Olympics--Do the Numbers First

The red ink from last summer’s Democratic National Convention is barely dry but already there is serious talk of a Los Angeles bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Crazy? Not at all; Los Angeles proved itself an able host for the Summer Games in 1984. But as local organizers assemble a bid to put before the International Olympic Committee they need to address head-on and immediately, not down the road, key questions of finance and logistics.

The blockbuster success of the 1984 Games is a good reason to try again here. Los Angeles sparkled on a world stage that summer, showing itself as a modern, well-functioning city while treating residents to the excitement that only Olympic-caliber performances can generate. Moreover, the privately financed Games turned a whopping 30% profit--$232.5 million on revenues of $768 million--a first for the Olympics. The city didn’t lose a penny.

That record of success should matter to the international committee. But so too would the fact that Los Angeles had already hosted the Games twice; 1932 was the first time. Awarding a third Olympics to a city would be unprecedented. Competitors would include Cincinnati, Dallas and San Francisco.

The fact that a number of top-quality athletic venues, such as Staples Center and the Arrowhead Pond, already exist here would make Los Angeles’ bid an attractive one. The existing infrastructure would matter even more in the unlikely event that L.A. were asked to fill in for a faltering Athens in 2004. But we would have to assure not just Olympic organizers but local voters and elected officials that they wouldn’t get stuck after the fact.

Organizers for the Democratic National Convention made similar assurances, but last week the City Council got a look at its final tab for the August gathering--a whopping $36 million, more than four times the original cost estimate. The money went for policing and traffic management, along with $4 million in cash that the city gave the convention committee when it reported shortfalls in fund-raising. The Olympic Games are a far more ambitious undertaking, enormously raising the fiscal risk to the city if private funders didn’t come through or expenses soared.

The profound economic and demographic changes in Los Angeles since 1984 could make it harder to provide assurances. Does Los Angeles still have the corporate funding and leadership base to carry off an event of this cost, size and complexity? With half a million more people in the city now than in 1984 and many more cars and with possible venues for the 2012 Games spread from Orange County to Westwood and beyond, could organizers efficiently get the athletes, media and residents where they would need to go on time? And how would taxpayers be protected against Olympic-sized funding shortfalls?

The 1984 Games were a golden time in this city’s history, and that glow would certainly make it easier to attract private money for another try. But organizers must nail down the details in advance, and do it more persuasively than the convention organizers did, so that the two weeks of world-class excitement and city spirit wouldn’t leave a bad aftertaste for taxpayers.