Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

5 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

So, with WC 2026 almost a sure thing headed for the US, it's deja vu all over again for the WC 1994 - Atlanta 1996 tandem.  So, N.America 2026; and then Los Angeles 2028!  Funny how these t hings run in parallels.  

And since Canada will have a piece of the 2026 pie, that pretty much boosts Sion's 2026 Winter chances and kills Calgary's -- altho it could be Calgary's getting into position for 2030.  

2 summers ago, within a couple of weeks of each other, Canada hosted the Women's World Cup and the Pan Am Games, even though the former left out Toronto so they could focus on the latter.  Canada having 1/8 of a World Cup, which probably won't even involve Calgary, will have little to no effect IMO on Calgary's chances at a Winter Olympics simply because they're in the same calendar year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

lafc7.jpg?itok=pJvLv5uG

Where will the George Lucas Museum fit in?  And that should be up before 2028, right?  So will there still be enough room to fit all the temporary, ancillary structures necessary to keep Exposition Park as the centerpiece of the Games? 

LAFC Stadium is on the Southeast corner of Exposition Park and the Lucas Museum on the flipside anchored on the Northwest.

LAFC Opens 2019
Lucas Museum 2021

Open by 2024 ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, RuFF said:

This fella has an interesting view about if LA were awarded 2028, and possibly 2026 or 2030 WOG in the US, too, as part of a deal to give Paris 2024 and LA 2028. Allowing LA 4 additional years would also allow LA to milk the marketing machine and build up sponsorship revenue.

Aside from a 2026 or 2030 "deal" (which that I'd doubt the IOC would do, unless they approached it as a "let's wait & see if anyone else credible doesn't come along first" strategy), the rest of it isn't anything new that we haven't touched upon here already, especially the parts about stretching the revenue (& interest) opportunities & allowing L.A. more time to complete a lot of their ambitious infrastructure project upgrades. But you'd conveniently dismissed all that & would follow whatever rhetoric came out of wasserman's (& abratwatson's) lips instead. Now all of the sudden, you wanna do a 360 cuz this "fella" here is saying what the rest of us here have been saying all along. Go f'n figure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"This bid satisfies the IOC’s Agenda 2020 stipulating that host cities should rely heavily on existing or planned infrastructure and not undertake excessive spending and taxation to cover hosting costs, something that the Paris bid is struggling to overcome."

This is a bad assesment in the article. It's already been determined that Paris 2024 is NOT "struggling to overcome" anything when it comes to Agenda 2020. As a matter of fact, they're doing just as well a job, if not better, than L.A. is in that category. Just like the article states, Paris is using existing & "planned" facilities (just like L.A. is) in their proposal. And it's something that the Evaluation Committee will certainly see for themselves when they visit Paris next month. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Moreover, on January 25, 2017, the LA City Council UNANIMOUSLY approved the Host City agreement including the municipality’s guarantee to cover any funding shortfall, the single biggest factor that doomed Boston’s 2024 bid, Chicago 2016 and contributed to the downfall of New York City 2012."

Here's another part that goes againsts you-know-who's "pay to play in L.A." rhetoric. L.A. is going to play & pay alright, if there are any cost overruns. Which with any Olympics in the 21st century have shown, there will be, no matter how much spin the L.A. bid puts on. So once L.A. signs that legally binding contract, they can't "just say no".

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the article's 3rd to the last paragraph, does this author even know what he's writing about?

Quote

The IOC knows that with the commitments necessary to host the Summer Games and Winter Games the end may be near for credible global cities to pursue a host bid, as evidenced by Budapest’s decision, leaving a “B” list of cities, at best. 

Did I understand this right -- Paris, France, and Los Angeles, USA are "B" cities?  :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ejaycat said:

It's capitalism, pure and simple.  Overbooking is a way to maximize profits, at customers' expense.  Passengers are seen as money, not people.  It's not just the airline industry, but hotels and car rental agencies also overbook.  

I think it should be outlawed too, but I think the airline industry would just use that as an excuse to get money in other ways, like a rise in fees, even more fees for whatever else, etc.

And by the way, this latest incident from United Airlines was not an ordinary "overbooking" incident; 4 people were asked to leave so that they could accommodate 4 United employees who needed to get to Louisville:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0

To play devil's advocate here for a second and not to let United off the hook here, but part of the thinking behind over-selling is that if some passengers do in fact not show up, selling the extra seats leads to fuller planes which could in theory lead to lower prices.  So it serves a purpose, and you're right that if the process went away, it would hurt passengers.  And let's not lose sight of something here.. this was NOT an overbooking situation.  This was United trying to force their employees onto an already full flight and basically telling 4 passengers to take a hike.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ejaycat said:

For whatever reason, my comments seemed to have touched a nerve.  

For argument's sake, what if Honolulu were the US' candidate city?  Would Honolulu be considered "the face of America" (whatever the hell that means)?  And SHOULD it be considered the "face of America," in terms of an Olympic bid?  Honolulu and Hawaii obviously have their own thing going on, and are unique to the rest of the US.  The same could be said if Dallas, or Miami, or Chicago, or New York City, were Olympic candidate cities; in my opinion, none of those cities represent the whole US.      

I never said California and LA are better than the US, just different.  And those differences manifest themselves in many ways.  We've always done a number of things differently here than in the rest of the US, I assume because of our large population in what was considered an isolated part of the continental US until jet travel.  

For the longest time, we were exempt from having to have exit numbers on our freeways when the federal Interstate system was required to have them, because by the late 1950s, California already had an extensive freeway system, and it would be unfair to California to have to spend money in installing exit number signs; we didn't start getting exit numbers until about 2002, and we still don't use them.  People will still say "Take the La Brea Exit off the 10" instead of "Take Exit..." I don't even know what the exit number is for La Brea Ave. from the 10.  

We were the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to require catalytic converters on cars; they've been required here since the mid-1970s; of course conservatives and the auto industry said that it would be bad for business and the economy, but they were proven wrong.  Other states (and countries) later followed suit.  Because of oil spills, we've banned offshore drilling to protect our beautiful coastline.  

We were one of the last states to have caller ID for land lines, because many felt it was a privacy issue.  

Because of our agriculture, we can use fresh fruits and vegetables in our food and cooking.  I've known people from other states who grew up on canned vegetables, which I can't fathom.  Is that being arrogant, or is that just pointing something out?  

California has banned smoking in restaurants since 1995 (I think), and in bars since 1998.  We now also have banned outdoor smoking on restaurant patios in some cities, and even smoking within 25 feet of any entrance or operable window of government buildings.  Depending on the jurisdiction, smoking also has been banned on beaches, public parks... I think Long Beach has banned smoking within 20 feet of bus stops.  It's obviously a health issue, but for some reason that I can't figure out (apart from maybe some southern states where tobacco-growing is a big industry), the rest of the US has been slow to catch on.  Is that an arrogant statement to make, or am I just pointing something out?

I'm not a smoker, and none of my friends smoke, and I'm used to pretty much a smoke-free environment, which is one of the reasons I hate going to Las Vegas and its casinos.  I know that more states have adopted stricter smoking laws, but man, when I traveled around the US, I was appalled that smoking was still allowed in some shopping malls, airports, restaurants... this is one of the things that I "didn't get" when it came to the rest of the US.  Or the phenomenon of cream cheese on sushi, and liking it (!).  Or what the hell egg foo yung is (I still don't know what it is).  

Growing up in southern California, I always wondered why California and Californians always got made fun of by people from other parts of the country, yet when I visited other parts of the country, I wondered why *we* were made fun of.  

In LA, there are many groups of people who don't assimilate/haven't assimilated.  Which I think is fine, and so do many others.  A transplant co-worker of mine complained to me about how they encountered a person who didn't speak any English (I think the person she encountered spoke Mandarin).  She said "why do they move here and not learn the language?"  My response to her was "Well the 'Pilgrims' weren't told that they had to learn Wampanoag."  My response went over her head.  There are whole neighborhoods and areas of LA County that you don't hear English, and English isn't needed to get by.  And I'm not bothered by that.  I don't claim to speak for everyone from LA, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.  

I'm sure you can tell from my profile pic that I'm not white.  But I do speak English with an American accent.  But even though that's the case, when I was in Michigan, I was assumed to be a foreigner by someone.  Someone actually asked me what country I was from.  That was the first and only time that another American presumed that I wasn't American.  That was another thing I "didn't get."  

 

It's not you so much as a certain other poster here whos comments about LA touch a nerve.  Not that you haven't fed the fire a bit by trying to classify LA and you're still doing it somewhere here by saying "We've always done a number of things different here than in the rest of the US" which is probably also true about most large cities in the US.  To a few of your points..

We don't need argument's sake.  We have history with an Olympic bid in the form of America.  They were not the face of America.  That bid was advertised with Atlanta largely as the capital of the American South.  That's how they sold it.  A city bidding for the Olympics does not become the face of America.  Ideally for the USOC that's what they would like, but it's never going to happen.  No city in the US can boast that, as you noted.  So that's the thing here.. why would Los Angeles be any different?

Re: argriculture.. it's a little arrogant, IMO.  California has a good climate to grow food (sometimes).  Other areas, not so much.  So if you go to a state where they don't have so much access to fresh food whereas Southern California does, you shouldn't be taken aback by that so much.

Re: smoking.. I am competely with you that I detest smoking and do not argue with public bans, even though smokers think that's an infringement of their rights.  Still, yes it is a little arrogant to refer to the rest of the US as "slow to catch on" because of a trend supposedly California has started.  Go to Europe where smoking is widely accepted and they probably think we're nuts.

In short.. people and regions have their own customs.  What 1 person thinks is normal, someone else might think is crazy.  So the "I don't get this" argument works both ways.  That's diversity for you, and it's certainly not a bad thing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RuFF said:

There's more to that. 4 employees likely serve another flight, meaning that not allowing those employees on board would affect a whole plane of people and airport operations somewhere else, possible in both that other planes origin and destination. That would domino into connecting passengers as well. 

And they shouldn't have touched the old man.  After he said "I just want to get home" and "Just kill me" already, they should have read that as he was not a safety risk.  And they should always then, like in Broadway theaters, wherein they always reserve 2 seats empty for the producer's or the house manager's last minute choices, for situations such as this.  Well, 20/20.  Live and learn.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

Not a fan of the yellow, but hey, new trains are never a bad thing.

 

The color scheme with the yellow dots or bubbles kind of mimics the newest Kinki Sharyo P3010 trains on the Gold and Expo lines:

maxresdefault.jpg 

 

DSC_0427.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2017 at 8:59 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

And they shouldn't have touched the old man.  After he said "I just want to get home" and "Just kill me" already, they should have read that as he was not a safety risk.  And they should always then, like in Broadway theaters, wherein they always reserve 2 seats empty for the producer's or the house manager's last minute choices, for situations such as this.  Well, 20/20.  Live and learn.  

You must remember that he was violating FEDERAL law by not obeying the flight crew.  Does not matter if he is a safety risk or not......it is a federal crime.  Also, if the crew allowed him to stay on, what signal would it send to any other passenger, on that flight or any other flight?  Is it now OK to only obey the law when you want?  The flight crew needs to have authority.  To me, when he said "Just kill me" it showed that he was a risk,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lovecruisingtoo said:

You must remember that he was violating FEDERAL law by not obeying the flight crew.  Does not matter if he is a safety risk or not......it is a federal crime.  Also, if the crew allowed him to stay on, what signal would it send to any other passenger, on that flight or any other flight?  Is it now OK to only obey the law when you want?  The flight crew needs to have authority.  To me, when he said "Just kill me" it showed that he was a risk,

Well, you're wrong.  Look, United has paid for this in a big drop in its stock, in its image, and changes in POLICY!!  Federal laws have to be reviewed -- and we need to poke a stick in Trump's and Jeff Sessions' eyes!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, you're wrong.  Look, United has paid for this in a big drop in its stock, in its image, and changes in POLICY!!  Federal laws have to be reviewed -- and we need to poke a stick in Trump's and Jeff Sessions' eyes!! 

Are you saying that I am wrong about disobeying the flight crew is a federal crime?  If that is what you are saying then please look at:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46504

Just because the "court of public opinion" is against United does not mean that it is OK to disobey the flight crew.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked at the UAL stock.  You say that the UAL stock has taken a "big drop". If you compare UAL to the DJI, you will see that over the past 30 days, the DJI is down 1.84% while UAL is UP 3.79%.  Even just considering the last 5 trading days, both UAL and DJI are both down approximately the same amount.  That is not what I call a "big drop".  If you want to claim a "big drop" you need to only look at 2 trading days.  But again, those 2 days are offset by the gains on the previous two days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RuFF said:

AbRuFFhamson has another popular article out. 

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/04/17/olympics-generate-bad-press/

There is a lot of stuff he touched on but one of interest revolved around this...

"Going to Los Angeles for 2024, a privately funded bid and (if it wins) organizing committee, will buy the IOC needed time and stability. The other 2024 option is Paris, a continuation of the very thing that has gotten the IOC in this jam, a government-underwritten bid and (if it wins) organizing committee."

Just curious. Regardless of if you think Paris or LA should win 2024, what truth is there in the problem being government backed bids and organizing committees?

The obvious is cost overruns falling on the backs of taxpayers, but to what extent is government itself helping to jack up those figures? 

Depends on the government.  Does anyone think Russia actually spent $51 billion on the Sochi Olympics, or is their government (who no one would dare oppose) skimming off the top and not being held accountable?  Could make a similar argument with Beijing, expect they probably did build that much.  Here's the problem with AA's argument, and this is nothing new since he keeps bringing up the same points over and over again..

LA 2024 doesn't buy them time.  It kicks the can down the road and potentially leaves them in the same predicament for 2028.  And if Tokyo's budget continues to increase, that's going to be a really bad look for prospective bidders in the same way that cities were scared off for 2022 based on the fallout from Sochi 2014.

Plus, as has been brought up here before, good for LA that they do things differently and offer a less risky financial model than other cities.  But that's not something other cities and countries and NOC's would be able to replicate.  So what LA would do would be a 1-shot deal.  And again, it's not without risk to taxpayers what LA is doing.  They can say all they want how they're protecting the people, but there's no way they can guarantee that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances across nations differ so much. In London the government backing was a Godsend as the credit crunch hit in 2008 meaning no banks were willing to lend to the developers chosen to build the Olympic village and media centre. In the case of Sochi and perhaps Rio (where Mayor Paes has been named in a corruption scandal this week) corruption seems to be creep into the equation. Then there's the matter of simple pride - Athens not wanting anything in homecoming Games to be temporary, Beijijng wanting to build a huge national symbol like the Birds Nest.

I don't think government backing by itself is a problem though, and perhaps a realistically costed government backed bid would be as much a boon to the Olympic movement as a more heavily privately backed bid. And what would actually buy the IOC time would be a sensible double award, in whichever order.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I agree that in either order the IOC wins. What I don't understand is why hasn't Paris already done this? More than LA, Paris has the opportunity to change the government backed model, especially because of the businesses that call Paris home. 

Becuz Paris is the capital of the Republic -- unlike LA which is #2 or #3 only in the US and is NOT the capital of the country.  The US is also the only country in the world with an independent, self-sustaining, private, non-gov't-funded Olympic Association.  Further, the glory of a French Games is very much tied in to the glory of France, hence, the state is heavily vested in the bid.  So that's why.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 2
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...