the US government, not by the individual host city (or am I mistaken?).

It's been discussed on here before that the Olympics have always (at least post ww2) been a potential terrorist target. 9/11 didn't somehow change things. Security costs have just increased over time depending on the country's threat level and due to how much the games have grown this century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been discussed on here before that the Olympics have always (at least post ww2) been a potential terrorist target. 9/11 didn't somehow change things. Security costs have just increased over time depending on the country's threat level and due to how much the games have grown this century.

And a US games (especially in such an iconic American city) will be a huge target. Add that on with the marathon bombing and I could see Boston be almost under martial law for a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been discussed on here before that the Olympics have always (at least post ww2) been a potential terrorist target. 9/11 didn't somehow change things. Security costs have just increased over time depending on the country's threat level and due to how much the games have grown this century.

It didn't? Tell that to the good folks of Athens whose security costs went way up in the wake of 9/11. It's definitely 1 of the main culprits in terms of costs. Not that security wasn't an issue before, but it's not just because the games have grown in size.

And a US games (especially in such an iconic American city) will be a huge target. Add that on with the marathon bombing and I could see Boston be almost under martial law for a month.

That's if Boston gets the Olympics in the first place. Which, if we're talking about security of that level for that long, they're not going to. As much as the city bonded together in the wake of the marathon bombing, there's the other side of that where it may be something Bostonians don't want to deal with. It's probably a big reason why we're hearing such loud opposition coming from Boston. We all know there are security concerns with any bid city, particularly a US bid city, but if that's a bigger problem for Boston than it is for LA, DC, or SF, that's going to hurt them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been discussed on here before that the Olympics have always (at least post ww2) been a potential terrorist target. 9/11 didn't somehow change things. Security costs have just increased over time depending on the country's threat level and due to how much the games have grown this century.

This is like saying that hosting a wedding for 100 people is the same as 1,000 people, because you would have had to provide catering anyway. Yes, security has always been at the Olympics. But there was a major increase after Munich, and another after terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London after the turn of the last century.

A major contributor to the cost inflation has been the increased security after 9/11/2001, but I think those costs are traditionally borne by the US government, not by the individual host city (or am I mistaken?).

There isn't one running bill for security. For an American Olympics there are federal military forces, state military forces, city police and then the private security forces hired for the games. The organizing committee is responsible for paying the private security. And I'm guessing that means something like 20,000 personnel since London was supposed to be 13,500 and the US government takes security to the Nth degree.

At any rate, the idea that the host's organizing committee can simply send a bill for the security costs (or any other costs) is incorrect. Any government funding must be approved by the legislature of the relevant body. Salt Lake City needed congressional approval to acquire federal funds. I suppose Massachusetts could mobilize its national guard and force them to police the games, but that would be politically and economically difficult and would pass the costs onto the businesses of the state rather than the federal government.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't one running bill for security. For an American Olympics there are federal military forces, state military forces, city police and then the private security forces hired for the games. The organizing committee is responsible for paying the private security. And I'm guessing that means something like 20,000 personnel since London was supposed to be 13,500 and the US government takes security to the Nth degree.

At any rate, the idea that the host's organizing committee can simply send a bill for the security costs (or any other costs) is incorrect. Any government funding must be approved by the legislature of the relevant body. Salt Lake City needed congressional approval to acquire federal funds. I suppose Massachusetts could mobilize its national guard and force them to police the games, but that would be politically and economically difficult and would pass the costs onto the businesses of the state rather than the federal government.

LAOOC hired and paid its own unarmed, security forces (mainly "eyes") for the Village and the venues. They were in touch with the various local police forces (armed) who were technically just outside the perimeters of the venues. (Am not sure what Atlanta and Salt Lake did.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

LAOOC hired and paid its own unarmed, security forces (mainly "eyes") for the Village and the venues. They were in touch with the various local police forces (armed) who were technically just outside the perimeters of the venues. (Am not sure what Atlanta and Salt Lake did.)

That was what thirty years ago? This is a post 9/11 world we live in and you better be sure that security will be through the roof. Even Atlanta had more security then that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what thirty years ago? This is a post 9/11 world we live in and you better be sure that security will be through the roof. Even Atlanta had more security then that.

Well, the IOC had its own 9/11 in Munich before the US' 9/11. Nobody tried any monkey-business in LA. How do you know about Atlanta? The details, being a Security matter, were never publicized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a US games (especially in such an iconic American city) will be a huge target. Add that on with the marathon bombing and I could see Boston be almost under martial law for a month.

Nonesense. Boston is always going to be a target. The 2014 Boston Marathon was a *huge* target. Security did a wonderful job of keeping the course safe without anything approaching martial law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't have military troops, but they did enact rules banning people from bringing backpacks or other containers and restrictions on liquids similar to airports. Putting those rules into place to cover the entire city would be very expensive even without guys in body armor with assault rifles.

I honestly don't see any room for debate on the argument that security costs for another Olympics on American soil will be extremely high.

LAOOC hired and paid its own unarmed, security forces (mainly "eyes") for the Village and the venues. They were in touch with the various local police forces (armed) who were technically just outside the perimeters of the venues. (Am not sure what Atlanta and Salt Lake did.)

Yep. I think every western country has at least intended to put the cost of most of the "boots on the ground" in the hands of the organizing committee. It hasn't always worked out that way, though.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason to suspect that security costs in Boston will be any different than they would be for DC, SF and LA? Also, will there be an expectation that local governments will pick up the tab for these costs? The Boston's bid committee has repeatedly emphasized that Massachusetts taxpayers would not be on the hook for things such as security or venue construction. Are these sort of promises realistic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hearing some news that ISIS would be targeting a US Subway a while back. Of course, 2024 would be 10 years ahead, but it's interesting thinking how some components of a city may harm itself in the even of an attack. New York's subway is very well known so that may be a large target for some violent activity. All of the shortlisted cities have subways, so could that eventually harm them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason to suspect that security costs in Boston will be any different than they would be for DC, SF and LA?

Probably not, but the key issue here is funding. The reason people are more skeptical of San Francisco, Boston and DC than Los Angeles is money. Since LA has less to build, it is more likely to have enough money to fund things like security. If the organizing committee is looking at $700 million contract for security personnel, that takes a big bite out of the money available for things like a temporary athletics stadium.

The Boston's bid committee has repeatedly emphasized that Massachusetts taxpayers would not be on the hook for things such as security or venue construction. Are these sort of promises realistic?

That's the problem. If you look at the numbers from London it's hard to believe that it's possible to host the games now without heavy government spending.

London might not have had quite as much commercialization as Los Angeles and Atlanta, but it was close. It's hard to believe the bid committee for any of these cities are going to be able to find another $5 to $10 billion in sponsor funding if London had about $1.7 billion total. Even Los Angeles would probably require significant government subsidy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonesense. Boston is always going to be a target. The 2014 Boston Marathon was a *huge* target. Security did a wonderful job of keeping the course safe without anything approaching martial law.

They were under it when they were trying to catch the guys. The city practically shut down.

Is there any reason to suspect that security costs in Boston will be any different than they would be for DC, SF and LA? Also, will there be an expectation that local governments will pick up the tab for these costs? The Boston's bid committee has repeatedly emphasized that Massachusetts taxpayers would not be on the hook for things such as security or venue construction. Are these sort of promises realistic?

US Government has always payed for security with the exception of LA. The cost will be high for any American city, but I see all the cities that are up for bids potentially having very heightened security. Especially DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my European perspective, I find it quite astonishing to discuss particular security risks with US Games just talking IS etc, while given the gun laws, there's already a huge potential internally for some individual to go on a killing spree. Maybe also look at the enemy within?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hearing some news that ISIS would be targeting a US Subway a while back. Of course, 2024 would be 10 years ahead, but it's interesting thinking how some components of a city may harm itself in the even of an attack. New York's subway is very well known so that may be a large target for some violent activity. All of the shortlisted cities have subways, so could that eventually harm them?

Just scare tactics for now. So far, they have not exported their terror, even to Europe which is closer and harder for Interpol to police because of all connecting land borders. Everyone coming into the US (at least flying in) is vetted on a database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my European perspective, I find it quite astonishing to discuss particular security risks with US Games just talking IS etc, while given the gun laws, there's already a huge potential internally for some individual to go on a killing spree. Maybe also look at the enemy within?

Bombs, poisons and biological weapons are capable of much more damage and are harder to detect than guns. For the record I think handguns and auto and semi-auto guns should be illegal for civilians, but for an actual terrorist attack guns are no more scary than the other options.

The real reason security is a bigger concern for the USA than it is for places like Germany is that the US is disliked around the world and has more anti-government lunatics among its own citizens. Of course there are crazy people in every country, though. Even Norway has people like Anders Behring Breivik.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Games is going to have similar security threats. Terrorists are looking for maximal impact. What better way than committing a terrorist act while hundreds of news cameras are running? It wouldn't matter if the Games are in Boston, or London or Timbuktu, ISIS or al Qaeda or whomever will likely try to disrupt them somehow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bombs, poisons and biological weapons are capable of much more damage and are harder to detect than guns. For the record I think handguns and auto and semi-auto guns should be illegal for civilians, but for an actual terrorist attack guns are no more scary than the other options.

The real reason security is a bigger concern for the USA than it is for places like Germany is that the US is disliked around the world and has more anti-government lunatics among its own citizens. Of course there are crazy people in every country, though. Even Norway has people like Anders Behring Breivik.

The solution is NOT to hold any parties or gatherings at all. Each individual on earth should just move and walk around in his/her own bomb-proof bubble. That way, ISIS and al Qaeda's moves will be thwarted.

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

Probably not, but the key issue here is funding. The reason people are more skeptical of San Francisco, Boston and DC than Los Angeles is money. Since LA has less to build, it is more likely to have enough money to fund things like security. If the organizing committee is looking at $700 million contract for security personnel, that takes a big bite out of the money available for things like a temporary athletics stadium.

US Government has always payed for security with the exception of LA. The cost will be high for any American city, but I see all the cities that are up for bids potentially having very heightened security. Especially DC.

Which of you is right? Will the US government pay for the security of any 2024 games? Or will it be the responsibility of the organizing committee (and local government)? If the former is true, wouldn't that mean that security costs should be a non-factor in the USOC's decision because no matter who they pick the US government will end up with the tab?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of you is right? Will the US government pay for the security of any 2024 games? Or will it be the responsibility of the organizing committee (and local government)? If the former is true, wouldn't that mean that security costs should be a non-factor in the USOC's decision because no matter who they pick the US government will end up with the tab?

Governments pay for police and military forces. Organizing committees pay for any private security personnel they hire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Games is going to have similar security threats. Terrorists are looking for maximal impact. What better way than committing a terrorist act while hundreds of news cameras are running? It wouldn't matter if the Games are in Boston, or London or Timbuktu, ISIS or al Qaeda or whomever will likely try to disrupt them somehow.

In some cases they don't even have to show up at the event to make a statement. During this year's World Cup there were attacks on viewing parties in Nigeria, most likely led by Boko Haram. The same could happen again anywhere in the world at any viewing centers, or bars or clubs that are there to watch the games. It can even happen within the host city in a location that is nowhere near an area hosting an event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases they don't even have to show up at the event to make a statement. During this year's World Cup there were attacks on viewing parties in Nigeria, most likely led by Boko Haram. The same could happen again anywhere in the world at any viewing centers, or bars or clubs that are there to watch the games. It can even happen within the host city in a location that is nowhere near an area hosting an event.

That's very true, and given the layers of security added after both Munich in '72 and post 9/11, it's more likely that a terrorist group would strike soft targets away from the Games venues within the host city or, as you said, in other places not covered by a massive security detail.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...