Garcetti claims the Olympics will combat poverty and gentrification (rental, how much)

[jm1982]

Hilarious !

Does anyone believe or trust this guy anymore ?

----
Attempting to rebut criticisms of the Olympics, Garcetti elaborated: “So if we want to address issues of gentrification, if we want to address issues of social cohesion, if we want to address homelessness […] it’s the legacy that we want to have of universal access to sports, that’s how we combat poverty [emphasis mine]. That’s how we address, you know, the gentrification, that’s how we address those issues that today all cities face.”

It was clearly a blunder, although you can’t really fault Garcetti for having no better response prepared—because, truthfully, there isn’t one. It is increasingly difficult to frame the Olympics as anything other than a cynical, thinly-veiled excuse to transform cities into heavily branded media spectacles and fatten the wallets of a few developers and property owners—aong with the war criminals and other assorted ghouls that make up the IOC.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NOlympics...28954549702656

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...s-angeles.html

[timtemtym]

The Olympics are going to make the housing situation crazy awful and then maybe better. A lot gets built when olympics come into town. I doubt Salt Lake City or Atlanta would have the rail systems they have without the Olympics. It does attract a lot of investment and hopefully federal funds.

That being said, good luck trying to resign a lease or negotiate any rental property within a year of the olympics. Prices are going to be insane because they can charge a ton for that one month of events and Air BnB will be out of control. A lot of homeowners will take a very nice vacation that month.

But hopefully there will be a lot of newer, safer housing built that is better able to endure an earthquake and fires. Maybe this will help approve some of those denser projects closer to transit-rich areas. I would love to see corporate sponsors and developers and federal funds come in to redo roads, schools, infrastructure. LA needs all the help it can get. Our city is crumbling.

[NeganGrimes]

LA got conned by the IOC, the Olympics isn't the economic windfall it's cracked up to be, that's why Boston pulled out, they wised up

[Finper]

Now that was political speak. I have no idea if he's pro gentrification or anti after that gobley **** sentence. Has he said anything about that Boyle Heights coffee shop?? Anyone know?

[beer1]

The real question is what can be done to combat Garcetti.

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by NeganGrimes

LA got conned by the IOC, the Olympics isn't the economic windfall it's cracked up to be, that's why Boston pulled out, they wised up

Why do folks keep saying this? LA has everything in place, Boston did not. LA will not only make this a success but will turn a very big profit and continue the legacy of LA84 to continue funding youth sports programs in the city.


I know it's 11 years from now but I hope you guys are ready to eat crow when this proves the be a major success for the third time.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by The Illusive Man

Why do folks keep saying this? LA has everything in place, Boston did not. LA will not only make this a success but will turn a very big profit and continue the legacy of LA84 to continue funding youth sports programs in the city.


I know it's 11 years from now but I hope you guys are ready to eat crow when this proves the be a major success for the third time.

Boston's fiscal situation is better than L.A.'s. They could handle it more. That's why they didn't want it. Boston also has more civil society and greater voter turnouts, so the local politicians while liberal aren't as irresponsible as in L.A.

Look how much security costs nowadays and how much of a burden it is nowadays. Japan is spending $2 billion on security for the Tokyo Olympics, and Japan is an island country that controls its borders and isn't a target of international terrorists' ire. Japan does not have a porous border nor do ISIS and Al Qaeda have presences there. Security costs for a city like L.A. which is a sanctuary city 100 miles from an open border, which has one of the world's most severe homeless problems, will be out of sight.

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by majoun

Boston's fiscal situation is better than L.A.'s. They could handle it more. That's why they didn't want it. Boston also has more civil society and greater voter turnouts, so the local politicians while liberal aren't as irresponsible as in L.A.

Look how much security costs nowadays and how much of a burden it is nowadays. Japan is spending $2 billion on security for the Tokyo Olympics, and Japan is an island country that controls its borders and isn't a target of international terrorists' ire. Japan does not have a porous border nor do ISIS and Al Qaeda have presences there. Security costs for a city like L.A. which is a sanctuary city 100 miles from an open border, which has one of the world's most severe homeless problems, will be out of sight.

Boston is not in better shape to host the Olympics than LA. What would they use as their Olympic stadium? They don't have one. Gillette Stadium doesn't have the size or dimensions to handle track and field and athletics. They'd have to construct a new one. LA has two that can be used for this. By then, LA will have three 70,000+ seat venues which would not have costed the city a dime to construct.


Arenas for indoor events? Boston has one major arena. LA has six and potentially 7 if the Clippers construct their own. Boston would have construct more for indoor activities. LA's are already in place and once again would not cost the city a dime.


Not to mention Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Stubhub, LAFC's new stadium.


I'm sorry, Boston could not host like LA can. Not even close. Boston would have to construct various new venues, most of which wouldn't get much use afterwards. They were smart to let LA handle it.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by The Illusive Man

Boston is not in better shape to host the Olympics than LA. What would they use as their Olympic stadium? They don't have one. Gillette Stadium doesn't have the size or dimensions to handle track and field and athletics. They'd have to construct a new one. LA has two that can be used for this. By then, LA will have three 70,000+ seat venues which would not have costed the city a dime to construct.


Arenas for indoor events? Boston has one major arena. LA has six and potentially 7 if the Clippers construct their own. Boston would have construct more for indoor activities. LA's are already in place and once again would not cost the city a dime.


Not to mention Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Stubhub, LAFC's new stadium.


I'm sorry, Boston could not host like LA can. Not even close. Boston would have to construct various new venues, most of which wouldn't get much use afterwards. They were smart to let LA handle it.

Marty Walsh wanted the Olympics, but the public rose up in outrage against the Games knowing the repercussions of them and so he backed down. Bostoners vote, civil society is strong, and thus their politicians are more accountable to them. Say what you will about M*******s but they're not apathetic like we are. Contrast that to L.A. where few vote and civil society is very weak.

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by majoun

Marty Walsh wanted the Olympics, but the public rose up in outrage against the Games knowing the repercussions of them and so he backed down. Bostoners vote, civil society is strong, and thus their politicians are more accountable to them. Say what you will about M*******s but they're not apathetic like we are. Contrast that to L.A. where few vote and civil society is very weak.

Simply put, Boston can't handle the Olympics. They don't have the infrastructure for it and it would cost the city a fortune to host it. They aren't equipped for it. LA is and could host it this year if it needed to.