Jump to content

No Sf 2016 Vote


Recommended Posts

It looks like Gavin won, and will now be able to present SF to the USOC without worrying about a vote....even though it would have probably passed anyway.

Article:

Question of hosting 2016 Olympics won't go to voters

S.F. supervisor Sandoval tables motion after a lack of support

Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 8, 2006

* Printable Version

* Email This Article

(08-08) 17:32 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco voters will not get a chance to express their opinions at the polls about whether the city should host the 2016 Olympic Games.

A proposal asking for a non-binding vote on the matter fizzled today at City Hall with the measure's sponsor, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, acknowledging he didn't have the necessary support from his board colleagues. Bowing to political reality, Sandoval asked for and received permission to table the motion, ending the debate on the matter.

San Francisco is one of three American cities vying for the 2016 games. Los Angeles and Chicago also are in the running and a decision will be made by March by the United States Olympic Committee. A committee evaluation team plans to meet with city officials later this week to discuss San Francisco's plans for hosting the games.

In proposing to take the city's Olympics bid to voters in November, Sandoval said the games may not provide as much of a financial boost as Mayor Gavin Newsom and other supporters believe while posing security problems and other inconveniences for residents.

"I love sports," Sandoval said Tuesday. "I would love nothing more than to have the Olympics come to San Francisco." But the reality for cities that have hosted the games recently, he continued, is that they have been a "financial burden."

"We should not be afraid to ask the average person on the street what they think," he said. "People very well understand the bottom line. People understand very well traffic and congestion."

Newsom has called Sandoval's proposal premature, saying the city's Olympics bid shouldn't be politicized. "He raises legitimate points and concerns, but the last thing I want to do is be identified with something that was a financial boondoggle to the region," the mayor said last month.

Sandoval said Tuesday that he wanted to get a majority of the board to agree to his proposal rather than using another route allowed by city charter: getting the signatures of three other supervisors to place it on the November ballot.

He said Tuesday he rejected that strategy, preferring instead to see that Newsom accepts public input on the city's Olympics plan.

"It's a straight-up question," Sandoval said. "Ask San Francisco voters if they want the Olympics."

In other action at Tuesday's board meeting, supervisors approved changes in regulations enacted last December for San Francisco medical marijuana dispensaries. The changes will allow two pot clubs operating in residential neighborhoods to remain open for at least one more year while they apply for permits and look to move to more suitable locations.

At a hearing on the amended legislation last week, some residents complained that the city was failing to enforce a current law requiring the clubs to be shut down.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who authored the original measure, said Tuesday changes to the complicated regulations were expected. Of the 30 to 40 clubs in business now, many could be forced to close by next year if they do not complete a strict permitting process overseen by the Planning, Police and Health departments.

E-mail Charlie Goodyear at cgoodyear@sfchronicle.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is good news, but then again, if the motion for a referendum would have probably failed anyway, maybe it would have been better to have a vote arfter all and head offf any potential future criticisms that "it wasn't put to the people".

Any idea if a referendum of SF residents for the games would have passed or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is good news, but then again, if the motion for a referendum would have probably failed anyway, maybe it would have been better to have a vote arfter all and head offf any potential future criticisms that "it wasn't put to the people".

Any idea if a referendum of SF residents for the games would have passed or not?

It would've been tight -- and if coupled with the 49er proposal -- which again wil ask the SF voters if it'sOK to dispense with original mall plan and accept housing instead to help pay for the project BUT minus the $100 million bond -- one doesn't know. It would've depended on how the opposing sides would've mobilized their forces.

But I think the USOC at some time will ask for some poll results, and since the whole Bay Area will be involved, can come up with more favorable results since there are less leftists, anarchists, PC-anorexics, and party poops in the 'burbs.

Also, today in the other paper - they said SF2016 is looking for donated office space in the City for at least 6 months. This is good news for me -- rather than having it in Mountain View last time -- which is why I wasn't able to help out much at the office because it was way down there. Now if its going to be in the City, then I can certainly devote more hours to the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the whole Bay Area were voting, I think an Olympic referendum would pass easily. However, only San Francisco votes, and I doubt there will be much support for diverting resources from health care and social programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great news - for now. It was entirely too premature as the plan, infrastructure and dollars needed to host hasn't even been decided on yet!

But I think the USOC at some time will ask for some poll results, and since the whole Bay Area will be involved, can come up with more favorable results since there are less leftists, anarchists, PC-anorexics, and party poops in the 'burbs.

A poll or referendum will eventually happen, but it should be San Francisco based only. As much as people in San Jose or Palo Alto might like to think otherwise, it's not a "Bay Area Olympics" it is a San Francisco Olympics. :)

Otherwise, Los Angeles should be able to include Orange County with any polls and Chicago include all the outlying areas as well that will be hosting events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great news - for now. It was entirely too premature as the plan, infrastructure and dollars needed to host hasn't even been decided on yet!

A poll or referendum will eventually happen, but it should be San Francisco based only. As much as people in San Jose or Palo Alto might like to think otherwise, it's not a "Bay Area Olympics" it is a San Francisco Olympics. :)

Otherwise, Los Angeles should be able to include Orange County with any polls and Chicago include all the outlying areas as well that will be hosting events.

Yeah, but Los Angeles venues will be found all over Los Angeles County. It's wherever there will be venues, they should count because security and traffic jurisdictions would involve those sites. And SF is more than just the Queen City of the San Francisco Bay Area. I mean Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, San Mateo, etc. would not exist without SF.

In 1984 and 1996, the LA and Atlanta security task forces worked with a statewide patchwork quilt of police and law enforcement agencies to smooth out jurisdictional boundaries and turfs. So it HAS to be all the communities involved in the Bay Area -- including Oakland, Berkeley, SF, Palo Alto, etc.

And I guess the matter of 'overages' as it was called in LA, in other words, the after-Games 'profits' - how should that be divided? Perhaps that should also be settled now -- and present that whole picture to the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And SF is more than just the Queen City of the San Francisco Bay Area.

You said it - not me! :P

Yeah, but Los Angeles venues will be found all over Los Angeles County. It's wherever there will be venues, they should count because security and traffic jurisdictions would involve those sites.

I guess that was what I am saying. So in the case of Los Angeles, venues in Orange County, etc. should be polled by the citizens. Same with Chicago - Champaign, Lake and DuPage counties should be included in with any USOC polls as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it - not me! :P

I guess that was what I am saying. So in the case of Los Angeles, venues in Orange County, etc. should be polled by the citizens. Same with Chicago - Champaign, Lake and DuPage counties should be included in with any USOC polls as well.

I think it would entirely depend on each area -- how they'd want to address the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1984 and 1996, the LA and Atlanta security task forces worked with a statewide patchwork quilt of police and law enforcement agencies to smooth out jurisdictional boundaries and turfs. So it HAS to be all the communities involved in the Bay Area -- including Oakland, Berkeley, SF, Palo Alto, etc.

Wouldn't all that have to be coordinated with Homeland Security now? As well as FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon? Plus Secret Service as the President will be there. And let's not forget teh CHP.

I mean, if San Francisco were to have the Olympics, I would expect no less than a Carrier group in the Bay and outside the mouth of the Bay, and a submarine patrolling around the Farallons. Not to mention a No-Fly-Over Zone over the Bay Area counties.

You're essentially going to lock down the Bay Area at least a month beforehand. Implement the tighest security possible at all 3 airports. Install bomb sensors on BART, plus all the dogs. BioToxin sensors around event venues.

It's gonna be a heck of a lot larger than 1984 or 1996... and 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't all that have to be coordinated with Homeland Security now? As well as FBI, CIA, and the Pentagon? Plus Secret Service as the President will be there. And let's not forget teh CHP.

I mean, if San Francisco were to have the Olympics, I would expect no less than a Carrier group in the Bay and outside the mouth of the Bay, and a submarine patrolling around the Farallons. Not to mention a No-Fly-Over Zone over the Bay Area counties.

You're essentially going to lock down the Bay Area at least a month beforehand. Implement the tighest security possible at all 3 airports. Install bomb sensors on BART, plus all the dogs. BioToxin sensors around event venues.

It's gonna be a heck of a lot larger than 1984 or 1996... and 2002.

That would be the bigger net. But it's still the local Org Committee's and the host city's responsibility to secure the 'official' venues where the Olympic flags are flying and where the Org Committee and the IOC may have legal liabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...