Will the US never see a Summer Olympics again?

There is some modest opposition to a Boston Olympics, but it's certainly not intense. I think most are in favor. Who wouldn't be?

Don't confuse the attitude of the typical blowhards who comment on Globe articles with the general public sentiment. Most of the people I know are very much in support.

Republicans cheered when Chicago lost the 2016 games. We deserve to never be considered for another games just based on that.

With the insanely high cost of hosting the olympics, I am not disappointed if the US does not host the olympics again.

Until something changes like a permanent venue for the olympics, or a severe lowering of expectations, let the rest of the world host them.

---

No new taxes wrote:

There is some modest opposition to a Boston Olympics, but it's certainly not intense. I think most are in favor. Who wouldn't be?

---

---

No new taxes wrote:

There is some modest opposition to a Boston Olympics, but it's certainly not intense. I think most are in favor. Who wouldn't be?

---

---

NJ Possible wrote:

---

No new taxes wrote:

There is some modest opposition to a Boston Olympics, but it's certainly not intense. I think most are in favor. Who wouldn't be?

---

I'm not in huge favor of the US hosting an Olympics, especially a summer olympics. Not because of the terrorism factor, but because of the incredible expense of it. Billions of dollars for arenas that often never get used again. Hard to justify.

---

The US should not host the Summer Olympics again. Way too much money going into private enterprise (and I love the Olympics but I don't want to pay for it).

The IOC has made a big deal of government backing in recent bid processes. The US is less likely to do that than many other countries--let them have it.

The US should refuse to bid on any Olympics given how rigged the process is.

[quote]Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Notta lotta data points there, but true enough; but is Boston more like LA or more like Athens...

LA, 1984: "The first Summer Olympics since 1932 to make a profit"

Athens, 2004; loss = $15 Bn: "The cost of the 2004 Athens Summer Games has been cited as a contributor to the Greek government-debt crisis."

The only comparable project in Boston would be the Big Dig, which "was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%). The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038."

GOlympics!

On the wintry side I will point out, however, the efforts of one Mitt Romney, Salt Lake City, 2002:
"When Mitt joined (the committee), there was a budget deficit of $400 million," Bullock told PolitiFact. "So for (the committee), Mitt not only balanced the budget, he produced a surplus, which is remarkable. Only Los Angeles in 1984 also had a surplus. All other Olympics lose money--a lot."

Atlanta ended with a $10 million profit.

I would love to have the olympics here as I would definitely go, but let some other dumb country take that fiscal burden. its just too damn expensive for cities to viably take on the olympics.

The two previous US summer Olympics were generally regarded as crass.,far too commercial. This is inevitable as the hosting city thinks that success is measured by whether when it makes money rather than not whether the games reflected the supposed olympic ideals, which should not be to sell more hamburgers. Other countries, correctly I think, are concerned about cost but also about the public perception engendered by hosting the games. Atlanta definitely failed in this way. Paris or Berlin will probably and rightfully succeed, because the Government and the city will work together to make the games a success rather than a commercial enterprise.

Why are we as a nation so obsessed with not paying taxes. We are beyond frugal, we are just cheap.

Ironic that Boston - with multiple stadiums subsidized by taxpayer dollars - has a strong opposition against this. The stadiums that Bostonians have no problem filling.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/fenway/stadium_subsidies_032700.htm

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks an Olympics would disrupt Boston Redsox games too much so the owner is trying to drum up interest - tea part style - against the bid.

None of the major sports leagues benefit from having the Olympics in existence. It just creates one more reason for their athletes to get hurt or worse - for fans to realize there are other sports they could follow or gain interest in (maybe even fall into something like the Diamond League series).

Maybe this is the TRUE reason why the US never gets chosen - the selectors are paid off by the leagues to not do so.

Answer to everything is always another conspiracy theory. Again demonstrating obsession with Tax Dollars. Is that all you think about. Do you see nothing noble or great about hosting the Olympics

Big metro champions are pretty much an obsolete model in 2015. Atlanta lost $100 million ($500M in 2015 dollars) due to fouled up police department and hidden public infrastructure costs. I feel really bad for families in Boston who will be victims of crime from the lack of Police because the city gave welfare funds to the IOC.

---

Welfare for the IOC wrote:
$100 million ($500M in 2015 dollars)

---

Every single person I've talked to about the Olympics in Boston, actual Boston and not some boondock suburb, thinks it's a bad idea.

---

typical blowhard wrote:

Every single person I've talked to about the Olympics in Boston, actual Boston and not some boondock suburb, thinks it's a bad idea.

---