4 ms·

> The Host City Contract, as written by the IOC, stipulates where any profits would go. 20% goes to Olympic organizing bodies and the part that LA gets to keep

by drb91 7y ago

> The Host City Contract, as written by the IOC, stipulates where any profits would go. 20% goes to Olympic organizing bodies and the part that LA gets to keep can ONLY be used for youth sports initiatives—not affordable housing, homelessness, or a variety of other places...these potential surplus revenues could go. As written in the contract, there is no mechanism for the mayor, City Council, bid committee, and most importantly, the people of Los Angeles to weigh in on where any profits should go. It’s not profit by the traditional meaning of having cash in pocket. Why not just invest in youth sports and bypass the whole investment charade? I still think it’s a bad use of money but it’s better than hosting an infamously corrupt body in a different city every 2 years to MAYBE generate some youth sports profits as happened in 84.

gamblor956 7y ago
Why not just invest in youth sports and bypass the whole investment charade? I still think it’s a bad use of money but it’s better than hosting an infamously corrupt body in a different city every 2 years to MAYBE generate some youth sports profits as happened in 84. First, and importantly -- both previous LA Olympics generated real profits, as in, actual economic profits. Not unicorn fantasy profits like most tech companies embrace (ahem Groupon, Uber, Twitter, Tesla, etc.). Second--while you may not care about the Olympics or sports, literally billions of people around the world--and millions of people in Los Angeles--do care about the Games. The Games are both a celebration of sport, health, community, unity, and a vessel for raising money to fund youth athletics.
- drb91 7y ago
  > First, and importantly -- both previous LA Olympics generated real profits, as in, actual economic profits. Not unicorn fantasy profits like most tech companies embrace (ahem Groupon, Uber, Twitter, Tesla, etc.). Sure, and what did they spend it on? Was it worth the displacement? Did they build more public housing? Of course not. > Second--while you may not care about the Olympics or sports, literally billions of people around the world--and millions of people in Los Angeles--do care about the Games. The Games are both a celebration of sport, health, community, unity, and a vessel for raising money to fund youth athletics. LA could also house the homeless—that would be something to actually celebrate. Right now, the Olympics are a celebration of capital.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    I don't get what your going at, unless you're just trying to be a troll? The City of Los Angeles has never organized an Olympics. A private group, located in the city of Los Angeles, organized an Olympics in cooperation with various cities in Los Angeles County, including the city of Los Angeles. The private group acquired the right to put on this event in part by pledging that profits from the event would go toward funding youth sports, which was one of the options provided by the event licensor (the IOC). The private group earned $250 million in profits on the event, after paying for expenses like the costs of police and fire personnel working the Games. That profit was then used toward its contractually-obligated purpose of funding youth sports. Sure, and what did they spend it on? Was it worth the displacement? Did they build more public housing? Of course not. No people were displaced by the LA Olympics, because no housing was torn down to construct Olympic facilities, because only 1 or 2 facilities were built for the 32 and 84 Olympics. No public housing was built, because the Olympics were put on by a private organization. However, important to note: private housing was used for the Olympics. Specifically, USC's then-new student housing was used to house athletes before students moved in. The construction of student housing freed up hundreds of houses around the campus for occupation by lower-income residents. LA could also house the homeless—that would be something to actually celebrate. LA could house the homeless. The problem is that a lot of them don't want to be housed because it means giving up alcohol or drugs, or taking their medication, so thousands of shelter beds go unused every night.

by drb91 7y ago

gamblor956 7y ago

Why not just invest in youth sports and bypass the whole investment charade? I still think it’s a bad use of money but it’s better than hosting an infamously corrupt body in a different city every 2 years to MAYBE generate some youth sports profits as happened in 84. First, and importantly -- both previous LA Olympics generated real profits, as in, actual economic profits. Not unicorn fantasy profits like most tech companies embrace (ahem Groupon, Uber, Twitter, Tesla, etc.). Second--while you may not care about the Olympics or sports, literally billions of people around the world--and millions of people in Los Angeles--do care about the Games. The Games are both a celebration of sport, health, community, unity, and a vessel for raising money to fund youth athletics.

drb91 7y ago
> First, and importantly -- both previous LA Olympics generated real profits, as in, actual economic profits. Not unicorn fantasy profits like most tech companies embrace (ahem Groupon, Uber, Twitter, Tesla, etc.). Sure, and what did they spend it on? Was it worth the displacement? Did they build more public housing? Of course not. > Second--while you may not care about the Olympics or sports, literally billions of people around the world--and millions of people in Los Angeles--do care about the Games. The Games are both a celebration of sport, health, community, unity, and a vessel for raising money to fund youth athletics. LA could also house the homeless—that would be something to actually celebrate. Right now, the Olympics are a celebration of capital.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  I don't get what your going at, unless you're just trying to be a troll? The City of Los Angeles has never organized an Olympics. A private group, located in the city of Los Angeles, organized an Olympics in cooperation with various cities in Los Angeles County, including the city of Los Angeles. The private group acquired the right to put on this event in part by pledging that profits from the event would go toward funding youth sports, which was one of the options provided by the event licensor (the IOC). The private group earned $250 million in profits on the event, after paying for expenses like the costs of police and fire personnel working the Games. That profit was then used toward its contractually-obligated purpose of funding youth sports. Sure, and what did they spend it on? Was it worth the displacement? Did they build more public housing? Of course not. No people were displaced by the LA Olympics, because no housing was torn down to construct Olympic facilities, because only 1 or 2 facilities were built for the 32 and 84 Olympics. No public housing was built, because the Olympics were put on by a private organization. However, important to note: private housing was used for the Olympics. Specifically, USC's then-new student housing was used to house athletes before students moved in. The construction of student housing freed up hundreds of houses around the campus for occupation by lower-income residents. LA could also house the homeless—that would be something to actually celebrate. LA could house the homeless. The problem is that a lot of them don't want to be housed because it means giving up alcohol or drugs, or taking their medication, so thousands of shelter beds go unused every night.