Los Angeles has a significantly better bid than that of Paris for the 2024 Olympics.

In fact, the L.A. plan looks like the best all-around candidature, especially in its fiscal planning, from a city in a democratic nation during my 30 years of covering these bids.  Los Angeles bid leaders began with a lot of advantages in terms of existing or soon-to-be-built venues and have been smart enough to make the most of them.

The 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games saved the International Olympic Committee financially.  A 2024 Los Angeles Summer Games could have a similarly profound impact on the IOC’s ability to attract future bidders.

So there, I’ve said it.

And the reason why?

It comes from just one huge difference in the two strong bids, the difference that should mean the most to the International Olympic Committee at a time when almost no city in a democratic nation wants to be host of an Olympic Games, summer or winter, because of the financial peril involved.  (Latest in a long list of recent dropouts:  Stockholm, a wondrous city, as a potential candidate for the 2026 Winter Olympics.)

What truly separates Los Angeles from Paris is the U.S. candidate does not have to build an Olympic Village, a high-risk investment (ask Vancouver 2010 or London 2012).