I disagree HAVE, the G20 summit was just held in Pittsburgh. Downtown was shut down and industry around the city was shut down for a few days. Chicago and our country can't afford to shell out billions in order to have giant, month-long party. To work and live anywhere near Chicago would have been a nightmare. Let Rio have it. Let the Brazilian politicians revel in the attention.
Actually, with all of the famous kings and prime ministers and other dignitaries there, Oprah is the one person that everyone wanted to get their picture with. I'm not sure anyone said she is internationally powerful, but she is internationally famous.
I'm in the Chicago suburbs, and I am very, very happy with today's vote. Chicago is already impossibly expensive and tax-heavy - sales tax over 10%! - and Chicago residents would have been on the hook for any cost overruns. For about a thousand different reasons - let Rio deal with the 2016 games.
What did the Olympics do for Denver, Atlanta, Upstate NY, Calgary, does it actually help the ecomony after the games are over??? if so wouldn't Detroit have been a better place given its state of unemployment etc.
I honestly don't believe it would have helped Chicago's economy. Like Katherine said, Chicago residents would have been on the hook for any cost overruns and there would certainly have been cost overruns. Industrys would have to be shut down during the Olympics. Hotels and restaraunts would have done well, that's it. Local and state politicians would have looked good, lying about how well it did for Chicago.