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