Faster, higher, stronger, crazier

I would really like to see Rio de Janeiro someday. Someday when it’s not hosting the Olympic Games, that is.

Rio is already a big tourist destination. Why would they want bigger crowds, more traffic, more confusion, more stress? Why would any city beg (and/or bribe) to host the Olympics, after so many host cities have ended up in debt? It’s like buying bankruptcy.

They have to build all kinds of new stadiums and venues for all the different events, and mini-cities to house the athletes, and people-mover systems to get the crowds to the venues, and a press village, and a nightly meeting spot. Most cities have enough trouble filling potholes and repairing overpasses.

Isn’t that what started Greece’s slide into financial chaos? Hosting the Athens Olympics? The Olympics went fine for the athletes, for the spectators and for NBC’s bottom line. For your average Greek, not so much.

And look at Montreal. It took the citizens of Montreal 30 years to pay for the stadium they built for the 1976 Olympics. In retrospect, they might have declined the honor.

Does Rio – or Athens or London – really need more tourists? If Rio does need more tourists, it could have another Carnival. Make it a twice-yearly event. No new stadium or Olympic-sized pool required. Besides, Rio knows exactly how to have a Carnival, while hosting an Olympics seems to have the city completely flummoxed. The last report says there’s still raw sewage floating at the site of the boating events. That sounds like something you’d see on “Survivor,” not at the Olympics. Don’t drop that gold medal in the water, because no one’s going to dive in after it.

Then there’s the unplanned arrival of the Zika virus, keeping tourists and athletes away – the exact opposite of what Brazil hoped would happen. Even without the virus, Rio has enough problems. What Rio needs – like most big cities around the world – is less poverty, addiction and homelessness. Not more stadiums.

New York, Chicago and LA don’t need the Olympics to tell the world they’ve arrived; no world capital does. Why big cities still fight for the chance to host the Olympics is a puzzlement.

And it’s not just the Olympics. Unless you own a hotel, or a bar near the convention center, would you want your town to host a Democratic or Republican convention? Think of all the added police hours, the traffic jams, the protesters, all the con men and clowns these events attract. When the political parties announce which city they’ll be having their convention in, half the people in town are saying, “Oh please, don’t let it be us.” Maybe more than half.

An easy solution to this is to make one permanent site for the Olympics and for the political conventions. Think of the money the world would save by building only one field house, one stadium and one aquatic center, instead of building new ones every four years. The money we save could go toward the athletes, who, in many places, have to beg for money to train for and attend the Olympics.

My choice for that permanent location would be Las Vegas. Let every summer Olympics and every political convention take place in Las Vegas. Let all those groups that attract protesters – the G9, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund – have their conferences in Las Vegas. Any protesters who can stand outside with placards in 122-degree heat long enough for the network satellite trucks to show up should be given cash prizes and free merchandise.

The best part is that the locals in Las Vegas probably wouldn’t even notice. When the circus is in town every day, you get used to it.

2016 United Feature Syndicate

Distributed by Universal Uclick for UFS