Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,541,295 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

EDITORIAL HEALTHY SKEPTICISM BEFORE ANGELENOS SUPPORT HOSTING 2016 OLYMPICS, THEY SHOULD ASK ONE QUESTION: WHY?


CERTAINLY, getting picked to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games would be a tremendous honor for Los Angeles. Being the only American city to have welcomed three summer games (eat your heat out, NYC) is something that would make Angelenos proud of their under-appreciated town.

But before there's a lot of time, energy and money spent courting first the U.S. Olympic Committee, then the International Olympic Committee, over the next decade, the city officials launching the bid need to answer one important question: Why?

Specifically, why should L.A. residents support a far-off sporting event as a way to boost civic pride when there are dozens of urgent needs and long-term goals that are just as, if not more, deserving of their attention?

Safe streets, for one.

If that's too much to accomplish in just 11 years, perhaps a graffiti-free city might be enough to have people dancing in the streets.

We don't oppose the effort to have the Olympics return to Los Angeles. The 1984 L.A. Games reaped real benefits, including a revenue surplus of $245 million that is still benefiting sports locally and elsewhere 21 years later. But that result happened only because some fought hard to keep public money from being used.

Thus, residents and elected leaders should employ a healthy skepticism of all the platitudes that are tossed around by city officials, developers and business people about how this is great for the city and won't cost taxpayers a thing.

Of course it will - in uncollected fees and waivers for the use of city streets and parking services and cops, and in hidden improvements to the area in and around Memorial Coliseum.

Everyone involved should be honest about the costs and who will bear them, as well as who really benefits from the event: The average family of four in Sun Valley who may watch the games on TV, or the developers and business people who are betting heavily on anything that might make their shaky investments in the surrounding downtown area pay off.

It's a valid question.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Daily News
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Editorial
Publication:Daily News (Los Angeles, CA)
Article Type:Editorial
Date:Sep 9, 2005
Words:344
Previous Article:THE DEVIL YOU DON'T KNOW 'THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE' AIMS TO GET PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT FAITH, NOT PEA SOUP.(U)
Next Article:FINE ACTORS WASTED IN A SCENIC CLICHE.(U)



Related Articles
Something's missing in J-school.
EDITORIAL WEEK IN REVIEW.(Editorial)(Editorial)
Wikis will help readers direct the community's most powerful voice: opinion writers from younger generation offer fresh perspective.(SYMPOSIUM: The...
L.A. MIGHT BE 2016 OLYMPICS HOST SAN FRANCISCO, CHICAGO ALSO IN RUNNING.(News)
L.A. LEADERS PUSH CITY AS HOST FOR 2016 OLYMPICS OFFICIALS WANT CITY TO SHINE BRIGHTER THAN CHICAGO OR SAN FRANCISCO.(News)
Latest installment of blockbuster franchise closer to green light.
Let the games arrive.(LABJ forum)
L.A. POURS ON THE GLITZ IN BID TO LURE 2016 OLYMPICS.(News)
Windy city, blown away.(COMMENT)
EDITORIAL PLAYING GAMES GETTING THE OLYMPICS TO L.A. IS NOT THE PUBLIC'S PRIORITY.(Editorial)(Editorial)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles