Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Maximf83 said:

The worse part is that those people are screaming that the city should be using the money for something else, because thats what they are told by nolympicsla, however what they are not told, nor believe in, is that it's not the city's money, it's ticket sales, sponsorships, private donations. And when they are challenged, immediately the screaming turn to cost overruns that will be from the state taxes, however there is 0 proof of cost overruns and using past examples is so wrong.

I agree there's a lot of mis-information from those guys, especially as I scroll through their Twitter account.  And yes, maybe of their followers do believe there's $7 billion out there getting spent on the Olympics that somehow could be used on other projects.  That said.. yes, there is a risk things will cost more than expected and/or revenues will be less than expected.  Remains to be seen who is on the hook in that case.  And that's to say nothing of all the socio-economic issues tied to the Olympics, for better or worse.  If the NOlympicsLA folks were smart, they'd play up that negative aspect from `84 that often gets overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I agree there's a lot of mis-information from those guys, especially as I scroll through their Twitter account.  And yes, maybe of their followers do believe there's $7 billion out there getting spent on the Olympics that somehow could be used on other projects.  That said.. yes, there is a risk things will cost more than expected and/or revenues will be less than expected.  Remains to be seen who is on the hook in that case.  And that's to say nothing of all the socio-economic issues tied to the Olympics, for better or worse.  If the NOlympicsLA folks were smart, they'd play up that negative aspect from `84 that often gets overlooked.

there is always a risk, but i dont think there is nearly as much risk here because of the lack of new construction, i believe cost overruns tied directly into venue construction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also they are flying to Tokyo to start international resistance together with the people from paris and boston (why are boston people still involved??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Maximf83 said:

there is always a risk, but i dont think there is nearly as much risk here because of the lack of new construction, i believe cost overruns tied directly into venue construction

Venue infrastructure is listed in LA's budget as $1.463 billion.  That's more than 20% of their total budget.  So it's a misnomer to say there's a lack of new construction when it accounts for a pretty big chunk of the budget.

Where LA's efforts may be less risky than other bids is that it's privately backed as opposed to most of the time where it's government backed.  Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stick to budgets, especially if a scenario comes up where LA's interests need to measured up against the IOC's wishes.  That's where a lot of Olympic host cities tend to run into trouble, so it remains to be seen how they'll handle that in LA.

8 hours ago, Maximf83 said:

Also they are flying to Tokyo to start international resistance together with the people from paris and boston (why are boston people still involved??)

When the Boston anti-Olympic folks started to gain traction, I said I thought it was likely to be a one-time thing and not necessarily something that would pop up elsewhere.  Needless to say, I pegged that one wrong.

There's a ton of animosity against the IOC and for good reason.  It's not necessarily specific to one city (although I've seen the NOlympicsLA folks go after Eric Garcetti on several occasions), so it might be more of a determined effort to oppose the IOC rather than be something specific to one city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 8:44 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Venue infrastructure is listed in LA's budget as $1.463 billion.  That's more than 20% of their total budget.  So it's a misnomer to say there's a lack of new construction when it accounts for a pretty big chunk of the budget.

Where LA's efforts may be less risky than other bids is that it's privately backed as opposed to most of the time where it's government backed.  Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stick to budgets, especially if a scenario comes up where LA's interests need to measured up against the IOC's wishes.  That's where a lot of Olympic host cities tend to run into trouble, so it remains to be seen how they'll handle that in LA.

When the Boston anti-Olympic folks started to gain traction, I said I thought it was likely to be a one-time thing and not necessarily something that would pop up elsewhere.  Needless to say, I pegged that one wrong.

There's a ton of animosity against the IOC and for good reason.  It's not necessarily specific to one city (although I've seen the NOlympicsLA folks go after Eric Garcetti on several occasions), so it might be more of a determined effort to oppose the IOC rather than be something specific to one city.

I agree with the frustration with how the last few Olympics have been handled. Beijing, Sochi, and Rio De Janeiro were complete atrocities. No one should ever spend that amount of money for a sporting event. So, yes I see why there is criticism. But they are so desperate to stop them that they are overlooking the reforms that have taken place since to ensure a more sustainable games. It is why Paris and LA were the last two cities running.

Personally, I think NOlympics LA should focus more on factual information regarding the negative impacts to LA after the 1984 games. Most notably the militarization of it's local law enforcement, gang round ups, and homeless relocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 1:43 AM, JesseSaenz said:

I agree with the frustration with how the last few Olympics have been handled. Beijing, Sochi, and Rio De Janeiro were complete atrocities. No one should ever spend that amount of money for a sporting event. So, yes I see why there is criticism. But they are so desperate to stop them that they are overlooking the reforms that have taken place since to ensure a more sustainable games. It is why Paris and LA were the last two cities running.

Good points but in terms of the reforms that have been put into place (Agenda 2020 or the New Norm) is there has yet to be an Olympics that successfully stays within its budget using the aforementioned reforms and until that happens those No Olympics groups are going to continue to keep traction. So it's really a catch-22. The IOC says they've reformed but there needs to be an actual Olympics that has taken place that shows this. Los Angeles appears to fit this the best with Paris a close second. If the IOC selects Stockholm for 2026 then I think they have a good foundation in place. I'd add Pyeongchang to the list over reckless over spending as well (the sliding track has been mothballed, three ice arenas and the alpine course face demolition by the end of the year if no one comes forward to foot the bill for running them). Tokyo's budget has ballooned and while they've made some cost cutting moves they hav not gone far enough and I attribute this to the influence that respective sporting federations still hold (remember when the UCI demanded Rio demolish the newly built Barre Velodrome that had just been built for the Pan Ams?) The UCI was in an uproar when Tokyo changed to the new velodrome outside of Tokyo rather than build a completely new one yet Tokyo bucked to the demands of FIVB when they decided to go ahead and build the Ariake Arena when the Yokohama Arena would have done just fine. So in addition to the IOC's reforms, a host city really needs to come forward and flat out tell the respective sports federations NO when it comes to building expensive venues that do not have a defined purpose after the Olympics. Case in point and this is purely hypothetical, Los Angeles only has one permanent venue to build, the slalom canoe course. I don't know how much use the course would get post-Olympics so could the organizing committee tell the ICF no and insist on using an existing whitewater course already built in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really cool presentation by Casey Wasserman at his Alma Mater, UCLA, as it celebrates its centennial.

"UCLA and the Olympic and Paralympic Movement"

Starts at around the 4min mark.

I like at min 46 where he emphasizes the need to separate the 2028 Games from all the other development going on in LA that is 100% separate from the Olympic budget.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of LA's big goals is to combat the homelessness crisis.  Thus far, not going so well..

Homelessness has gotten worse in LA county despite huge investment. Some other cities see a decrease

Hopefully this won't continue to rear its ugly head in the lead up to the Olympics, because that may invoke memories of how certain sects of the population were treated in the years leading up to 1984.  Wouldn't necessarily want a repeat of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that cities would stop seeing homelessness as something to be "solved." Many people who are homeless don't want to be put into social housing - especially if that housing comes with sobriety checks. So what do you do? Force them into a program against their will? Maybe cities should start designating some places for tent cities.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nacre said:

I wish that cities would stop seeing homelessness as something to be "solved." Many people who are homeless don't want to be put into social housing - especially if that housing comes with sobriety checks. So what do you do? Force them into a program against their will? Maybe cities should start designating some places for tent cities.

They were interviewing homeless in LA. Two things I noticed that really made me angry.

1. A substantial amount of them are not from Los Angeles. They moved to LA from other parts of the country. Many of them are from the midwest and the south. How is it LA's residents responsibility to care for people who are not even from there!?

2. Many don't want help. They want to live "off the grid" as the one woman put it.

LA needs to figure out how to stop the influx of people descending onto the city with plans from the get go to be sleeping on the streets. Additionally, the city/county of LA needs to start being more aggressive. Many of these people will not voluntarily get helped, they have made it abundantly clear. They have it too easy running their own show there and the city leaders need to start putting an end to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×