Is there usually American opposition to a US city hosting the Olympic games?

[Mrs. Overall]

I'm just trying to understand why certain groups want to keep the Olympics out of Chicago.

Are the republicans simply angry because it would look like a victory for Obama?

Was there opposition and anger when Los Angeles hosted the summer Olympics? What about Salt Lake City and the winter Olympics?

Wouldn't any US city hosting the Olympics be a great economic boon in the long run?

Or is there actually a logical, sane reason for not wanting the city of Chicago to host the Olympics?

On Edit: I left out the summer Olympics in Atlanta.

[EFerrari]

1. I have read that some people are concerned about cost overruns

but have not looked into the question myself.

[brendan120678]

2. More like a short-term economic boom, and overall...

it's a bit of a wash.

[gateley]

3. Someone posted a GWB statement championing Chicago for the Olympics, from 2008 --

so apparently it's depends on who is President. As usual. :eyes:

[old mark]

4. It is a Democratic President, therefor the GOP is against ANYTHING

he proposes, period.

mark

[Romulox]

5. As long as it's not characterized as a "victory for the US", I don't care about it.

But having the Olympics in Chicago is NOT a "victory for the US". It's a victory for business interests in Chicago.

[tridim]

6. Denver was opposed, but for a very good reason.

There weren't (and aren't) enough roads in the mountains to serve the events without creating a total clusterfu*k.

[Mrs. Overall]

8. So that sounds like it was a logistical/cost issue. Perhaps the same is true for Chicago--

I'm just curious as to the real reasons and if the opposition is more political than practical.

[tridim]

12. I think it was more of an environmental issue

Coloradans didn't want to screw up the beauty of the mountains by building more ugly roads.

Chicago's bid is only for the Summer Olympics and doesn't have any major infrastructure issues.

[Greyhound]

18. Very few (none that I can recall) Olympic venues ever recoup the massive outlays

required to accommodate the Olympics. Since it was the primary population center in Colorado, Denver would've had that burden dumped on it. The Raygun depression, four years later, would have wiped Denver out had they taken on that debt. The IOC is little more than a collection of extortionists that steal millions for themselves and their families from cities/states/nations all to get this "honor" bestowed.

[BR_Parkway]

7. Depends on who's running the show - Obama could ban abortion, throw all

LGBT folks out of the country, mandate church attendance and you'd still have these idiots on TV slobbering about how he's doing it wrong or some such.

They will never be satisfied

[Craftsman]

9. A friend of my wife's lives there and is against it

She and her family do not wan the congestion and the hassle of the crowds.

[deadmessengers]

10. there should be

I lived through the Atlanta Games back in 96 - what a no-win situation that was for this town. Let some other country take it in the kneecaps like we did. I'd personally be perfectly happy if the US never hosted another Olympics again.

[Mrs. Overall]

11. I mentioned LA and Salt Lake City in my original post, but forgot Atlanta--

It sounds as if the cost and hassle are really not worth it in the end.

What about all the structures that were built? Are they still in use and generating any revenue?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. The main stadium is now used for the Atlanta Braves.

Numerous other facilities are still in use too.

[emilyg]

14. I lived through the

Atlanta games, too. Agree with you.

[spanone]

13. Are the republicans simply angry because it would look like a victory for Obama?...Y E S

[RedCloud]

16. Let's simply turn their stupidity into their extinction!

Collect all their hate speech, gather the facts and come election time... boom goes the dynamite.

[MineralMan]

17. There are many reasons for many people to oppose

the Games in their city. The expense is one. Congestion in preparation is another. Lots of projects slowing everything down. Congestion during...preventing people from doing whatever it is they do. Then there's the omnipresent security, again interfering with people's lives. The threat of terrorism is another factor, and has been since Munich. Atlanta was another one with terrorism. It's a real factor these days.

I remember the Los Angeles Games. Much disruption of everything, including business. While there are benefits for some, the hassles for a much larger group overweigh the benefits for lots of people.

People who don't live in Chicago are probably not opposed to it. Lots of Chicagoans, though, are, no doubt.

[Mrs. Overall]

19. Your explanation makes total sense.

I just can't stand to see the republicans turning it into something that it really isn't.

[MineralMan]

24. Sadly, the Games benefit very few in the cities where they are held.

The hospitality industry benefits, certainly. The construction industry benefits beforehand. Sadly, though the local benefits are pretty small. Some new jobs, for a short time. Cities tend to do drastic things in preparation, destroying neighborhoods, putting small business out of business, etc., all in the name of The Games.

The rich benefit richly. The poor? Not so much. They're usually displaced by the Games.

The Chicago area approaches gridlock every day. Getting into town from O'Hare is a nightmare if your arrival coincides with rush hour. To accommodate The Games, huge construction projects on the roads, etc., will magnify the problem tenfold. During The Games, you pretty much won't be able to get around at all.

I'd hate it, if it came to my city. The politicians, though, love it. They loved the GOOper convention here in the Twin Cities, and look at what a disaster that small event turned out to be. The Olympics are hugely worse.

[-..__...]

20. Not within 100 miles of my city you don't.

Not only would I be against hosting it anywhere near here (Boston), I would join the campaign to prevent it.

Too many hassles, inconveniences, disruptions, etc. Add to that the financial costs to the community.

It simply isn't worth the headaches for some silly little games.

Let some other saps have it.

[AngryAmish]

21. On the ground I'd say 60/40 oposed in Chicago

Corruption is the main reason. Chicago is a very corrupt town with utterly corrupted politics. We fear it would result in more money being stolen (which it will- completely guaranteed).

Next, a lot of folks in the neighborhood by the main stadium fear they are being gentrified out of town. And they are right.

Finally, it just seems like a big hassle. Let some little city that is up and coming deal the the hassle, like Rio or Madrid. We can watch it on TV.

Another reason to be opposed is the hell it will play with the Cubs, White Sox and Bears schedules. Three week roadtrips? They will all have alcohol poisoning and vd by the time they get back.

[Ikonoklast]

25. And, this will be different from how thing are now, exactly?

"Another reason to be opposed is the hell it will play with the Cubs, White Sox and Bears schedules. Three week roadtrips? They will all have alcohol poisoning and vd by the time they get back."

[Clear Blue Sky]

22. Denver didn't want the Olympics a while back.

[Stevenmarc]

23. When they were pushing NYC for Summer 2012 I wasn't all that thrilled

NYC on a good day is a traffic nightmare but it was the rezoning and the West Side Stadium that people were fairly pissed off about.

[rantormusing]

26. it has nothing to do with the republicans.

It's about what a horrible mayor Daley is, the disconnect between the city hall and residents, and the money is not there unless there is something else Daley can privitize. The only thing that will come from this is more fees, taxes, and boots on cars. Hell no to the Olympics!

[RFKHumphreyObama]

27. Every Olympics bid in a democratic country runs into opposition

I can remember it being the case over here in Australia when Sydney won the Olympics in 1993. Many complained that it was a waste of taxpayers money, it would bring only short-term benefits to the city, that the economic consequences of potential mismanagement could be dire, it would cause inconvenience to the city's residents and so on. In the end most of this was disproven and, amazingly, the organizers did quite a good job but it was still a very real concern in the years preceding the Games.

Furthermore in the years preceding the Games, there were new allegations about the corruption of the International Olympic Games (IOC) and new revelations about the shady dealings that various parties engaged in to win the games which also contributed to skepticism and disllusionment about why Sydney should host the Olympics

Not every Olympic Games has necessarily paid off long term dividends for the city/province/nation that has hosted. For example see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Summer_Olympics#Legacy

[datasuspect]

28. it's because King Richie (aka Lord Shortshanks)

is a thieving little motherfucker who is using the City of Chicago as a personal ATM for himself, his family, and his cronies.

they need to unfuck the parking meters and create a DMZ in the south and west sides first and stop ripping off the working and middle class.

it has nothing to do with Obama, it has more to do with 6 ft potholes in winter.

[madrchsod]

29. sticking the taxpayers of chicago and the rest of the state for his ego...

and lining the pockets of his cronies. chicago deserves it`s place in history but not for the games that will create little for the effort.
yes there needs to be a dmz in the south and west sides.