When a host city signs the contract to put on the Olympic and Paralympic Games, they don’t just have to deal with local government to make them happen. LA 2028 has to work with municipal, county and state governments, as well as commissions and the federal government for funding and regulatory needs.
Jason Sisney, Budget Advisor for the Speaker’s Office at the California State Assembly, joins us to talk about the state’s involvement in the LA28 Games. From temporary venues to environmental issues – and even gun control laws, the state has been working with the LA Organizing Committee for over a decade to help the Games happen. Jason sheds light on the importance of the Games not building any new venues and what they’re doing differently than in 1984.
Jason shows us the amazing effort it takes from all levels of government to make an Olympics and Paralympics happen in California. As an Olympic historian, he also talks about the financial debacle that was the 1960 Winter Olympics and why the state doesn’t want a repeat of that in 2028.
Also on this episode, the Institute for Applied Economics of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation published an economic analysis of the potential impact of the Games on the local economy. We take a look at the numbers.
Plus, LA28 is implementing a food truck program, which has Alison very excited! And another first-time country will compete in the women’s volleyball tournament. Listen on to find out who punched their ticket to LA28!
If you liked this episode, be sure to check out:
Get more great stories in our free weekly newsletter!
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript has been generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors. Please check its accuracy against the audio.
446-Jason Sisney on CA and the LA28 Games
Theme Music
Jill Jaracz: Hello, and [00:00:30] welcome to another episode of Keep the Flame Alive, the podcast for fans of the Olympics and Paralympics. If you love the games, we are the show for you. I am your host, Jill Jaracz, joined as always by my lovely co-host, Alison Brown. Alison, hello. How are you?
Alison Brown: I’m feeling very academic today, given our interview.
I’m feeling very smart
Jason Sisney Interview
Jill Jaracz: We did. We got smart. We got smart about, uh, LA 2028, and we’re getting smart about them [00:01:00] in an economic sense. today we are talking with Jason Sisney. He is the budget advisor for the speaker’s office at the California State Assembly. And we wanted to talk with him because, you know, when a Games comes to town, the government has gotta get involved no matter what, and the California state government’s pretty big.
Alison Brown: Yes, and that he talks about as well. So we talk about some big numbers getting thrown around.
Jill Jaracz: Exactly, and some of the more [00:01:30] unusual things that had to happen at the state level, in order for the Games to take place, which was a little surprising to us as well. if you are new to the podcast or are not familiar with some of the infrastructure projects going on in LA, and the acronyms involved, we use the acronym OCOG in this interview, which stands for Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games.
That is 2028 in this case. the People Mover is a project at Los Angeles International [00:02:00] Airport, and that’s a 2.25-mile automated tram system called SkyLink that’s gonna connect airport terminals with economy parking, with the car rental facility, and the airport’s Metro Transit Center. It’s apparently, like, 99.6% complete, but it’s been at that completion level for a long time due to disputes between the contractor and airport officials.
that’s p- kind of a point of contention of will it be done in time for 2028? we also talk about the D [00:02:30] Line. the D Line is part of LA’s Metro subway system, and it has been undergoing a westward expansion that’s supposed to be done by the Games time.
So those are all things that are on the docket and much more. Take a listen to our interview with Jason.
Jason Sisney, thank you so much for joining us.
Jason Sisney: Thank you
What’s involved with the Budget Advisor role
Jill Jaracz: talk a bit about what you do as a budget advisor in the speaker’s office for the California State [00:03:00] Assembly.
Jason Sisney: Well, my job is really to advise the speaker and, uh, assembly members on the big picture of the state budget. So I lead our, team of staff who works on the state budget, and my principal job is to be the lead staff negotiator for the state assembly in state budget talks each year with the state senate and the governor.
And so that’s, that’s my main job. California has the biggest subnational budget in the [00:03:30] world, so it’s really a year-round job managing the budget and thinking about, what next year’s budget is gonna be like. So that’s the main bit of my job working on the state budget, and my work on, the Olympic and Paralympic Games is, just a small part of that and kind of off to the side.
Jill Jaracz: How big is California budget?
Jason Sisney: California, budgets over half a billion, a half a trillion dollars, uh, every year, uh, in both state funds and federal funds that pass [00:04:00] through the state, to local governments and to healthcare plans and, and so forth. So the largest things that California does is, run a Medicaid program that insures around 40% of the state’s population, and we are the largest funder of the state’s, public school system.
And so those are the biggest things that are done in the state budget. But beyond that, everything else from fighting wildfires to collecting, taxes [00:04:30] to, funding, our state’s public university systems, all of those things also fall into the budget too.
Alison Brown: And now this fun little entity that we think of as, as huge and important being the Olympics and Paralympics coming to LA.
Jason Sisney: That’s right. And, uh, it is a significant endeavor. And for those who think about so-called mega events, of which the Olympic and Paralympic Games are by far the biggest, I think that one of the key [00:05:00] definitions of a mega event is it requires the participation and coordination by every level of government, federal, state, and local, here in the US.
And so at the state level, hosting, you know, the world’s largest event in a little under two years means that there are various parts of state government, including sums that– some parts that you wouldn’t expect, that have to be involved, both in terms of thinking about laws [00:05:30] and regulations, but also in terms of, uh, their staff working on, for example, how traffic will move in the Los Angeles area during the games, which is a, it’s a huge endeavor that’s been years in the planning and still has about two years to go.
What the state is involved in when it comes to the LA 2028 Olympics and Paralympics
Jill Jaracz: What are the things that we wouldn’t expect the state to be involved in that it is involved in?
Jason Sisney: I think that– a-and this is something, that for those of us who’ve been around for the last decade or more when, [00:06:00] LA, twenty twenty-eight and originally LA twenty twenty-four were envisioned, one of the things we did was go back and look at the records of Los Angeles’ nineteen eighty-four games and discovered there were a lot of state, uh, departments, state agencies that were involved that one wouldn’t have expected.
So, uh, for example, you go back to nineteen eighty-four, the parts of our state government that regulate, gambling, our gambling control, agencies, which are, which have been moved [00:06:30] around since then, gambling’s a much bigger deal than it was in, in nineteen eighty-four. They were involved in thinking about ways to prevent, illegal betting on events of the games.
state agency, that regulates the health of our equine industry horses, and they had to be involved in, you know, looking at the health of equestrian horses, that were brought in, to Los Angeles for nineteen eighty-four. And so it goes on and on, and one of the things we can talk about that we’ve been [00:07:00] focused on lately is looking at, the roles of the state’s environmental regulatory agencies and how they relate to LA twenty-eight’s building of all of these temporary venues.
we’ve spent a lot of time recently looking at our state’s gun control laws and how they affect the shooting and parachuting, uh, disciplines at the games, and we just recently passed, the, the legislature passed, and it’s awaiting for the governor’s signature a bill to change how that works.
And we also have a state athletics [00:07:30] commission that regulates, high school, intercollegiate and other sporting events in the state. and we have had to look at what their role will be, in, uh, overseeing events at LA twenty-eight. We’ve made a decision they’re gonna have a very limited role, unlike in nineteen eighty-four.
So we will not have a state athletics commission going in and looking at how the Olympics run, say, judo. Uh, that was something that was a burden for the organizers in nineteen eighty-four, and we’ve [00:08:00] recently passed a law to ensure that will not be the case in twenty twenty-eight. So it really goes up and down state government, in addition to the really big marquee areas of transportation, how traffic moves, and also, uh, security, uh, which is the biggest public concern really at any, any games.
California gun law changes with regards to the Games
Jill Jaracz: We’ll get to the environmental stuff, but I had seen a, talk with you and you had mentioned the shooting laws changes- … which I just wanted to stop everything and talk about [00:08:30] that. Yeah, go ahead … what changes did you have to make?
Jason Sisney: Well, California is pretty well known for having, one of the, the nation’s one of the strictest gun control regimes, some would say in the world, but I would say definitely in the United States, one of the strictest gun control regimes. And so that plays out.
there are restrictions on, who can buy ammunition. And when you get into firearms, there are particular rules that, that effectively mean each individual type of firearm has to be [00:09:00] evaluated for whether it’s an assault weapon, its various safety characteristics, and that defines who can buy it, how, you know, what are, what are the, the background checks that go into someone buying it, and so forth.
So it’s a very complicated regime, and it’s much, much more complicated than it was in 1984. So a few years ago, LA28 began to bring to our attention that the legal regime now on the books would make it difficult, if not [00:09:30] impossible, for shooting and parachuting athletes to bring their weapons to this country, to use and even in some cases acquire the ammunition that they need to compete, at the various shooting events, which are gonna be in Long Beach and in outside of a town called South El Monte, Whittier Narrows in, uh, Los Angeles County.
So LA28 brought this to our attention and, and it actually took a great deal of work this year to think about how to change the law temporarily [00:10:00] to make sure that those athletes would be able, from all around the world, to bring their firearms and use them here in California. And also to ensure that the personnel running the games, so, the staff and, uh, volunteers of LA28, of the International Shooting Federations and so forth, that they would not be in legal trouble for handling the firearms.
So if you have an athlete who’s there, even the act of someone helping them, take the, the gun, put it in storage, and all this sort of stuff, there were legal [00:10:30] ramifications for that as well. And so essentially what happened recently, in one bill that the legislature passed is, essentially broadening an exemption that was already in place for 1984 and making it more relevant for current law, creating a way for our state’s, attorney general’s office, the Department of Justice, to look at each type of firearm that competitors are planning to bring in to certify its safety and to allow it to be, used and brought [00:11:00] into California.
Similar temporary actions with regard to ammunition. And here is an interesting one. We had to actually make sure that minors, who are Olympians and Paralympians, tho-those under 18, would have, the ability under law to use these weapons because that is even more strictly, uh, regulated under California law.
And in Paris, if I recall correctly, there were more than three hundred shooting athletes, and there– I think there were three who were minors. So this is something we’ve had to plan for as well, basically making sure that minors [00:11:30] with adult supervision from their team leaders or, or o-other adults, will be able to use, uh, their weapons.
So it was one of the more interesting things we’ve done thus far because, firearms laws are so complicated that if you pull one thread, we discovered it kind of inadvertently, you know, can mess up, uh, something else. And so we wanted to make sure that, it was a pretty temporary, and very focused liberalization of our gun safety laws, which are still very [00:12:00] important to the governor and the legislature here in California.
But, you know, you’re going to have these, you know, hundreds of incredible top-tier shooters from around the world who are coming to LA, and we have to make it so they can, they can use th-those guns legally. So it was a very interesting exercise
Alison Brown: Yeah, it must be so easy to write a law that then creates a loophole in another law- Mm-hmm
when, when you’re putting that together. the complexity of that- And- … of that one tiny [00:12:30] little element that you’re looking at.
Jason Sisney: And I think in the legislative process, particularly when you’re dealing with something practical like this, that is you have the Games organizers come to you and say, “We have this problem.
We need to address it.” All right. You see the problem, you need to address it. And oftentimes a conversation like that is focused on are you creating a loophole somewhere else that you don’t intend? Because you’re trying to solve, in our legal system, a very narrow problem, and in the case of the Olympic Paralympic Games, [00:13:00] literally a problem that only really matters for that two-month period of the games as well as the test events and the trials that, that precede it.
you basically wanna solve that problem and not create another problem down the way, and we- we’ve had that as a focus of our work with other, Games legislation as well.
Jill Jaracz: Did you receive any pushback from different, anti-gun organizations when they saw… Uh, because obviously they’re, they’re keeping track of what’s going on in [00:13:30] legislation regarding gun control.
Jason Sisney: Yes. I mean, gun safety groups are very sensitive to adding weapons to, what we call our, our roster of firearms that are available for purchase, in California.
I do think that, both as legislative staff and to some extent the Newsom administration, our governor’s administration in LA28, hopefully helped educate folks that, the types of firearms we’re talking about, if you, if you think of Olympic shooting [00:14:00] events and those incredible pictures of these athletes with, their, uh, specialized eyewear and, and, you know, just like, uh, in biathlon, they have to be incredibly physically fit to control their breathing.
They’re using these, these really unusual firearms that are quite different from a typical firearm. They’re very expensive. They’re typically firing, rounds that, have less lethality than, than others. These are very specialized weapons. And so I think that in the [00:14:30] process of crafting this legislation, the dialogue we have with groups like that is partly about educating them that this is actually a pretty low-risk endeavor for public safety.
It’s not something they’re necessarily familiar with, but also something that just practically speaking we had to figure out where, you know, maybe it would’ve been easier to host, uh, it came up during some of our discussions. Maybe it would’ve been easier to host shooting in Oklahoma City as opposed to just, uh, softball and, and canoe slalom.
It might have been [00:15:00] easier for Oklahoma to handle those laws. But we, we have come together and, and done it in California, and I, I think that, it should work pretty well now.
Environmental issues and the Games venues
Jill Jaracz: What about environmental stuff? and I’m guessing this has to do with venues that use coastline
Jason Sisney: the coastline is a particular emphasis. And so, California first dealt with this issue in, in nineteen eighty-four. and if people are aware of California and its, environmental laws, they may have heard of CEQA, C-E-Q-A, which is the California Environmental [00:15:30] Quality Act.
And the– CEQA has a reputation, some would say deserved, some would say undeserved. CEQA has a reputation for stopping a lot of, uh, development of infrastructure, of, business, facilities, of housing. CEQA has, that, that sort of reputation. And in addition to CEQA, we also have something called the Coastal Act, which has a long history of support by the voters of California.
And the Coastal [00:16:00] Act, which is regulated by our Coastal Commission, heavily regulates development that happens along our Pacific coastline. And it’s, it’s, it’s basically intended to ensure public access to the coast and that, our coast and oceans, remain clean. So in the process of working with LA twenty-eight, we discovered that the laws that were put in place for nineteen eighty-four, when CEQA was a, a lot newer, there was an exemption that was in place for certain Olympic [00:16:30] actions.
It was not sufficient to really streamline the development of their temporary venues. One of the things that’s very important is that the state has been involved, along with the city of Los Angeles as the host city, in the games for more than a decade. And the plan has always been, we are not building big new venues and infrastructure for the Olympic and Paralympic Games because that is, the philosophy that the IOC’s Olympic Agenda twenty-twenty encouraged, and it’s one that in [00:17:00] California we have taken to heart both in nineteen eighty-four and for, for twenty-twenty.
We’re not building big new infrastructure. we’re basically putting up temporary facilities using existing facilities. And so right there is a very important, item for people who are concerned about the natural environment. We are not building big new permanent things. We’re using existing venues.
We’re building temporary facilities. But if you think of Olympic games that you’ve been to, if you think of going particularly to Paris or even on a [00:17:30] smaller scale, in Milan, you will remember that venues have these big tent canopies that house the security equipment when spectators come into the games.
A lot of the backstage area where athletes, gather, where the press gathers, where, sometimes, uh, Olympic hospitality occurs. These will be under tent venues, and, LA even more so, with a largely temporary venue games. So one of the things that we had to think [00:18:00] about is what are the rules under our environmental laws for these sometimes very large tent, and other temporary, facilities that LA ’28 will have?
And what the legislature, working with the Newsom administration, did last year was to create a very focused exemption to CEQA and our Coastal Act for, LA ’28’s temporary venues. Basically, if it’s related to LA ’28’s, the OCOGs’, activities, it can have this temporary [00:18:30] exemption, provided that the facilities are, torn down and the area’s returned to a clean condition just a few months after the games.
And it gets this exemption. It doesn’t have to go through all of the public process that could delay and make much more expensive that, uh, venue construction. This year, another thing that had to be done was thinking about, building codes, because those temporary tents are so large that you get into what is going to be the method of fire control there.
Are they going to have to be [00:19:00] plumbed with sprinklers, or can there be other alternative means of fire control, cheaper means, that can still keep people safe there, but allow LA ’28 to do the job cheaper? And so this year we passed, uh, some legislation in the legislature that streamlines the building codes, or it…
More accurately, it gives local governments in Southern California the ability to adopt alternative measures that makes it easier for LA ’28 to put up and take [00:19:30] down those temporary venues. So the sheer scale of the temporary venue building that LA ’28 has, it’s a very costly endeavor for them because both the city and state, are on the hook if LA ’28 has a deficit.
We want them to do it cheaply. We want them to do it safely. And so that’s what’s been behind, uh, both our environmental law changes as well as the building code change this year.
Jill Jaracz: I have about 20 questions off
Jason Sisney: of that. Sure, sure. Sure.
Jill Jaracz: are there any of these [00:20:00] environmental areas that are more sensitive than others? Yeah. Or that maybe LA proposed and got turned down because the games would have them would be too damaging to the area?
Jason Sisney: I, I don’t think that they’ve really been turned down for anything that I can think of. I might, I might be forgetting something. But for example, uh, the surfing venue will be at the border of Orange County and San Diego County, in one of our state parks at this incredible surf break that actually is probably the most [00:20:30] sensitive environmentally, the most environmentally sensitive venue in the venue plan.
uh, it’s pretty complicated. The federal government has Camp Pendleton there, and on top of that, there’s a state park, and now LA ’28 in the summer of twenty twenty-eight will be having the surfing venue there. Uh, that is within the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction to some extent.
And so that was something where, if LA ’28 goes through the process, they will be able to do the things, for example, seating, at that [00:21:00] venue, temporary seating, that, they’ll be able to hold the event there. That’s, that’s the most environmentally sensitive venue that comes to mind.
There are, y-you know, with the rowing and the sailing events, in the Long Beach area and the Port of Los Angeles, obviously those are things that involve coastal resources, the Coastal Commission, is interested in. So I think that, uh, those are the sorts of things the marathon and other activities, uh, or rather, I think I’m thinking the triathlon, in Venice Beach, again on the coastline.
[00:21:30] these are very well-populated beach areas as opposed to where the surfing venue will have. So, uh, I think that the, the venues that are along the coastline are probably the most sensitive. And so that was a particular focus of the legislation, was making sure that whatever was done there was temporary and that the streamlining only applied in terms of state law if the venue would be taken away and the area returned to its, its prior [00:22:00] clean state, within a few months of the games
How public entities cooperate in these endeavors
Alison Brown: So just in this little piece of the conversation we’ve had- Mm-hmm … we’ve mentioned state, city, county commissions.
Jason Sisney: Yeah.
Alison Brown: It– All, all different entities that are fighting, well, I say fighting, they may be getting along very nicely- … uh, for, the management of these different places. And that’s gotta be, I would think, the biggest challenge for you, just getting everybody who’s got a stake in the same room at the same [00:22:30] time and not getting into a, a power contest as to who has the final say.
Jason Sisney: I think that’s true. And of course, in LA ’28’s case, we have multiple venue cities. So the city of Los Angeles is the host city that signed the contract with the IOC. They’re on the hook. But, it was always known from the very beginning, LA is not going to host all of the venues. You have the city of Inglewood, you have the city of Carson, city of Long Beach, so on and so forth.
[00:23:00] And I, I will say that in government, this sort of intergovernment, and certainly in California, we have a very complex governmental structure. Virtually everything we do involves multiple types of entities of government just like that. And so it’s something that whether you’re working in public safety or you’re working in transit, you’re kind of used to doing that intergovernmental cooperation.
That doesn’t mean it’s easy, and it doesn’t mean there aren’t conflicts, but it is the sort of thing that they’re [00:23:30] doing all the time. And so hosting an Olympic and Paralympic Games is just kind of a different twist on that, a different application of the skill that a lot of our governmental entities are using all the time anyway.
One of the things, one of the earlier laws several years ago now, I think, uh, during maybe even before the pandemic, we set up the intergovernmental management structure for our security. Uh, security at national security events like, [00:24:00] the games are headed by the US Secret Service.
They involve a lot of federal agencies, state and local. But we set up an entity within our state’s public safety jurisdiction, which is explicitly, it’s intergovernmental. It involves all of these local governments and the federal agencies and so forth. And they already have been, coordinating. And during the games, they literally will, uh, have, I imagine, virtual rooms where they are coordinating, in real time to deal with challenges that [00:24:30] occur.
Jill Jaracz: So is it better on your end that LA had an extra four years to plan, given the scale of these games and how many entities are involved?
Jason Sisney: It definitely is, better that LA had four years. So in retrospect, it was great that Paris got 2024 and LA got 2028, and still it’s not enough time. and there are a lot of reasons for that.
I think one of the things [00:25:00] that I have begun talking about is that I think when the history of LA ’28 is written, and I’m, I’m an Olympic historian, so I might be writing some of this one day. I think we lost a few years to the COVID pandemic. So the COVID pandemic really was one of those things that just, it just took all parts of government to react to it.
It happened in what I think would have ordinarily been the real period of revving up preparations for the games, and I think that the city, the county, the [00:25:30] state, everybody, they were focused on other things, understandably so. Even as, you know, folks in Tokyo were, and Beijing were dealing with, you know, how do you do an Olympic Games so shortly after the COVID pandemic?
we had the luxury of delaying some of those preparations, I think, until afterwards. So I think that that was a big deal. But one of the things that’s striking about LA is with this four-year delay. When, the IOC awarded the bid to LA in 2017, the [00:26:00] mayor of Los Angeles that, at that time, Eric Garcetti, you know, he had some line saying, “We’re going to host the Olympics and Paralympics with the city we have.
We’re not going to change our city to host the games. We’re gonna host the, the games with the city we have.” And what he meant by that was the city and the state and the federal government were already investing in transit in LA, already investing in, traffic lanes that move traffic better, already investing in a people mover to [00:26:30] get people from LAX, Los Angeles International Airport, to our transit system.
They were already investing in all of these things, and so the thought was, “Hey, we’re already doing that. Those will be at the service of the games.” And in the bid, which was originally for 2024, all of those things were supposed to be finished and ready for the 2024 games. Well, a lot of them aren’t finished yet, and it’s 2026, and the games are, you know, 670-some days away.
And if you read the papers, there’s real doubt now as to [00:27:00] whether or not that people mover at LAX, which it’s, you know, the games will go forward even if that’s not operational, but it’s always been a part of the concept of how to better move people during the games. That might not be done for 2028, unfortunately, it appears now.
And so even with four extra years, public infrastructure projects that we were gonna do anyway in California, so that, that’s still true. We were gonna do that anyway. They still– they take so long that even that four extra years is, is not enough. And then the [00:27:30] challenges that, that have come up in terms of managing the transit fleet, for the games have just been far, far beyond the difficulty imagined in the bid a decade ago.
and I’m hopeful that the city and the transit agency in, in the Los Angeles area will do well with that. But to be honest, they, they could use years more and billions of more funding if it were available, but it’s not, so
Big infrastructure projects that could be ready by LA28
Jill Jaracz: What is it gonna take to get that people mover done?
Jason Sisney: Well, they [00:28:00] have a particular issue between the contractor and the department that runs LA’s airport system about– It basically, to get its safety approvals, it, you know, it has to operate, it has to operate for so many days in a test pattern without interruption and so forth.
And so it has pretty stringent safety standards and, and there are just various issues between the airport and the developer that seem on track to go to some dispute resolution mechanism, be it court or arbitration or I have no idea what, uh, that [00:28:30] could really hold up, uh, the final stages. So I think that, the folks there are trying to get it online as soon as possible, but the delays have been…
As, as I said, these things were supposed to be ready for the 2024 games, and it’s 2026 and some of these things are not ready. Uh, there’s a big expansion of, what is now called the D line. So that’s LA’s, uh, growing subway system, metro system. and this subway system goes out to the west side of LA toward UCLA and Westwood, [00:29:00] uh, the Olympic Village at, and the Paralympic Village at UCLA.
it is moving along, but to a large extent, that was also supposed to be ready for 2024, and it’s, uh, just getting ready now.
Jill Jaracz: What kind of things have you seen that have… are getting done because of the games? Even though we have some stuff that’s delayed, but we’ve, talked with people in Atlanta who have said, “Oh yeah, we needed the games deadline.” And we heard that in Paris too. The deadline of having a games meant so many things [00:29:30] got done and they’d be lingering if we didn’t have that deadline.
Jason Sisney: I mean, I’m somewhat burdened here by the fact, and I’ll get on my little bit of a soapbox because the work I do is focused on how public policy interacts with the games. And one of the things I really don’t like in the Olympic movement, and I’m a big fan of the Olympics, but one of the things I really don’t like is how the Olympic movement discusses legacy.
And legacy, in my mind, has often been taken to mean these big infrastructure [00:30:00] projects, be it a stadium, be it a transit line, be it a roadway, uh, something like that. And I think that if you look at the last several decades of Olympic history, places that spend big money on those things, particularly stadiums, these stadiums just do not have the public value after the games to justify the immense cost that went into them.
There may be exceptions, but I think in general, this is what, Olympic, [00:30:30] scholars look at and they call white elephants. and it’s true, stadiums, some transportation infrastructure, if you look at places like Sochi, and so I think that that’s a, a real problem. I think that for the most part, particularly at the state level, we really have tried to avoid f- funding things just because of the games.
and moreover, I think we have been very reluctant to put extra money in to finish things on time for the games. So if you have something that’s important to the public, let’s say [00:31:00] it’s gonna be finished in twenty thirty, uh, I can’t think of an example where the state has put in big money to say, “Oh, let’s speed that up and get it done by twenty twenty-eight.”
and part of that just goes back to the original premise of the games bid. we are going to host these games with the city we have, not the city the IOC wants. We’re gonna do it with LA as we have it. I think that on a smaller scale, there have been projects. Uh, just recently, uh, the Newsom administration awarded some projects to improve some, uh, [00:31:30] transit stations in LA.
There’ve been some federal funding, for some particular transit, activities as well as, as some venues that are happening. We– The state has put money into improving, Exposition Park, things like sidewalks and, other facilities there. Exposition Park is where the Coliseum is. So the state has, has put some money in, the locals and the federal government have put some money, I think, into some of these smaller projects that might not have gotten done, but for LA ’28.
But I think that they’re on a [00:32:00] really small scale, and it goes back to the no-build philosophy of these games That we just don’t want to do infrastructure just for the games. We wanna keep our focus on our infrastructure funding of what’s for the benefit of Los Angeles for the next 20, 30 years, not for two months in 2028.
And so that’s been our philosophy. Not every games host has that philosophy, and I think that it means that there, there really aren’t a whole lot of things, I think, in that sense that wouldn’t have gotten done but for the games, [00:32:30] to be honest
Avoiding a legacy of white elephants
Jill Jaracz: W-when you work with other legislatures or their offi-offices And talk about the game stuff. Do they…
I don’t know how to say this nicely. Do people with like Sochi, “Oh, hell no, we’re not doing that.” I think that- And, and- Yeah, yeah … or do, or do like their eyes get really wide like, “Oh my gosh, that’s a lot of money to put into, again, a two-week event”?
Jason Sisney: I think that there is widespread [00:33:00] understanding in the public policy community, including with most of our legislators, that these types of big sporting events, be it the Olympic and Paralympic Games or the, the World Cup, where California had two host regions, for the World Cup, LA and the Bay Area.
There’s a widespread recognition that these can be costly endeavors that can take money away and for that matter, not just money, but also human resources of government can take them away from other [00:33:30] more pressing needs, and I think there is a widespread understanding of that. one of the things that, I spend a fair amount of time advising legislators on are here are the ways that Los Angeles and the state of California, working with LA ’28 and the IOC, we have tried to minimize that risk for 2028.
We have certainly not eliminated it. There are still significant risk to public budgets and to, public, operations during the games time and afterward. But we have certainly [00:34:00] reduced it. To start off with, we’re not building an Olympic Village. We’re not building a big stadium. We’re not building, you know, some big freeway, to go out to Olympic venues.
We’re not doing any of that. So as much as there is risk for the games, and there indeed is some risk, particularly for the city of Los Angeles, some of those very biggest risks that prior Olympic hosts have, have done we wrote out of the picture very early on. and I know you all, focused on the Milan Games, where the [00:34:30] hockey arena was, when– I don’t know if you went to it, but when I went to it, you could smell the paint and the drywall and, and, and so Milano Cortina- Yeah
those games, those games are, are having a financial loss, a deficit that will be picked up by their governments. And at least to some extent, it was because of that, that hockey arena being so late to be finished and the Olympic Organizing Committee having to front funds to, to make sure it, it operated on time.
It did operate in time, but it was a [00:35:00] just-in-time operation. And while we have a lot of temporary venues to put up in LA, we don’t have anything like a hockey arena to get done on time.
The financial debacle of the 1960 Winter Olympics
Jill Jaracz: In your work, how much of this is colored by what you’ve studied in the Olympic movement? I’m specifically thinking of a paper you wrote about the 1960 Winter Olympics and, what a financial debacle th- those were or turned out to be once all the books got closed.
Jason Sisney: Yeah. I, a little [00:35:30] bit more on my background is that while I work in public finance and I have a graduate degree in, in public finance.
I’ve spent my whole career in, first the municipal bond industry and now working in California state government, all in public finance. I’ve had this weird through line throughout of working on Olympic and Paralympic Games, starting with some weird work assignments for the 1996 games and working on some bond financings, related to the Salt Lake games and later games.
And so when LA’s bid came up more [00:36:00] than a decade ago, I was eager to get involved as a longtime Olympic fan with this experience. And in the course of that, I started studying California’s prior experiences with Olympic Games. So California has hosted two summer games previously in 1932 and 1984. Both had profits, both substantial profits in fact.
Uh, both were pretty successful, in terms of giving the IOC what they wanted from Olympic Games, but also generating profit to pay off the bills. And then there were the [00:36:30] Winter Games in 1960 at the resort that was then called Squaw Valley. It’s now called Palisades Tahoe. That resort didn’t exist when the IOC awarded the games to, uh, the state of California.
The state of California, they didn’t have a host city contract or a host, a host, uh, contract. The state of California was e-effectively the host of the games, and the developers of that resort essentially conned the IOC into awarding, uh, awarding the games to, [00:37:00] basically a small ski resort that had a tow line, a single tow line up in a mountain, no hotels, no facilities, no ski jump, no- nothing like that.
And over the course of the next several years, uh, the state of California, uh, working with those private developers, essentially poured money into this, created, what became that resort at Palisades Tahoe, which hosted the games. Very successful public event. [00:37:30] you know, a, a really, really successful investment for that region in the Tahoe region of Northern California.
But in terms of the state’s finances, it was a disaster. The state spent effectively tens of millions of dollars that had never, they had never planned to spend, at the beginning to make sure the games went off. In fact, Governor Pat Brown, Jerry Brown’s father, who was then the governor in nineteen sixty, he had to ask a special session of the legislature to appropriate extra money just [00:38:00] days before the games so it would be able to open.
The games were broke going in. They had no money to operate and had a huge loss. and so it is really one of those examples, and it’s not an isolated example among Olympic hosts of a host jurisdiction, getting into real financial trouble hosting the games. And of course, the biggest and worst example historically were the Montreal nineteen seventy-six games uh, and the Athens two thousand and four games, both ones that kind of [00:38:30] bankrupted, municipal or, or national governments in a, in a way.
and so those experiences are much more common, unfortunately, for host jurisdictions, and I think that they’re… You know, going back to the prior discussion, the members in the California legislature, a lot of the local government leaders, they’re keenly aware of the financial risks that, that prior Olympics have had and are eager to avoid them.
but it’s unfortunately not possible to completely eliminate that, that risk. The fact is, if the games run a deficit, if LA [00:39:00] twenty-eight spends more than it takes in There’s no big pot of money at the IOC to make up for that. It has to be the governments involved that, that make it up, and I think that, uh, that’s one of the reasons why the IOC has been so keen to move Olympic hosts and, and potential hosts toward having a much more sustainable footprint.
It’s not in the interest of the Olympic movement to have host jurisdictions going bankrupt when they host the games. That’s not in the long-term interest of the movement. They don’t want [00:39:30] that. And that’s one thing that, that amidst all of the controversy sometimes about hosting the games, I think that some critics forget, is that there are big incentives for the IOC and for LA ’28 to deliver a games that are on budget.
And the biggest one is if we have more games that bankrupt governments, there aren’t going to be governments that wanna host the games in the future. It’s as simple as that. and so th- I think that hopefully that’s one of the things that helps LA have another profitable [00:40:00] games, hopefully in 2028
Working with the federal government
Alison Brown: There’s been a lot of chatter, I guess is the best way to describe it, from the federal government about these games, and not always so positive, toward California. How do you manage that grandstanding versus actually trying to get things done? When you’re dealing with, with a changing federal government.
Jason Sisney: Yeah, and of course, this is something with, you know, a Democratic state government here in Sacramento dealing with the Trump administration, we deal with literally every [00:40:30] day. and when I mentioned California’s half a trillion dollar budget, you know, a couple hundred billion of that are federal funds flowing through our health and social services, our transportation and other programs.
and funding separately for school districts, universities, and, and other entities. and we deal with the challenges of this tension with the Trump administration literally every day. We deal with it in court, we deal with it at the administrative level, we deal with it in, [00:41:00] advocacy with our congressional representatives in Washington who are, who are fighting, for California.
So we deal with it all the time. the Olympic and Paralympic Games are a little bit of a different twist on that. a lot of the intergovernmental, uh, relations of that, is being handled by LA twenty-eight. So, from Casey Wasserman and his team, on down, and also with, the USOPC dealing with, their federal relations arms, building and maintaining those relationships with [00:41:30] the White House and, and the key federal departments that are involved.
A lot of it’s being handled there, but we also have pretty robust federal advocacy from both the City of Los Angeles and from LA Metro, which is the transit agency, in Los Angeles County. So they are pretty actively involved. And the federal government, just like you were asking earlier, the state government, what’s, what’s all that’s involved at the state level?
There’s all kinds of federal agencies that end up being involved with the Olympic Games, uh, but most [00:42:00] notably Transportation, Homeland Security, uh, the FBI, the intelligence agencies who are looking around the world for threats to the games, the, it’s the State Department who run the visas that, uh, allow athletes and, and team members to, to come.
And so I will say my impression is that the vast majority of those relationships with those departments, the, the professionals at the state and local level who deal with transportation and the federal officials who deal [00:42:30] with it, they are pretty pragmatic and positive. The Trump administration, uh, for all of its faults, is pretty actively engaged in planning for twenty-twenty-eight.
That doesn’t mean they like cutting checks to California, uh, governments, but I think that one of the things is Donald Trump will be a part of the twenty-twenty-eight games. He will be at the opening ceremony. It’s in the Olympic Charter. He’s going to open the games, and I think that that is something that has helped focus [00:43:00] the federal administration on, we want this to be a success.
And so I think by and large- the federal relationship is positive, but obviously the state and the local governments have a need for money. The money is perhaps a little bit harder than the other aspects of the federal relationship related to the games
Potential improvements in accessibility
Jill Jaracz: one other thing I wanted to touch on is with the Paralympics and what is being done at a state level or even lower that you’ve [00:43:30] seen to ensure accessibility? I know we had the ADA, Americans W- Americans with Disabilities Act, but we also know that there’s still a lot of room to, for improvement in terms of accessibility.
are there things the state is doing to look at that as an initiative to go along with the Paralympics?
Jason Sisney: Honest answer is no, there is no big initiative. I mentioned earlier we were funding improvements in Exposition Park, which is the area around, the Coliseum and [00:44:00] also the, the adjoining stadium that I believe will host flag football.
and, at any rate, we are funding improvements there, which will help with accessibility. but I think that the honest answer is that LA benefits from all of the existing federal and state and local requirements on accessibility. Uh, those affect, every transit vehicle has to deal with accessibility already, and I think that that’s really the [00:44:30] preparations happening.
I don’t think there is any big special preparation for good or ill, for improving, accessibility prior to the Paralympics. I think that if anything, the main focus that the city and the state have, the, the Play LA program, which is the, local program that the IOC has funded to provide sports opportunities for young people in Los Angeles, they have a, an important adaptive sports component.
I think that beyond that, it’s a focus of both the state and the city to [00:45:00] elevate the Paralympic Games and to help it be as much a success as the Olympic Games. But I don’t think there will be any big concerted, funding effort for accessibility, beyond the efforts just happen in the ordinary course of doing business
The focus on traffic during LA28
Alison Brown: What’s something that we haven’t asked about that we should be asking about?
Jason Sisney: So a lot of my work recently and, we talked about the paper I wrote on the, the 1960 Winter Games. Uh, I’m working on a, a paper right now looking at the [00:45:30] history of traffic management, uh, related to Olympic and Paralympic Games, particularly since Atlanta, which had a very bad traffic situation in 1996.
And so traffic is a really big focus. We, we mentioned a little bit the transit agency and the challenges they’re having with getting funding to operate, effectively a borrowed fleet of buses to help move spectators, athletes, and Olympic family around the Los [00:46:00] Angeles region. so that’s, uh, the focus.
But separate from that, you have, our traffic on our freeways. Uh, the reality is most people in Los Angeles will not be that heavily focused on the games beyond perhaps watching an hour or two a day. They will be going to and from their jobs. They will be moving goods around to and from our ports and to, uh, grocery stores and other retailers in the region.
And so a big focus [00:46:30] of state and local government is how to keep the traffic moving during those two weeks. In 1984, LA had an incredible success, and it was a pioneering moment for something called Traffic Demand Management, TDM. And basically what that was scaring people to stay the hell off the roads during the Olympic Games.
And so that’s essentially the strategy that, a lot of other entities all around the world have been pioneering ever since for big events like the Olympic Games, [00:47:00] and that’s one of the things that, that LA and California will be looking at in 2028. We really want to reduce traffic. We want to move traffic to different hours of the day.
We want, uh, you know, deliveries of goods, and so forth. and like most Summer Olympic cities, we will have an extensive network of games, route network lanes, dedicated lanes that are primarily targeted to, buses that move athletes, officials, [00:47:30] team members to and from their venues on time and safely.
So that is a big focus of, of state government right now. Uh, just this morning there was an article in one of the publications, dealing with the tensions that the state of California is having with our highway contractors and with, our unions that include employees who work on highway construction because the state is trying to limit construction on LA freeways during the games to basically keep construction from holding up traffic.
Well, these folks [00:48:00] who rely on road construction for their livelihood, they’re very sensitive, understandably, to that And so this is, uh, this is just one of the many tensions that happen in, organizing the games. On the one hand, we need to reduce traffic, we need to reduce, highway construction in order to keep traffic moving.
On the other hand, the people of LA and the people who work there, they still need to use those, freeways, every day even though a big sporting event is going on. And so balancing the needs of the games [00:48:30] with the needs of the people of Los Angeles, I think, is a really big picture. That’s what the government’s challenges are all about in hosting the games.
Figuring out the costs of the Games
Jill Jaracz: Are there any issues that media outlets are fixating too much on versus some things that could be flying under the radar?
Jason Sisney: That’s a really good one. I mean, in recent months, Media outlets have been focused a lot on the potential financial liability for the city of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles has a very tough budget situation, a [00:49:00] significant homeless problem, lots of other financial challenges on top of that and the media, as well as some city officials and, uh, have been focusing on the risks of financial losses.
Uh, and that, of course, is a risk. they complain that there’s not a lot of transparency sometimes from LA28. I think that one of the things they miss is that a lot of the costs that LA28 has, they’re still in the course of figuring out what those costs are. They still are in the course of putting, the [00:49:30] construction contracts for their venues out to bid and finishing the plans for the venues.
And so they have developed over many years detailed estimates of what those costs will be. But what the final cost will be really remains to be seen. So there’s not a lot of information to be had. And so I think that sometimes the media focuses on the lack of transparency when, the reality is we will find out in the next couple of years how much this, these games really cost, and hopefully they will, will stay close to [00:50:00] budget.
but I think that a lot of those stories, they don’t have a lot of facts behind them. The, the ticket sales are going pretty well. The sponsorships are going pretty well. The costs, well, there are risks there, but we don’t really have a lot of information. There’s not a lot of information to be had. So I think sometimes those stories are overplayed.
but I can’t deny there are definitely some financial risks for the city and state, uh, due to hosting the games. So that, there’s no doubt. and I think that hopefully the economic benefit of hosting the [00:50:30] games, which is significant but temporary, uh, it’s not as significant as some people imagine.
Hopefully, that e-economic benefail- benefit helps cover the cost of whatever added public services come from hosting the games. That’s really the best that a host city can hope for. I have host cities, potential host cities around the world who contact me to talk about what they’re planning, what they’re thinking about proposing to the IOC.
And one of the things I try to emphasize is you’re not going to have a big [00:51:00] financial windfall as a city, a state, a country. You’re not going to have that from hosting the games. Oh, no. It’s going to cost you money, and you just need to accept that. And the best you can do is to try to contain the risk of how much money it will cost you and try to contain the possibility that cost will rise.
hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games is not a big money-making operation. It’s a money-losing operation for most hosts. and if you’re going to do it, you need to try [00:51:30] to minimize that risk as much as possible so that you can focus on the good things of having the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which is, you know, bringing people together, putting your city in a really favorable light to the world, and enjoying the performances of these incredible athletes.
that’s the reason you do it. You don’t do it to make money.
Information sharing with other potential hosts
Jill Jaracz: When you get these calls from cities- Yeah … do you sometimes go, “Huh, you’re thinking about it, bidding for the games.” Is that, I mean, like, you got some inside baseball knowledge [00:52:00] there.
Jason Sisney: Yeah. Yeah. No, I, I think that most of the ones you can dig down and you can sort of read articles about. so for example, pretty widely known bids from India that are, for future games.
and other countries as well, and Australia already lined up to host, the games in 2032 in Brisbane where they are building some stadiums. So you see that governments have their own way of doing this that, that don’t necessarily match the way we do it, in California.
[00:52:30] and that’s fine. They have to look at their public priorities in their own way. but I do think that it certainly does behoove any government that’s thinking of signing a contract with the IOC to look a lot at history and to just think about, all right, if we’re gonna get involved with building a big new stadium, why are we doing that?
How much is it gonna cost? How do we keep the risk of the cost going up? Is it going to be a valuable public asset after [00:53:00] the games, or is it gonna be something that sits empty most of the time, and how do we feel about that? Those are the lessons of history that folks need to look at when they are thinking of signing on the dotted line with the IOC.
Jill Jaracz: Excellent. Well, Jason, thank you so much for coming on the show and, uh, uh, talking state government stuff. It’s not a lot, it’s not what we think of often, but it’s really important to how a Games functions.
Jason Sisney: Yep, and, uh, the [00:53:30] locals have their own stories, and in some respects they’re even more interesting. So maybe sometime you can find somebody-
at the local level who can, uh, who can talk to you about what it was like to negotiate with LA ’28 to host events in their city. It’s very interesting, so yeah.
Jill Jaracz: Excellent. Thank you.
Jason Sisney: Yeah. All right. Thanks a lot.
Jill Jaracz: Thank you so much, Jason. You can follow Jason on Instagram. He is @jasonsisneyca, [00:54:00] and he’s also a good follow on LinkedIn
LA 2028 News: Economic impact report
Alison Brown: Speaking of LA.
Jill Jaracz: Yes. It was quite timely that we got a press release about economic impact from the LA 2028 Games. it’s funny that he talked about it’s never what you expect, and then we get this, “Hey, here’s an economic analysis touting what could be the economic impact of the games.” This one came From the LA County Economic Development [00:54:30] Corporation, or LAEDC.
The LAEDC is a nonprofit that focuses on economics in the LA County region, which is really five counties. It’s big. It’s a big area. The report highlights give a conservative estimate that the games could generate $20.5 billion in economic output, and potentially that could be as high as 40.6 billion.
a nice range ’cause they didn’t want to be tied to one number, I think. Clearly. [00:55:00] Tried to be conservative there. , Also in terms of jobs, because that’s another thing, jobs created for the games, That could be anywhere from 126,030 jobs to 224,350 jobs.
Got very specific. but that includes full-time, part-time, seasonal, and permanent employment. And that job creation is in the run-up to and including the games. So what this is after the games, we don’t really know because [00:55:30] everybody at LA28 loses their job. Right. And once the temporary venues are gone, all those construction go- jobs are…
Well, they’re not gone. You just have to hope that there’s more projects for them.
Alison Brown: Right. Those projects are gone, so anything related to those projects, the jobs are gone.
Jill Jaracz: Yes. and that’s not really the number of people that would be hired because one person could hold multiple jobs,
Alison Brown: Right, because with construction, once you’re done with one venue, you move on to the next venue, so it’s not [00:56:00] necessarily going to be all happening simultaneously.
So you’ve got 50 people who are moving from site to site. Right. You know, 50, that’s not a, that’s not a real number. But that same construction crew is not necessarily going to be working on one thing and then not on the other thing as well.
Jill Jaracz: Correct. the jobs tend to be construction, transportation, admin support, hospitality, and accommodation.
They [00:56:30] believe that 79% of these only require a high school diploma or less. So, we’re not talking about- super high level jobs I mean, some of these are gonna be okay pay, I would imagine, but not all of them, especially when you’re talking about hospitality-
Alison Brown: Right … and
Jill Jaracz: accommodation.
Alison Brown: Those tend to be very, very poorly paid.
Jill Jaracz: Yes. high school diploma isn’t necessarily like the end-all be-all because a lot of these jobs also require technical education or licensing or other [00:57:00] specialized training. But anyway, they say these jobs could generate anywhere from 8.9 billion to 15.6 billion in labor income.
Alison Brown: that’s no joke of change there.
Jill Jaracz: The LAEDC believes that the games will bring two million visitors to the region who could spend anywhere from $2.6 billion to $7.2 billion.
Projected tax revenues across the region range from $5.1 billion to $5.9 billion. So could be a lot of revenue.
Alison Brown: [00:57:30] Could also be a lot of expense.
Jill Jaracz: Could.
Alison Brown: Let’s just put that out there. You know, here they’re just talking revenue. They’re not talking about all the additional expenses that are happening because of the games.
Jill Jaracz: Right, which we just talked about with Jason.
Alison Brown: Right.
Jill Jaracz: And we also talked about how the state government is reluctant to fund big infrastructure just for the games, but boy, this report decided to tie $8.35 billion worth of, construction, transportation, [00:58:00] airport mobility, and venue projects that were accelerated, they say, or undertaken in connection with the games.
You know, it’s, it’s interesting to tie that huge pool of money to games projects when we just heard that the state doesn’t really wanna be tied to things to have them just for the games. that seems a reach, but we’ll see. those, projects include the Metro 28 by 28 initiative, investment in LA World Ports, Long Beach Elevate 28 [00:58:30] transit centers, fiber networks, and conventions facility improvements.
So we’ll see. If you are interested in stuff like this, I would suggest, there’s a newsletter called Torched LA, which is, , run by Alyssa Walker, and she, she’s the way I got connected to Jason Sisney. She looks at all of this kind of stuff going on across the region for mega events and, different infrastructure initiatives and other things, and she’s an excellent [00:59:00] read.
That is at torched.la, and it’s,
Food trucks coming to LA28
Jill Jaracz: Also, LA 28 is now taking applications for its local authentic program, which is basically a program to bring food trucks and mobile vendors to competition venue zones and non-competition venues.
Alison Brown: Food trucks.
Do you know how happy that makes me that there’ll be an opportunity to get food? ‘Cause one of the things that we found, [00:59:30] now we’ve done this a few times, getting food is a real challenge at the venues ’cause it’s just venue food, and that’s- Yeah … you know, you get your hot dog, you get your $10 hot dog, It wasn’t too bad in Milan ’cause we had that sort of secret-
Jill Jaracz: Or or your microwave seafood paella. Yeah.
Alison Brown: You know, Milan was a little better ’cause we had that secret, media cafeteria.
Jill Jaracz: Yes. they do set aside stands for media, which does not make the… if you’re [01:00:00] in a, a stadium and it’s your own separate media counter at the concession stands, other people do not like that.
Alison Brown: No, they don’t. That’s for
Jill Jaracz: sure.
Alison Brown: But getting food that is not a $10 hot dog is a challenge. Yes. So I, they’re doing a whole program to bring us food trucks. That makes me so happy.
Jill Jaracz: It’s exciting, and I’m curious about how many they’re going to have because obviously the lines get long [01:00:30] at any of these. I, I mean, any time you go to a festival, there’s a long line at food trucks, and, scaling that to serve the thousands of people that are gonna be coming through a zone will be interesting.
But like you said, the options-
Alison Brown: not microwave seafood paella
Jill Jaracz: So if you have a food truck and you’re local to, the area, because of course this is part of their local [01:01:00] business initiative, applications are on rampla.org and are open through November 16th. selected vendors will also r- receive mentoring and other information to help them plan for operation during the game.
So there are plans in place to, hey, say, “Hey, this is how you scale up for a giant crowd.” But this could be fun, and I think, you know what’s gonna be fun is being able to, like, share everybody who goes, listeners, you too, share what kind of food you’re getting at [01:01:30] the food trucks. Yes.
Alison Brown: I never knew a food truck could be so exciting to
Jill Jaracz: me.
Another first appearance in women’s volleyball at LA28
Jill Jaracz: Other exciting news is the other week we mentioned that Thailand was gonna be, in the women’s Olympic volleyball program for the first time. We’re getting another new country in the volleyball thing. Yay. Egypt. Egypt won the CAVB Women’s African Nations Championship, and they earned their ticket to LA.
that is gonna be a fun, fun tournament.
Alison Brown: Yes, this is getting [01:02:00] more and more exciting.
TKFLASTAN News: Listener email
Alison Brown: Welcome to Shookfulestan.
Jill Jaracz: It is the time where we check in with our team Keep the Flame Alive. These are past guests and listeners of the show who make up the citizenship of our very own country, Shookfulestan. We had email from listener Manu.
Alison Brown: Which we love.
Jill Jaracz: if you’re in our Facebook group, you are familiar with Manu’s stories, which are just amazing looks at different points in Games history or different events.
he [01:02:30] wanted to point out, did some reading about the rowing venue, which is at Long Beach Marine Stadium, and this was the first time he realized that the rowing course is going to be shorter than normal.
Alison Brown: Yes, we talked about that when we were talking about the ve- one of the venue plans, that they had shortened this course.
Yes. So this is slightly familiar.
Jill Jaracz: Yes. So normally the rowing course is two kilometers long. Long Beach can only make it be 1.5 kilometers long, and that’s [01:03:00] because of the J.H. Davies Bridge, which was constructed in the 1950s, which, uh, Manu told us about. And, uh, request put in to get some rowers on the show and ask how this affects their training, because it, it’s a huge difference.
Alison Brown: I mean, that’s, I’m not gonna try and do the math and figure out the percent, but that’s a big chunk of change that all of a sudden you’re not rowing, and you’ve gotta change- Right … your plan.
Jill Jaracz: Yeah, it’s like a quarter of the race is gone.
Alison Brown: Right.
Jill Jaracz: And in the meantime, you’re [01:03:30] probably doing World Cups that are still
Alison Brown: two kilometers.
Which are
Jill Jaracz: still two kilometers. So, yes, thank you, Manu, for reminding us about this. We will take a look. And, and he said that because of that bridge that got erected in the 1950s, that’s probably the reason they didn’t have rowing in Long Beach in 1984, ’cause they could have reused that venue. Instead, they put it in Lake Casitas, which they are not using this time around.
if rowing can bring back its popularity, ’cause remember “Boys in
the Boat” days, rowing was a And rowing [01:04:00] was a huge, huge deal. Judo, this made my head hurt. Manu also pointed out something new in judo
There is a new point. So judo has waza-ari and ippon. Those are– were their two main methods of scoring. Waza-ari was like half an ippon, and if you scored ippon, the match was over. now there’s a lower score called yuko, and unlike waza-aris, yukos don’t amount to a higher score. [01:04:30] So even if you scored four yukos, your opponent will beat you with one waza-ari
Alison Brown: Oh, this sounds very confusing.
Jill Jaracz: It makes my head hurt, and it also makes me say, “Why?” Because if a yuko doesn’t add up to anything else, why have it in the first place? Unless you can’t have a zero-zero score anymore.
Alison Brown: Maybe they were running into that.
Jill Jaracz: So thank you, Manu. Two things to add to the list.
For making our heads
Alison Brown: hurt.
Jill Jaracz: Well, no, we have more stuff on the list. So [01:05:00] we love hearing from you. You can connect with us on our Facebook group. We have Substack newsletter. Both of those are Flame Alive Pod. and also email us anytime. You can email us at flamealivepod@gmail.com. You can also feel free to send us a voice note if you’d rather just tell us something, and we could play that on the show always great to hear from Manu, always great to hear from the listeners and talk with you all, and that’s gonna do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening.
Alison Brown: And until next time, keep [01:05:30] the flame alive.