Ok even though I delivered a verbose world picks post for Stuttgart, something tells me this year's edition will paling, just like this year's big tours (with the possible exception of the Giro). The entertainment buff's look turns to the next years already: Varese, Mendrisio, Melbourne, Kopenhagen. Do we have any way of knowing which course will be dull, and which one kicking? (All being subjective of course- on my scale, the respective poles of excitement are, say, Duitama and Zolder, from plus to minus).
From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
Quoted message said:
Alexander Lackner said:
From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems like a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course!
Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the Grand Prix.
I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California street hill.
There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the side of the road and watched the race pass.
But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve the peace while stuff happens.
Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about events which involve the public directly.
In article <46FAD41A.4000905@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>, Dan Connelly
d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m said:
Quoted message said:
On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
Quoted message said:
Alexander Lackner wrote: > From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems > like > a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course! Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the Grand Prix.
I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California street hill.
There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the side of the road and watched the race pass.
But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve the peace while stuff happens.
Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about events which involve the public directly.
Dan
Dan - Remember that politics played a major rol in the SF Board of supervisors being against the race ( or at least some of them). Since Tom Weisel was involved in the race any reduction in police OT costs or any other city services was seen as a form or corporate welfare to the rich. This kind of thing never goes over well with the liberal SF crowd.
On Sep 26, 2:50 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
Quoted message said:
There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the side of the road and watched the race pass.
But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve the peace while stuff happens.
Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about events which involve the public directly.
It takes a lot of cops to keep Eddy Merckx from sneaking onto the Worlds course. After Stuttgart, this has to be taken into account.
In article <46FAD41A.4000905@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>, Dan Connelly
d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m said:
Quoted message said:
On Sep 26, 2:28 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote: > Alexander Lackner wrote: >> From what I've seen (I never thought I'd say this), San Francisco seems >> like >> a nice place to hold a Worlds RR. Including that street, of course! > Agreed, except the Board of Supervisors was terribly unsupportive of the > Grand Prix.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I thought that it was because they failed to pay money due to the city, like $60,000. Too bad, they could hold the ITT up the California street hill.
Quoted message said:
There was a dispute over paying for OT for cops who basically stood by the side of the road and watched the race pass.
Quoted message said:
But why should the organizers even pay for the cops? Do I pay for the added cost of policing every time I walk down the street? The race was in the best interest of the city. Stuff happens in cities. The city pays to preserve the peace while stuff happens.
Quoted message said:
Cities should think less about subsidizing big stadiums, and think more about events which involve the public directly.
Quoted message said:
Dan
Dan - Remember that politics played a major rol in the SF Board of supervisors being against the race ( or at least some of them). Since Tom Weisel was involved in the race any reduction in police OT costs or any other city services was seen as a form or corporate welfare to the rich. This kind of thing never goes over well with the liberal SF crowd.
So maybe the way to go is like England and rename it the Milk Race.
