Posted on 06/13/2014 3:40:19 PM PDT by BenLurkin
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.