Since 2005, San Francisco has been vying for a chance to host the Olympics, unsuccessfully so far. But as the 2024 host is soon to be decided, many San Franciscans are starting to reconsider whether a massive influx of cash, tourism, and debt are what the city really needs right now. Between the sad and hilarious disaster that was the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, and the billion dollar boycott of the upcoming Rio 2016 Summer Olympics, the tradition of organized global athleticism seems to have lost some of its pomp and spark, overshadowed by more serious issues such as planning-induced poverty, increasing class inequality, under-allocation of funds, theft, and crazy mafia heroin boss bribery.
In response to San Francisco’s inclusion on the list of 2024 potential hosts (which also includes Boston, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.), a local coalition headed by Chris Daly, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, has taken it upon themselves to try and prevent the IOC from coming to SF. The "SF No 2024 Olympics" committee is mostly concerned with the tendency for Olympic games to go massively over budget, often up to twice their initial cost, and leaving local taxpayers to foot the bill. San Francisco has already experienced this shortfall with the America’s Cup, which was supposed to bring in significantly more revenue than it actually did, and left the city paying $11 million for that budgetary shortfall.
The anti-SF Olympic group wants to make sure that in case the Olympic budget inevitably falls flat, local government and taxpayers will not be left on the hook, shelling out billions that could be better spent in literally any other public sector. Their website also lists a number of arguments against potentially ruining the city. They say that the pressure from landlords looking to cash in on Olympics mania would be the final “nail in the coffin” of low income tenants trying to stay in their homes. The games could also potentially cost $13.5 billion while California is already over a trillion dollars in debt, and city governments are required to cover financial overages, blank check style, if they want to host.
Additionally, consider how difficult it is to get around the city as it is. During the three-week-long flood of Olympics mania, it’s genuinely unimaginable how both tourists and residents will cope with the massive load increase on driving and public transit. SF has fewer than a million people living here now, and the Olympics would at the very least double that figure. That’s on top of the existing lack of infrastructure, resources, and housing. SFO and OAK would be warzones.
Finally, aren’t we multiple years into the worst drought California has ever had? Is this the right time to start planning a big party when we can’t even water our plants? Between threats of Olympics terrorism, obvious financial concerns, corruption, lack of forward thinking, and the city's tight capacity on space and lodging, it might not be the best idea to hit our fragile city with a proven mistake like the Olympics. Why isn’t Detroit even on the list, by the way?
Got a tip for The Bold Italic? Email tips@thebolditalic.com.
Image from Thinkstock