Posts Tagged ‘brisbane’

What San Francisco Chronicle Writer CW Nevius Gets Wrong About Our Bid for the Corrupt 2024 Olympics

Tuesday, November 25th, 2014

Here’s the latest from The Nevius – once more unto the breach, my friends, once more:

Olympic insiders dish on S.F.’s bid for 2024 Games - We’ve been talking to some Olympic insiders — nobody likes to gossip like Olympic insiders — and they’ve been sizing up the chances.”

Who’s “we,” Nevius?  Is this nosism, the Royal we? Why do you do that, Neve? (Oh, I’m sorry, why do you guys do that, Neve?) You all should stop doing that, all of you, Neviuses.

The good: There is definitely a strong interest in bringing the Games to the United States. 

I don’t exactly know how juicy this “gossip” is – I think it’s more like common knowledge, right? And considering what the IOC has done to a bunch of cities over the years and decades, I don’t see how this non-gossip could be categorized as “the good.”

The bad: San Francisco’s quirky politics may make organizers nervous. “San Francisco could put something on the ballot,” the staffer said, “and you’ve got Denver all over again.”

OK, so what are you saying here Neve? The short-sighted politicians of Denver and the rest of Colorado made a mistake back in 1970 and that mistake got corrected by the Voters, the sacred Voters, right? Check it: “The IOC had long asserted that it wouldn’t hold the games in Denver unless public money was available to help foot the bill, so unless the people of Colorado would change their minds, the Olympics were going elsewhere.” So isn’t Denver 1976 an example of The Good? I cry foul.

Joke if you will about the proposed pop-up stadium on what is now a landfill in Brisbane, but there is a case to be made that a temporary facility is a sensible option.

The only person in the world to have joked about Brisbane as a stadium location is you yourselves, CW Nevius. FYI. IRL, the venue of this venue is the least of our concerns. IRL, with billions and billions of OUR MONEY, it’ll would be a LEAD PIPE CINCH to make Brisbane work as an olympic stadium. For ex, they could put a roof on it, right?

Beijing’s iconic Bird’s Nest stadium is now called the Empty Nest because it isn’t being used.

As the saying goes, if you start disassembling your “pop-up stadium” four weeks after the Opening Ceremony, all you’re doing is shooting a white elephant. How is that an improvement?

Our insider says, “San Francisco is the most European city,” which plays well with IOC delegates.

“Our insider?” Your (the Plural Your, of course, Emperor Nortonevius) headline promised insiders. And SF is “the most European city” EXCEPT for fucking Berlin, Paris, Hamburg. Rome, St. Pete and all the other European cities what are in the running for 2024.

If San Francisco has one, I couldn’t find it.

Well, here it is – it’s SF2024.Org. Can you find it now, Neviuses?

The Central Subway will be ready by then…

Oh, is that the very same subway what “makes you wince,” Neviuses? What’s that, you know it’s the largest pork barrel project in ‘Merica currently, but you want to maintain your access with the current political Establishment so you say nice things about it now? OK fine. I can’t imagine how the Central Subway would make any kind of difference to the 2024 Olympics, but anyway.

Hey Nevius, weren’t you a big big fan of the America’s Cup coming to town? Weren’t you all:

Holding the America’s Cup race in San Francisco is a wonderful opportunity without a downside.”

Yes you were. But there was a downside, huh? And then you started rooting for the other side and you wished a good riddance to the Cup and now it’s off to Bermuda in 2017. Don’t you see how wrong you were about the America’s Cup? Yes? No? Oh, you’ve already picked up your pom-poms and moved on to the Olympics?

OK fine.

San Francisco 2024 Olympics Roundup: Reaction to Today’s Big Push in the Pages of the SF Chronicle

Thursday, November 20th, 2014

Well, today’s the big day for the bid to have the 2024 Olympics in the Bay Area.

San Francisco puts in chips for 2024 Olympics by John Coté

1. Obviously, an Olympics in the bay area would be good news for the San Francisco Chronicle. Obvs. I mean, that goes without saying, right? See the editorial below. I mean, they learned us this in Economics, case studies of media support for Olympics past.

2. What’s this?

“We have a lot of reverence for the Olympics … but there may be some ways to modernize the Games or do it a little differently,” said Giants President and CEO Larry Baer…

Sounds like Larry’s been looking at opinion polls. You know, Lare-Bear, the other option is to simply let authoritarian regimes host them from now on.

3. Gee, I really think “improvements” should be in quote marks here:

“Plenty of uncertainty remains, however, including whether improvements to housing, transportation and other infrastructure are worth the cost of hosting the Games.”

4. Is this right, our we still in the first inning?

Baer acknowledges that their effort is still in “the first inning,” even after a months-long exploratory process that included meeting with U.S. Olympic officials in July.

I’d say we’re in the seventh inning stretch. This contest will be all over in a month or two. After that, the only question will be whether America gets the Games in 2024.  This “first inning” stuff is spin spin spin.

5. Here’s the start of some nice OTOH grafs:

“It looks more and more like a boondoggle,” said Andrew Zimbalist, economics professor at Smith College in Massachusetts and author of the upcoming book “Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and World Cup.” “It’s a very difficult calculus to make work for you,” Zimbalist said. “The modern Olympics costs billions and billions of dollars to host. The recent evidence we have is that it does not increase tourism, even during the Games.”

6. But this part here is false:

Private funding from international corporate sponsorships, ticket sales and local sponsorships would cover operating costs that Baer projected at about $4.5 billion.

How does John Cote know that operating costs will be covered? He doesn’t.

7. And what a coincidence that our budget and Boston’s are exactly the same! Who’s cribbing from whom?

Boston has a similar cost projection of $4.5 billion for hosting the 2024 Games, a number Zimbalist dismissed as “a nonsense figure.” “They don’t know what they’re talking about,” Zimbalist said.

This is a nice, strong statement. One would expect the cost overage to run from something like 200% to 500% – something in that territory.

8. Uh, the America’s Cup was a “boon” to which industries?

Last year’s America’s Cup was a boon to certain businesses but…” 

I can’t think of a one, honestly. A “boon,” really?

9. Here we go:

Olympic bid leaders aren’t touting the Games’ economic benefits, but rather the ability to rally a region around tackling some of its major problems — transportation and housing — while improving San Francisco’s marginalized southeast corner.

So, if we want to help black people in the southeast, why don’t we simply give them the $4.5 billion and be done with things?

10. And here’s your stinger:

“Olympians,” said Cribbs, “are just ordinary people who do extraordinary things.”

 Sometimes, I suppose. Other times, it’s like this:

Moving on… to this:

OPINION – Solid start to Bay Area bid for 2024 Olympic Games – San Francisco Chronicle

11. Whoo boy:

At the top of the list is a pledge that they will not be asking for any direct public subsidies in what is expected to become a $4.5 billion venture if San Francisco were to become the first U.S. city to host the Summer Games since Atlanta in 1996.

Didn’t we just through this with the America’s Cup? Who’s pledging that there will be no public subsidies? This is laughable.

12. Whoo boy redux:

“We’re trying to take all the lessons learned, not just from other Olympics but what we learned from America’s Cup,” said San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, adding, “We’re going to be smart about it.”

This is what everybody says every two years. What makes 2024 different?

13. Whoo boy redux II, Electric Boogaloo:

This region’s diversity, appeal as an international destination and leadership in technological innovation would make it a perfect fit for an Olympic Games — as long as it’s done our way, with sensibility and sustainability. The framework of this fledgling bid is very encouraging

The Olympics in the Bay Area would be good for some and not good for others. The Chronicle says we should do things “our” way, but we’re following the well-worn path of countless others. Any “sensible” Olympics proposal from the bay area would get rejected by the IOC, so that option’s not really on the table, now is it?

And here comes CW Nevius, a bit off-message:

Bay Area’s Olympic dreams focused on landfill near Candlestick by C.W. Nevius

14. Ah, Nevius. Let’s watch him beg for access right here on Twitter. A bit unseemly, IMO. And then he goes on about the weather / climate. That’s the least of our problems, right?

15. Remember that stuff from Larry Baer up above about us being in “the first inning?” Forget all that:

It could work, but it would need buy-in — and soon 

I’m not sure why the Neve is so negatory on Brisbane. I think it could “work” as well as any other location.

Anyway, for some reason, the boosters picked today to have a Big Push in the Chronicle.

We’ll see how it goes.

Onward They Charge:

apocalypse3-copy

Checking In on a Typical Mayor Gavin Newsom Press Conference a Half-Decade Later: Who Lost Qantas?

Tuesday, July 8th, 2014

Well, nobody really “lost” QANTAS, but SFO used to have the big Australian carrier like for a half-century and now it doesn’t so that’s what SFGov was upset about back in the day. Let’s review.

Here’s 2009, from Qantas:

“In 1954, San Francisco became Qantas’ first US mainland destination and we have a long association with the city. We are delighted to showcase our new aircraft to the people of San Francisco.”

And here’s 2009, from Newsom:

“San Francisco International Airport was designed to accommodate the new A380 aircraft, and we are extremely pleased today to welcome Qantas Airways in the first commercial A380 flight to SFO,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “This state-of-the-art, environmentally sensitive new aircraft provides yet another bridge of friendship between San Francisco and Australia, and we look forward to continuing our long and successful partnership with Qantas.”

Now IRL, the Airbus A380 was and is just another airplane in the sky. And IRL, the state of the art of large commercial aircraft would be to use two large engines instead of the A380′s four smaller engines. And calling it “environmentally sensitive” was and is a bit of a stretch and, in fact, these days it’s considered a guzzler and so much so that Airbus is considering certifying completely different engines.

Anyway, what happened soon after this press conference in 2009 is that Qantas shut down operations at SFO and went to Texas. So instead of upgrading airplanes coming into town, they just upped and quit on us, they couldn’t wait to get out of here.

Why? Because it made sense for them to do so and also the airport people at Dallas Fort Worth came up with millions of dollars to throw at Qantas.

Who knows, Qantas might come back to SFO at some point (but it doesn’t really matter all that much).

Pretty much everything he said at his press conferences turned out to be wrong – this is just an example.

Icons of the Bay Area: CalTrain’s Baby Bullet Beneath Sutro Tower

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

Well, this photo doesn’t show a real bullet train, you know, whooshing past Mount Fuji or anything, but it does have a so-called “Baby Bullet” down at the bottom – that’s the best I can do at this time.

Click to expand

Oh, Here We Go! The Bay Citizen’s Gerry Shih is All Over the Twitter/Mid-Market/Corporate Welfare Sitch

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Now you kids are too young to remember, but back in the day Furniture Mart was the thang, full of visiting Midwestern honeys ready to par-tay in the 415. Good times.

But really, the reason why all those Midwest farmers daughters came back to San Francisco all those years, well it had to do with history, the history of when the 415 was the Capital of the West as opposed to Just Another Ci-tay Near the West Coast, you know, beneath L.A., Fun Diego, San Hoser, Seattle and Portland (yes, sometimes even Portland).

So now, all the furniture-crazy party girls par-tay every year in Vegas, baby, thanks to a whole lot of corporate welfare. But, somehow, a little bit of tiny, half-assed corporate welfare is going to make that all better. Somehow.

Gerry Shih of The Bay Citizen has some of the deets, anyway, or all the deets so far:

Prospective Twitter Landlord Gave Newsom Rent Deal

Ten points for Gryffindor.

Click to see through the see-through-building

And San Francisco Business Times, you expect people to pay for your half-assed editorial about ineffective, half-assed corporate welfare? You’re dreaming.

And if getting rid of the payroll tax is so great, why don’t we do it everywhere instead of just in one place?

(Oh what’s that you say, Bidness Times? YES YES YES, you say? Well then, we agree one thing, anyway. But doesn’t this whole Mid-Market deal smack of corruption, BT? Discuss.)

And Twitter, this is how you roll? (Donkeys live a long time, Twitter.)

How is Changing Our Tax Rules Just for Twitter Not Corporate Welfare?

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

Answer: It _is_ corporate welfare, the practice of government picking corporate winners and losers, something any govmint isn’t really so hot at doing. Oh well.

Corporate Welfare – Free Market Fundamentalism often leads to corporate welfare because deregulated markets often allow corporations to become so overgrown, even to the point of monopoly, that their influence over the government balloons and balloons. They can game the system so that government programs end up funneling money straight into their own pockets.”

Is the Furniture Mart building covered in this deal? Don’t know. It shouldn’t be.

As seen from Fell Street. They used to have furniture shows here twice a year, don’t know if they still do.

What’s that? You say, “This boondoggle isn’t just for Twitter?”

Oh yes it is! Right now it is, anyway. Next question.

“But this scheme is ‘revenue neutral’ right?”

Nooope.

“But at least we saved the Twitter from moving away.”

Uh, maybe. The problem with the proposed corporate welfare is that it won’t save Twitter all that much money. So it’s like the Mayor recently signing up for the Twitter service – it’s a nice gesture, it shows we care about Big T, but we’re not talking big bucks here anymore. Maybe there was talk of that last year, but the current proposal is pretty weak tea.

So it’s corporate welfare, but Twitter won’t benefit too much from it. Is this really going to keep Twitter here? And if they end up staying, how do you know they based their big decision on such a small amount of money?

And then they’re saying how Twitter will have 3000 employees in San Francisco in 2020. Can I get in on this action? Can I place a bet saying how that’s not going to happen? What color is the sky in your world, the world where you know The Future? Why did you change your green eyeshades for rosy rosy rose-colored glasses?

Oh well. Maybe we’ll end up loving the Twitter from afar. But that’s O.K.

So Who Cares If Twitter Moves to Brisbane Or Not?

Thursday, January 13th, 2011

How do you handle things when the Twits (do they call themselves that?) from Twitter start Tweeting about migrating down to Brisbane for the winter and beyond?

Choose one:

1. “We are going to do everything in our power to keep Twitter’s headquarters here[Ooh, sounds expensive] or;

2. “Love your stuff, Twitter babe, too bad about that whole hacking thing a while back, yep them passwords, OMG, really? – she just flew up from Hollywood and she’s in your office right now? that’s swell, hey we’re going to miss you if you all actually decide to leave us, let us know if you need a temporary permit for the moving trucks or whatnot. Bon courage, gotta go…

And then somebody else would move into that space at Third and Folsom. You see how that works?

Does the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development “pay for itself?” Nope.

Does the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development “create jobs?” Nope.

Does the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development have the competency to pick winners and losers? Nope.

Anyway…

San Francisco Uses Horrible Commerical to Dis LAX – “I Wanna Go Through SFO!”

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

I don’t think that the people at LAX are going to fight back against this horrible video from the people at SFO by making a similarly lame commercial attacking SFO. ‘Cause, you know, LAX is too big for that. But maybe the few international fliers (perhaps a dozen or two so far) who’ve seen the purportedly humorous vid will maybe begin to think that maybe there’s something wrong with the “Bad Airport” in Los Angeles and then they’ll be more likely to come up to our neck of the woods on their way to some other U.S. destination.

Of course, if foggy San Mateo County is having one of its foggy days, there’s a chance that, due to SFO’s substandard runway separation, any given transpacific flight coming into SFO will divert to Los Angeles anyway. 

Coming into SFO from Australasia on a tiny Airbus A320 series – perhaps they used aerial refueling? (Fuzzed-out vertical stabilizer in original.) (Beautiful(?) sulphur yellow skies in original.) 

This happy fellow here doesn’t have a choice on which California airport he can go to as QANTAS Airbus A380′s only go to LAX. Oh well.

And the upcoming Fly Girls featuring Virgin America will be based in Los Angeles despite the fact that Virgin America is based at SFO. Oh well.

But at least all the white people in the high school AV club spends a day at the airport style video are one step closer to getting their SAG cards. (Seriously, there are like twenty people featured, including Mayor Gavin Newsom, and they’re all white with one lone exception. Looks more like Sea-Tac than SFO…)

Anyway, who knows, maybe this smarmy production will take off, you know, virally.

Nevertheless, We Are Lessened For It.

On behalf of San Francisco, I would like to apologize to all who reside in Los Angeles County. We just lost our heads, we’ll try to make it up to you all.

Qantas Flirts with San Francisco, But It’s Just Not That Into Us

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Does this huge, somewhat ungainly superjumbo jet seen above SFO today look somewhat familiar? It should, as we’ve seen its kind before. But Qantas is proud that it has the first scheduled Airbus A380 flight into San Francisco. These paying passengers came all the way from Cindy, Australia.

Check out the photos of our welcome at the International Terminal. (The kangaroo QANTAS had in Sydney yesterday at the start of the flight was a bit more lively than the specimen we had this morning at SFO, it appears. And for some reason, the Emirates A380 seems to be more luxurious. And there was no sign of Ralph Fiennes. But that’s not the problem.)

The problem is that this is all a tease and the big new metal bird is going to spend its time in sunny Los Angeles. Why? Read on.

The A380-800 looks stubby because it is. Its wings is too big for its body! But that will pay off once stretched models start coming out in a few years. Then this series of aircraft will look better proportioned, more like the graceful stretched Boeing 747. Click to expand:

via Joit’s photostream

Now back a half-year ago, the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services got all huffy at LAX and threatened that it would “move its flagship Airbus A380 services to San Francisco” unless Los Angeles upgraded its facilities.

Of course we’ve got mad upgrades up here in the 415. But not as many Australians want to come to the Bay Area compared with SoCal, and Oneworld connections with American Airlines are easier in LAX than in the Bay Area, and yada yada yada. So Qantas and El Lay patched things up and S.F. got left at the altar.

We’ll have to make do with regular old 747 service to Oz for a while longer anyway. But our cargo cult terminal upgrades for the new superjumbos should be worth the effort down the road, especially when the economy recovers.

And these days you can fly down under for cheap, so check the details after the jump.

G’day mates.

(more…)