Posted on 06/13/2014 3:40:19 PM PDT by BenLurkin
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — The city of Los Angeles is on a short-list of four finalists to potentially host the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, officials announced Friday.
San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C., landed the other three spots on the United States Olympic Committee list of potential bidders for the game following its board of directors meeting earlier this week outside Boston.
If Los Angeles is chosen to make the U.S. bid, and is ultimately chosen as host, it would become the first American city to host the Games three times, tying it with London as the only worldwide city to do so. LA hosted the Summer Olympics in 1932 and 1984.
No U.S. city has hosted the Olympics since Atlanta in 1996.
Mayor Eric Garcetti hailed the Committee’s decision, saying in a statement: “Los Angeles is the ideal Olympic city, with endless diversity, attractions and scenic beauty I look forward to working with the USOC to ensure we present the strongest possible bid for our nation.”
The cost of hosting an Olympic Games could exceed $3 billion, USOC Chief Executive Officer Scott Blackmun said last year when the organization sent out feelers to mayors of 35 U.S. cities considered potential hosts.
Host cities are required to have ample resources to provide at least 45,000 hotel rooms, an Olympic Village with rooms for 16,500 people and a 5,000-person capacity dining area, space for 15,000 media and broadcast representatives, an international airport able to handle thousands of international travelers per day, public transportation to venues and roadway closures
Chicago has been selected to host the drive by shooting event.
We invented drive-bys -- right here in SoCal!
Chicago has developed a large pool of participants. This could put them over the top for the event.
Why would any city want to host that boondoggle?
Mexico didn’t send atheletes in ‘84. Everybody who could run, jump or swim were already here.
Boston? Kraft was told to keep his stadium in Foxboro. The Red Sox couldn’t even get property around Fenway to expand. Which neighborhoods are going to be bulldozed for a 100,000 seat stadium and the Olympic Village?
“Why would any city want to host that boondoggle?”
Probably because there’s money in graft and corruption. Certainly the taxpayers will get taken to the cleaners. There is certainly no profit.
Yes, yes, yes.
That was why Caliph Baraq was sad when Chicago got tossed from the 2016 competition, despite the fervent sales pitches delivered by Baraq, MooseChelle, Blowprah, and Hillary.
But but but...
“The Boston model of the future will take into account the impact of rising sea levels;”
Ouch
All four cities have a lot of the expensive sport infrastructures (i.e. stadiums and arenas) in place. I’m sure the official plan will utilize existing college basketball arenas and football stadiums, city’s convention center, and locations in the region for venues.
Los Angeles has the old Olympic Coliseum—it just needs a track put back in. San Francisco has Stanford Stadium for its track—but I’ll bet the IOC will demand a brand-new track stadium in the city instead of a perfectly-good football stadium in the suburbs.
I don’t think an existing football-only stadium could be converted into a Europe-style track-and-field stadium very easily based on the size of the available playing surface. Picture your old high school’s football field/track. Does your NFL or college team’s stadium have enough space beyond the endzones for the track’s curves?
I’m not sure who the U.S.O.C would pick, but I think Los Angeles would have the best odds from the I.O.C. for one reason—the centerpiece track-and-field stadium. Each of the three other cities already has a relatively-new football stadium, and the cities won’t be looking to spend money to build a new stadium that could be converted into a football stadium that they don’t need. Los Angeles has an existing stadium that has hosted the Olympics twice and would only need a track installed, or the desire to build a new stadium that could be converted to a football stadium to bring an NFL team back to Los Angeles.
Either gangstas or public employee union
LA has world class facilities, held the Olympics in 1984 with excellence.
In 1984 I rode bikes with my younger brother to Mission Viejo, to watch an Olympic cycling event. Was pretty cool.
I still watch the video of that and laugh my rear off!
The first of Obama’s fails, and sadly the most benign of them.
i was in LA the final week of the ‘84 Games...Olympics were great but the city was garbage...
good points, but the new Stanford Stadium does not have a track around the field. Track meets do not typically draw thousands of fans, so they moved it elsewhere, so they could get fans closer to the Football action. They also did this at Cal on the recent re-model of Memorial Stadium in Berkeley. The only track left is Spartan Stadium at San Jose State, but only 30,000 seats (not big enough for the Olympics) The brand new Levis Stadium in Santa Clara for the 49ers cannot add a track without doing millions in “renovations”, but it isn’t even open yet for Football! I would love a Bay Area games, but I think LA will get it
I have no doubt that after the mess Brazil is going to make of the Olympics the committee is going to wish they had chosen Chicago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.