Washington, D.C.’s Olympic organizing committee has announced plans to … bid to host the Olympics, dummy, what do you think Olympic organizing committees do?
According to USA Today’s Kelly Whiteside (hi, Kelly!), hosting the 2024 Summer Games is expected to cost D.C. from $4-6 billion, including building a new stadium for track and field and the opening and closing ceremonies (and, possibly, for the city’s NFL team later on). Whiteside also notes that D.C. 2024 president Bob Sweeney said the city is “in a better position to host with a convention center, a new baseball park and an improved Metro system,” which might be more convincing if baseball were actually sure of being included in the Olympics.
I’ve written at length in the past about what a boondoggle hosting the Olympics has been for other host cities, so instead, I’ll leave it to U.S. News’s Pat Garafolo, who calls it the worst idea in Washington:
But what about the myriad economic benefits that will come with hosting the games? As I wrote in the Baltimore Sun last year when the prospect of a D.C.-Baltimore bid first arose, those benefits are mostly a mirage. Economist Jeffrey Owen put it this way: “To date there has not been a study of an Olympics or other large-scale sporting event that has found empirical evidence of significant economic impacts. … It is unlikely that anyone ever will.”…
For D.C. residents (myself included) there will, of course, be more parochial reasons to gripe about a D.C. bid, such as the inevitable traffic and delays associated not just with the games, but with the construction that will precede them for years on end. But the reason that non-residents should care whether or not D.C. plays host in 2024 is that the Olympics keep getting more expensive, cities keep getting less out of them, and yet lawmakers and corporate sponsors keep pushing for ever more elaborate facilities and spectacles to be foisted onto the backs of taxpayers who should be paying for new services that can make their own daily lives a little bit better.