L.A. Details Bid for 2012 Games

Mixing civic pride with a dash of boosterism and the savvy gained from staging dozens of world-class events, the 16-page summary of the Los Angeles 2012 Bid Committee’s application to host the Summer Olympics emphasizes the area’s cultural, athletic and technological resources and organizers’ know-how in an effort to persuade the U.S. Olympic Committee to select Los Angeles as a host for the third time.

The summary, released to the media Wednesday, contained no major changes from the committee’s initial December announcement. The actual documents, which encompass 839 pages and weigh 22 pounds, were not released but will be made available for inspection by the media.

“We revealed our concept,” said David Simon, president of the bid committee and of the Los Angeles Sports Council. “That concept is our experience and everything we have to offer in this area, in addition to the financial security of having it in a place that has such facilities already in place, or soon to be in place.”

The summary reiterates the projected expenses at $1.9 billion, based on the need to build only one new permanent site--for shooting, at the Fairplex in Pomona--and renovate two others, the Coliseum and the Long Beach Marine Stadium. That’s among the smallest budgets of the eight bidding cities; New York has projected expenses of more than $3 billion, and Washington and Tampa-Orlando each project expenses of more than $2.5 billion.

The operations budget is L.A.’s biggest expenditure at $972,000,000, with projected costs of $105,400,000 for sports facilities, $24,600,000 for the Olympic Village, $41,000,000 for media centers and $31,000,000 for “others.” Revenues from TV rights, sponsorships and ticket sales are projected at $2,003,000,000. The surplus was again projected at $96 million.

“And I continue to say that’s quite conservative,” Simon said. “We did not budget interest income.”

There are also no provisions for using government subsidies or taxpayers’ money, following the private-funding model established in the 1984 Games, which had a record surplus of $232.5 million.

Seven other U.S. cities--Cincinnati, Dallas, Houston, New York, San Francisco, Tampa-Orlando and Washington--have also bid to be the U.S. candidate. The USOC will select one in October 2002; the International Olympic Committee will choose the final winner in 2005.

The bid and summary were written by Rich Perelman, the technical director of the LA2012 bid committee. He said the summary “is more of a sales document than the bid is,” because the USOC required that the bid be informative rather than entertaining.

The shift is reflected in the introductory section “Los Angeles: Dedicated, Dependable and Primed to Perform.” Among the area’s selling points, Perelman lists the ability “to put on a Games which offers a wonderland of beautiful settings, enthusiastic residents and the glamour of a two-time Olympic host in an area which is also the world’s entertainment capital and home to attractions including Disneyland and Universal Studios Hollywood. . . .”

The 2012 summary cites the success of the 1984 Los Angeles Games but says the 2012 bid “is hardly a rewrite of the 1984 Olympic effort” because merely 14 of the 1984 sites would be used again and two from the 1932 Games. The Pond of Anaheim and the Pyramid in Long Beach have been built since the 1984 Games and would play key roles in the 2012 Olympics. So would the Anschutz Sports Center, which will soon begin construction at Cal State Dominguez Hills and would host soccer, field hockey and cycling.

“This is a more compact format than 1984,” Simon said. “In 1984, rowing and canoeing venues were in Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Barbara was the ancillary housing. It went as far south as San Diego for the equestrian events. We wouldn’t have to do that this time.”

A USOC evaluation team will visit each city and will make Los Angeles its final stop, Aug. 23-26.