
Estimated cost of 2028 Los Angeles Olympics jumps to $6.9B - jmsflknr
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-la-2028-olympics-budget-20190429-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
======
galonk
"The London Olympics cost $19 billion, three times the original $6.5 billion
budget, while the Tokyo Olympics are estimated to cost over $25 billion, four
times the originally announced budget. There are similar stories from the
Games in Athens, Montreal, and Sochi." \-- Deadspin

The budget will definitely keep multiplying until it's at least double digits.
The initial budget was a fantasy.

~~~
gamblor956
The budget estimates for LA have increased because of estimated inflation
between now and 2028. There are no new additional/unforeseen costs in this
budget.

LA has hosted the Olympics several times and there members of the last
organizing committee on the 2028 committee. They know what costs to anticipate
and plan for...

~~~
rapsey
>There are no new additional/unforeseen costs.

And why would anyone expect those on government contracts.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics twice already and has enough
infrastructure to do the job. Sure there will be some expenses, like painting
over graffiti and busing homeless out of main areas. But, it is not like they
are building major infrastructure like Athens or Rio.

There are some LA Metro improvements being done but they were planned and tax
introduced before the Olympic win, I believe.

~~~
popz41
I would disagree on "having enough infrastructure", after moving to SoCal a
few years back. LAX is a complete nightmare. One can easily spend 20-30 mins
trying to drive from the airport entrance to the terminal. The horseshoe
design cannot handle capacity.

~~~
HillaryBriss
IMHO, this highlights the main pain point: transportation.

The city of LA's population was about 3 million in 1984 and now it's about 4
million. The surrounding cities (which are often hard to distinguish from LA
itself) have grown too. Road and freeway expansion have not kept pace. Car
traffic has become far heavier.

In 1984, the events were spread all over the place. They'll probably do
something similar in 2028.

Will people be able to drive their rental cars and take their Ubers in a
timely manner to the drop-off points for these dispersed events?

Will the city and county governments and the MTA add public transport in an
intelligent and sufficient way to eliminate the need or desire for large
amounts of private transportation? (Answer: no)

~~~
dv_dt
The MTA has plans to expand, and having the focusing timeline of the 2028
Olympics is, imho, helpful for large projects.

[https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-
fut...](https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-future-
subway-rail)

------
Aloha
"The new figure represents a $700 million increase over previous estimates,
with organizers saying they had to adjust for inflation after L.A., which
originally bid for the 2024 Games, agreed to wait four more years."

Not much of a news story here - wait four years, inflation goes up - when
you're looking at 6b, 700m in inflation seems reasonable with the state of
inflation in the economy.

~~~
ra1n85
>with the state of inflation in the economy.

Could you provide a reference there? A 10%+ increase over four years seems
excessive.

~~~
Aloha
[https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-
infl...](https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-
rates/)

It comes out to about 2% a year.

------
didgeoridoo
Why do sites like this jam six identical entries into my browser history? Do
they think I'm going to try to hit the back button, have it not work, and then
I'll just go, "Well, I guess I'm stuck here! Maybe I'll click on some ads!"

~~~
RobertDeNiro
In some ways, the state of the web is degenerating. Way too much tracking,
everyone wants metrics on everything you do. And don't get me started on
mobile ads.

~~~
didgeoridoo
Permissions, permissions, permissions. "This site wants to take a dump in your
browser history. Allow?" should fix things nicely.

~~~
zanny
The alternative was back in the day when clickjackers could install
Actionscript malware without a prompt that rootkitted the whole computer.
Sandboxing and prompts are a definite win.

------
mc32
Why do countries continue making concessions and spending money on these
showcases? Let someone else waste their tax dollars on building and hosting
money losing Olympic events.

~~~
Aloha
Los Angeles is treating this like an infrastructure project - it gained
numerous benefits from the last two times it hosted, and will likely gain more
of the same this time.

Los Angeles of all cities (based on history) has a good chance of running a
profitable Olympics.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
Although I am somewhat "anti-Olympics," my acquaintances in Salt Lake City say
the 2002 Olympics were very successful in sort of modernizing the entire city.
There is apparently a very clear before-and-after with regards to
infrastructure, public spaces, transit, etc., all for the better.

But that was a rare exception, as far as I can tell. Most Olympic cities
appear to have that kind of effect as a goal and fall short. I read a proposal
a while back that the summer Olympics just get permanently moved to Greece and
that sounds like a great idea to me.

~~~
gamblor956
SLC's Olympics (at least, on the organizational side and after Romney took
over from the previous organizers) were modeled after the LA 84 Olympics run
by Peter Ueberroth. Prior to Romney's coup, the SLC Olympics were hemorrhaging
money and deeply in the red.

Atlanta also used its Olympics to modernize the city, and much of that
infrastructure still remains.

Surprisingly, LA in the past did not use the Olympics to modernize the city.
Its bids were submitted on the basis of largely _not_ building anything for
the Games, because every time LA's bid on the Olympics, the Games have been
out of favor due to the enormous costs of hosting. (For the 1932 games, LA was
unopposed.) LA's success in hosting profitable Olympics without much building
is, quite ironically, one of the biggest factors in other cities thinking that
they could also host the Games.

------
gamblor956
Had to comment on all the FUD being spread in these comments. (Note: I am a
volunteer with LA 2028 but I'm not on the committee so my thoughts don't
represent those of the LA 2028 Committee, just my own as an _informed_
volunteer.

1) Cost increases over the past year have _all_ been to account for
_estimated_ inflation between now and 2028. This is deliberate--the committee
wants to have a realistic budget to target revenue goals against, not a fairy-
tail budget, even if it looks bad early on.

2) LA is not building many new facilities for the Olympics. Almost all of the
facilities will be existing facilities, like Staples, the United Airlines LA
Coliseum, the Rams/Chargers(?) stadium, the pools at Loyola Marymount, UCLA
and USC, the tracks and fields at all three colleges, the port of Long Beach,
Santa Monica Beach, etc. Athletes will be housed at UCLA and USC (again), and
the media center will be paid for and built by NBC largely at existing
facilities.

The facilities that will need to be built: a velodrome for indoor cycling. A
rock wall for the climbing events, location undetermined, but which is
expected to remain after the event. BMX courses in Big Bear, which the resorts
there have said they will maintain after the event depending on location.

3) Tax dollars are not being wasted on this event. The purpose of the budget
is to raise _private_ funding, i.e., donations or sponsorships. LA 2028 is
working with NBC (first time in history organizers have worked with
broadcasters) to sell a joint package so that they aren't competing against
the broadcaster.

The lack of tax dollars also means that it's not a choice between the Olympics
and housing, etc. In fact, the Olympics are _spurring_ the use of tax dollars
on housing and transportation infrastructure, including the acceleration of
nearly 40 years of public transit building into 12 years. The public transit
lines planned have already led to thousands of new housing units being built
in LA county in proximity to those lines.

4) The LA Olympics have been profitable. Every. Single. Time. The 84 Olympics
are still the most profitable in history by whatever metric you use,
especially once adjusted for inflation. The returns from the 84 Olympics are
still being used to fund K12 athletics today. As in 84 and 32, LA wasn't the
first choice for the Olympics and its plan every time has been the
overwhelming re-use of existing facilities. (Even the LA Coliseum was built
more than a decade before the Olympics as a war memorial.)

5) LA is capable of holding an Olympics next year, if necessary. The only
other city with sufficient facilities to hold an event of this magnitude on
such short notice is London, which has maintained most of its facilities from
the 2012 Games.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Offtopic, but hope I'm not the only one who finds naming the LA Coliseum
"United Airlines..." disgusting. Don't want it renamed at all, but especially
by such a despicable company. What can be done about that?

~~~
gamblor956
Unfortunately nothing, since USC has a long-term lease on the facility that
included naming rights...and they sold those rights to United. The actual name
is now technically the United Airlines Coliseum...

Staples Center gets a pass since it's been Staples since it opened.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Maybe not! Veterans groups have been complaining:

[https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-united-airlines-
col...](https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-united-airlines-coliseum-
naming-deal-20190329-story.html)

There may also be some restrictions on changing signage due to historical
status.

------
partiallypro
I hate this traveling Olympics nonsense. It's such a scam. Just hold the
summer Olympics every year in Greece. I don't understand how sports get such a
pass on corporate welfare. It's not just an Olympics problem, the NCAA, NFL,
NBA, NHL, MLB all fleece tax payers. The NFL is the worst though.

~~~
linuxftw
I think the Olympics are the worst offenders. At least NFL stadiums get used
for a few years. Olympic stadiums quickly become ghost towns after the event.

------
gumby
Apparently they’re using the same contractors hired for the high speed rail,

More seriously: this always happens; what’s the point of hosting an olympics
anyway? Even a permanent location would be better.

~~~
linuxftw
It's a wealth transfer for the politically connected, same as anything else.

Why should we care who the fastest runner on the planet is? Or the fastest
cyclist? In what way does it enhance the lives of the great majority of
people?

~~~
gumby
Although I don't see the point of professional sport I don't deny that some
people rely like it.

My point is that bidding your city to _host_ the olympics, or other such
activities, usually ends up not making anybody happy.

~~~
linuxftw
For good reason. If people want to be surrounded by a ton of strangers, they'd
move to NYC.

------
outside1234
Serious question - is this what is driving the construction of transit in LA?

~~~
mixmastamyk
Partially, but probably not the main driver. The city is getting more dense,
despite the work of NIMBYs. There are some LA Metro improvements being done
but they were planned and tax introduced before the Olympic win, I believe.

~~~
jcranmer
The advantage of the Olympics is that it helps to steamroll over NIMBY
objection and ensure that politicians are actually willing to commit funding
to transit projects.

------
justin66
Are there any recent examples of the costs of hosting an Olympics paying very
clear dividends over time, such that the costs of hosting the event were
definitely worthwhile for the hosting city?

~~~
RandallBrown
I don't know about the dividends over time, but many olympics turn profits.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games)

~~~
justin66
That chart is good, at least as a start for further research. I'm not sure how
much rigor some of the linked to sources really exhibit, but it's a start.

I'd heard the Athens Summer Olympics was a disaster but putting a number on it
is pretty sobering.

------
drb91
Hosting the olympics is such an embarrassment to LA.

[https://nolympicsla.com/faq/](https://nolympicsla.com/faq/)

------
baxtr
Maybe they should book a trip to Athens, Greece, before spending more.

[https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/aug/13/abando...](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/aug/13/abandoned-
athens-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures)

~~~
craftyguy
This is not the first time LA has hosted the games.

~~~
drb91
The last time was also a mistake.

~~~
Aloha
How so?

~~~
drb91
> The Host City Contract, as written by the IOC, stipulates where any profits
> would go. 20% goes to Olympic organizing bodies and the part that LA gets to
> keep can ONLY be used for youth sports initiatives—not affordable housing,
> homelessness, or a variety of other places...these potential surplus
> revenues could go. As written in the contract, there is no mechanism for the
> mayor, City Council, bid committee, and most importantly, the people of Los
> Angeles to weigh in on where any profits should go.

It’s not profit by the traditional meaning of having cash in pocket. Why not
just invest in youth sports and bypass the whole investment charade? I still
think it’s a bad use of money but it’s better than hosting an infamously
corrupt body in a different city every 2 years to MAYBE generate some youth
sports profits as happened in 84.

~~~
gamblor956
_Why not just invest in youth sports and bypass the whole investment charade?
I still think it’s a bad use of money but it’s better than hosting an
infamously corrupt body in a different city every 2 years to MAYBE generate
some youth sports profits as happened in 84._

First, and importantly -- both previous LA Olympics generated real profits, as
in, actual economic profits. Not unicorn fantasy profits like most tech
companies embrace (ahem Groupon, Uber, Twitter, Tesla, etc.).

Second--while you may not care about the Olympics or sports, literally
billions of people around the world--and millions of people in Los Angeles--do
care about the Games. The Games are both a celebration of sport, health,
community, unity, _and_ a vessel for raising money to fund youth athletics.

~~~
drb91
> First, and importantly -- both previous LA Olympics generated real profits,
> as in, actual economic profits. Not unicorn fantasy profits like most tech
> companies embrace (ahem Groupon, Uber, Twitter, Tesla, etc.).

Sure, and what did they spend it on? Was it worth the displacement? Did they
build more public housing? Of course not.

> Second--while you may not care about the Olympics or sports, literally
> billions of people around the world--and millions of people in Los Angeles--
> do care about the Games. The Games are both a celebration of sport, health,
> community, unity, and a vessel for raising money to fund youth athletics.

LA could also house the homeless—that would be something to actually
celebrate. Right now, the Olympics are a celebration of capital.

~~~
gamblor956
I don't get what your going at, unless you're just trying to be a troll?

The City of Los Angeles has never organized an Olympics. A private group,
located in the city of Los Angeles, organized an Olympics in cooperation with
various cities in Los Angeles County, including the city of Los Angeles.

The private group acquired the right to put on this event in part by pledging
that profits from the event would go toward funding youth sports, which was
one of the options provided by the event licensor (the IOC).

The private group earned $250 million in profits on the event, after paying
for expenses like the costs of police and fire personnel working the Games.
That profit was then used toward its contractually-obligated purpose of
funding youth sports.

 _Sure, and what did they spend it on? Was it worth the displacement? Did they
build more public housing? Of course not._

No people were displaced by the LA Olympics, because no housing was torn down
to construct Olympic facilities, because only 1 or 2 facilities were built for
the 32 and 84 Olympics.

No public housing was built, because the Olympics were put on by a private
organization. However, important to note: private housing _was_ used for the
Olympics. Specifically, USC's then-new student housing was used to house
athletes before students moved in. The construction of student housing freed
up hundreds of houses around the campus for occupation by lower-income
residents.

 _LA could also house the homeless—that would be something to actually
celebrate._

LA could house the homeless. The problem is that a lot of them don't want to
be housed because it means giving up alcohol or drugs, or taking their
medication, so thousands of shelter beds go unused every night.

------
benj111
"some political leaders are already talking about improvements, asking for a
study on ways to pay for street and sidewalk fixes.

None of that would be part of LA 2028’s budget "

The problem with 'budgets' for things like this is that they show exactly what
you want them to show.

The current leaders want to show that the project is cheap and on budget, so
of course that new road isn't included in the budget. The next leaders will
want to show how bad the previous incumbents were with finances for the
Olympics, so of course that road will be included in the budget.

------
dugluak
If you think about it as an entertainment/sport industry with a product that
comes out every 4 years that number doesn't seem too bad. wonder how many jobs
it creates.

------
twa927
Maybe it's time to start hosting olympics in the same place? And make all
countries participate in costs? There are multiple arguments for this:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=hosting+olympics+in+the+same...](https://www.google.com/search?q=hosting+olympics+in+the+same+place)

~~~
fiftyfifty
At the very least the host should be chosen based on it's current ability to
host the games, not rely on tens of billions of dollars worth of construction
projects to get there. LA is probably one of the few places with most of the
venues already in place.

The other option would be to host different sports in different countries, so
the burden get's spread out more. It's kind of ridiculous that countries have
to build artificial rivers now and all kinds of ridiculous crap. Why not host
the kayaking somewhere there is a natural river they can use.

------
hanniabu
I hope they build the facilities for long term use unlike other Olympic
facilities built that end up crumbling a few years after.

~~~
Rebelgecko
They're not building anything major.

They're reusing existing stadiums:

Coliseum (seats ~80k and previously featured in 1932 and 1984 Olympics)

New Rams stadium in Inglewood (seats ~80k. Being built privately with
relatively small indirect subsidies)

Rose Bowl (seats ~90k)

And smaller preexisting venues (2 soccer stadiums, Staples Center, the beach,
the ocean, etc).

There's no new megastadiums being built. When I looked at their budget, I
think the biggest facilities expense was $7 million to make an area at the
Rams stadium safe for shooting and archery events.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Forum and Dodger stadium are options also.

------
kevmo
Nice.

------
temp1831
>This time, organizers said they based the budget on “real” dollars, looking
across the next decade to predict expenses and revenues in terms of when the
money is actually spent or received.

To be interpreted as: It takes multiple revisions of the budget before
somebody in the city government was even realistic enough to apply a discount
rate to future cash flows.

~~~
gamblor956
No, the original budget was based on an LA 2024 Olympics. After LA accepted
the LA2028 Games, the budget needed to be revised. Due to
the...uncertainty...of the Trump administration's impact on the economy, it
took a while to determine a reasonable forecast for inflation over the next
decade.

