2016 Olympic Decision (Chicago, Washington, Rio: crime rate, safe area, living in)

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by BRAZILIAN

Hi my friends from Chigago,
I am sorry for all of you.
"YES, WE DONE".

I am not your friend. Go troll somewhere else. Three forums were not enough for you?

Chicago Eliminated - Will NOT host 2016 Olympics

http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...inner-rio.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sport...ur-cities.html

[Ghengis]

Sorry to hear of the vote going against Chicago, would have been an overall plus for our region. Does the IOC decision hurt our chance of still hosting any of the soccer matches up here? Does this mean the Vikings won't be moving to Soldier Field North?

Minnesota and new U of M TCF Stadium could host Olympic soccer in 2016 | Inside Minnesota Soccer

New Stadium Drawings: Ryan Field-2016 Chicago Olympic Stadium

[JanuaryGirl]

I have no idea why Chicagoans are happy about it. It's idiotic, and shows a complete lack of pride that people wouldn't want their city to host such an important event.

I find it amusing that so many Chicagoans I know were complaining that having the Olympics would be a huge inconvenience, considering most of them are northsiders that have never stepped foot near where most of the events would be held near Jackson & Washington Parks.

People talk as though with Chicago NOT having the Olympics, the city will suddenly magically solve all of its crime and education issues and taxes will magically stay low.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

...Does the IOC decision hurt our chance of still hosting any of the soccer matches up here? Does this mean the Vikings won't be moving to Soldier Field North?...

This probably would be better asked in a sports forum Olympic thread.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by JanuaryGirl

I have no idea why Chicagoans are happy about it. It's idiotic, and shows a complete lack of pride that people wouldn't want their city to host such an important event.

I find it amusing that so many Chicagoans I know were complaining that having the Olympics would be a huge inconvenience, considering most of them are northsiders that have never stepped foot near where most of the events would be held near Jackson & Washington Parks.

People talk as though with Chicago NOT having the Olympics, the city will suddenly magically solve all of its crime and education issues and taxes will magically stay low.

Taxes and fees are going to go up anyway and we will not even have something fun to take some of the sting out of it.

These people need to start voting where they live-not where they came here from. Part of the reason why these morons in office get re-elected is because of the huge amount of transplants that do not know any better.

They tend to vote for an incumbent because all is relatively fine and dandy for them in Lincoln Park, Downtown,Wicker Park or wherever they are living. Or they do not vote at all in Chicago and keep their registration at whatever locale they originally came from (this includes suburbanites.)

There are also a huge number of people that grew up in the area that have no drive whatsoever. They do not realize what a legacy an Olympics can leave and how it generally ends up being a huge positive in the long run. The jobs that would have been created would have helped the Chicago area (as well as other parts of the midwest) get pumping again.

Idiots-the whole lot of them.

[KJAnsia]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I dunno, but what about Roman "CC Rider" Pucinski?

Haha! The most powerful Pole outside of Warsaw!

[Careless]

When UC economists are talking about actual costs of $15-20 billion, I don't see how there can be an economic argument for it

[lastonestanding]

Chicago lost because of the lack of support, plain and simple. If you saw the actual presentation (which they aired on television late last night), it did not even come close to the other presentations. The other cities focused more on how their city would make a global impact. Chicago moreso promoted the city and how the games would make an impact on the city and how the city would be a better fit. The IOC was looking more towards global impact. Crime had little to do with hosting the games. I mean Rio won, with that said the reason why they won was because of the support. Brazil has never hosted an olympic game, EVER... Chicago didnt even get full support from its own city let alone the rest of the country. Moreso you heard more criticism on the behalf of Obama going to Denmark versus staying in Washington and dealing with the Health Care issue. Rio won because of the support, Chicago didnt.... Now back to good ole American Politics......

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Careless

When UC economists are talking about actual costs of $15-20 billion, I don't see how there can be an economic argument for it

You have to spend money to make money sometimes.

Spending drives the economy of the United States as well as the world.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

You have to spend money to make money sometimes.

Spending drives the economy of the United States as well as the world.

Good point and this is what the supporter were trying to convince the public of. Chicago also benefitted from the 2 world fairs we hosted. I think the timing was bad-recession, sensitivity to the ways of the "clout", local problems-infrastructure and crime and IMO a lack of vision or pizazz with this plan.