You don't explain why. My understanding is that every time the Olympics have been in a U.S. city, they have made money. So, why is it the worst thing that could happen and why was LA an exception?

Well, personally, I am all for the Chicago 2016 Olympics. I don't think we'll get it, but I hope we do.

As others have said, I will rent out my condo for an exhorbitant amount and get the hell out of town. I have absolutely zero interest in being around Chicago if we get the Olympics. The word clusterf*&k will be redefined.

After a lifetime in Chicagoland (I know the term sounds weird, but that's what we call the greater metropolitan area), I think it's a bad idea from the standpoint of corruption, the high murder rate and bad transportation system.
The state of the ecomony right now doesn't help matters, either. Just my two cents.

It's not like that. I've been to the last 2 winter olympics (admittedly smaller but in smaller cities too) and there were no lines. People come and go at many different times. Organizers first, then media, then commercial sponsors, then athletes, then the actual fans, many of whom will be local.

I was sad when SF got passed over for the olympics (though we don't deserve it as people didn't really want it) but I am happy for Chicago. Being able to go the events without paying ripoff lodging prices is a huge plus, not to mention the opportunity to rent your place for $$ or other money making options. It is also really a fun atmosphere (excepting Centennial Park 1996).

My only objection to the olympics is the use of public funds (which applies to all sporting events). The olympics is big business, it can pay its own way, it should be criminal to use money taken from working taxpayers to subsidize events attended mostly by well off people.