Why US Olympic Committee is optimistic Los Angeles will bid for 2024 Olympics

After its bid for Boston to bring the 2024 Olympics to the US failed, the US Olympic Committee has its eye on Los Angeles to be the next candidate. 

In this August 1984 file photo, competitors run in the men's 5,000 meters at the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. After a hastily called board meeting Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2015, U.S. Olympic Committee CEO Scott Blackmun said he was optimistic the committee could work out a plan to make Los Angeles, which hosted summer Olympics in 1932 and 1984, the U.S. bidder for the 2024 games.

This time, U.S. Olympic leaders are looking to Los Angeles as a bidder for the 2024 Olympics — a city that actually wants to host the games.

Encouraged by 81 percent support in a recent poll and a supportive mayor who shows no signs of changing his mind, the U.S. Olympic Committee announced Wednesday it is close to making L.A. its candidate to try to bring the games back to U.S. soil for the first time in a generation.

USOC CEO Scott Blackmun said he hoped the decision would be official by the end of the month. The International Olympic Committee's deadline to nominate a city is Sept. 15. The United States hasn't hosted the Summer Games since 1996 in Atlanta.

"There are some complicated issues in the discussion," Blackmun said. "But I'm very optimistic we'll get to a good place for both of us."

The news comes slightly more than two weeks after the USOC dropped a Boston bid that was short on support and long on controversy. So far, Los Angeles isn't showing any signs of those problems. Mayor Eric Garcetti has said he'd have no problem signing the host city contract that the mayor in Boston said he would not.

"The L.A. Olympics would inspire the world and are right for our city," Garcetti said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Blackmun revealed results of a USOC-commissioned poll of Los Angeles residents from earlier this month. It showed 81 percent support for hosting the Olympics. Boston was in the 40s.

"That's remarkable and very encouraging," Blackmun said.

Earlier this week, L.A. officials said the proposed budget for the Summer Games would be $4.1 billion, plus a $400 million contingency. The Boston budget was around $4.6 billion. Those numbers, of course, are only estimates, and have, for decades, consistently run over.

But because Los Angeles has the Memorial Coliseum — centerpiece of the 1932 and 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles — and at least a dozen more Olympic-ready venues (to say nothing of a new NFL stadium that could be built by then), the USOC is optimistic it can keep costs in relative check. Because there won't be as many large projects, chairman Larry Probst feels a Los Angeles bid is more in line with the less-extravagant Olympic model IOC President Thomas Bach outlined in his recently released Agenda 2020 reforms.

Probst also suggested the positive feelings from the successful '84 Games still resonate in Southern California.

"People remember that time," he said. "It left a great legacy for the city."

Those Olympics, boycotted by the Soviet Union, put Carl Lewis and Mary Lou Retton on center stage and, in many ways, transformed the games into the mega-billion-dollar event they are today.

Probst and Blackmun declined to get into details about what specifics might hold up a bid from Los Angeles, though they believe Garcetti will honor his commitment to sign the host-city contract. That became a major sticking point as the Boston bid disintegrated. The city's mayor, Marty Walsh, said he didn't want to put taxpayers on the hook for any potential cost overruns.

Agent Casey Wasserman is also a player in a bid from Los Angeles, which would join Rome, Paris, Budapest and Hamburg, Germany, in the contest. Other cities may declare soon, as well. The winner will be decided in 2017.

At meetings earlier this month, Bach said that despite the Boston debacle, he was expecting the United States to bid.

And if it didn't?

"I think it would be a lost opportunity," Blackmun said. "On the summer side, there's a whole generation of Americans who haven't seen the games on American soil. We want to address that, and make sure the games come to the U.S. on a regular basis."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.