Boston 2024

BostontoLancaster said:
"Corin said the New Boston Food Market should be included in any talks about the city’s Olympic bid.

'I think we are being left out a little bit, and I don’t know why,” Corin said. “Even if they don’t have anything to say, it would be nice to be involved in the process. It’s a little disconcerting.'"
Click to expand...

I think that's very reasonable. Asking your Facebook fans for feedback isn't outreach, and I suspect Boston 2024 knows that. Showing up at the opponents' meeting in JP was a good start, and if you follow them on Facebook you can see that they're genuinely promoting any and all athletic events around Boston, and handing out t-shirts to all comers. There's a kernel of good outreach here, but it needs to grow. A lot. I mean, the Big Dig got to the point where they were sponsoring exhibits at the Museum of Science and the Childrens' Museum for many years.

The lack of real stakeholder input so far has been a little uncomfortable. That said, it's not Boston 2024's job to foster open opposition to its own plan. When that opposition arises, they have the obligation to engage with it fully.
 
How about starting with, you know, releasing all documents submitted to the USOC?
 
Equilibria said:
Right with you :)...
Click to expand...

Sounds as if the No's have the Globe on their side

Wholesalers fear finishing last in an Olympics

Olympic stadium proposal adds to worries at Boston food complex

By Callum BorchersGlobe Staff December 02, 2014

....Even if Boston were to gain the US Olympic Committee’s backing, it would still need to beat out several cities on other continents in an international selection process that will produce a winner in 2017 — seven years before the Games. In all that time, Olympic planners could pick another site for the stadium.

Corin, who is also president of Robbins Beef Co., said even the uncertainty about the future of the property makes it difficult to plan for upkeep and new projects.

Corin said the New Boston Food Market should be included in any talks about the city’s Olympic bid.

“I think we are being left out a little bit, and I don’t know why,” Corin said. “Even if they don’t have anything to say, it would be nice to be involved in the process. It’s a little disconcerting.”
Click to expand...

The Wholesalers have been in the right place [too valuable real estate] and have had to have to move before:

Town Dock to Faneuil Hall
Faneuil Hall to Quincy Market
Quincy Market to New Market


-- they might as well get used to it Widett Circle New Market is becoming too too valuable to be covered with warehouses -- they will inevitably be moving again

I'm guessing Readville -- the New New Market District
 
Olympics group seeks input – after bid put in

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Under pressure after submitting a Boston bid to host the 2024 Summer Games without any public input, the group behind the Olympic push yesterday announced plans for a new citizens advisory group and a comment form on its website.

A spokesman with the Boston 2024 Partnership Inc., a privately funded nonprofit moving to bring the Olympics to Boston, announced the group’s website — 2024boston.org — would now accept questions and comments, as well as feature an online sign-up for those interested in joining the advisory committee.

The committee is expected to hold monthly public meetings beginning in January.

“Should Boston 2024 move on to the next phase of the bidding process, there will be a full community review before any final decisions are made,” Boston 2024 executive vice president Erin Murphy Rafferty said in a statement released yesterday. “Also, the public will have input in all of the required approval processes when venue sites are being considered.”

In a press release yesterday, the group’s public relation firm touted its Facebook page likes and followers on Twitter, as well as private meetings with business leaders and elected officials, as examples of its public outreach. Organizers with Boston 2024 have faced heavy criticism because they have yet to hold a single public meeting on the proposal, which was submitted to the U.S. Olympic Committee on Monday.

The group’s public relations team initially touted transparency and a public comment process in a draft statement mistakenly emailed to the Herald on Monday after the bid was filed but later blasted out a final statement to all area media outlets that lacked any mention of transparency and claimed the proposal already had widespread community support.

A publicist told the Herald it was a misunderstanding and the transparency remarks were meant for a separate statement sent to a single media outlet that asked about it. The publicist said the organization is com*mitted to a public process.
Click to expand...

Boston Herald

It also sounds like Boston 2024 held an invitation-only luncheon in the Seaport on Tuesday to discuss the bid with lawmakers.

The invitation boasts the campaign to bring the Olympics to Boston is in "full swing" and says there is work to make the city's candidacy "strong, attractive and inclusive." It says the "city's candidacy is no longer just an 'aspirational' or just a 'good idea.'"

...

State Senator James Eldridge, Democrat from Acton, tells us "I am concerned that there has not been enough transparency by the Boston 2024 Olympics Committee." He says he thinks there needs to be more information on how this would benefit the state's economy."
Click to expand...

My Fox Boston
 
I just don't understand this constant harping on the idea that the public has been shut out. They've met repeatedly with law makers. Law makers are voted on by the public. They are your representative. This is how representational democracy works. If you don't like it, then your issue is with representational democracy.
 
I think it's some sort of strangely manifested NIMBYism, joined by NIMBYs from every neighborhood, and sad to say, some YIMBYs who can't get past their own strain of think local. People who are activists about stopping (or supporting) urban activities are accustomed to the formalized development review process and can't get their heads around the idea that not everything works that way.
 
underground said:
I just don't understand this constant harping on the idea that the public has been shut out. They've met repeatedly with law makers. Law makers are voted on by the public. They are your representative. This is how representational democracy works. If you don't like it, then your issue is with representational democracy.
Click to expand...

All true. Not to mention that the Olympic people aren't asking for public money, so why exactly do they need public permission other than for goodwill? There is plenty of time to garner goodwill later when the various components are actually being designed and it actually matters what the neighbors have to say.

All of the Olympic opponents constantly try to make this into a public finance issue. Other countries may freely throw public money into the Olympics, but we have a strong record in the US of doing the exact opposite.
 
fattony said:
All true. Not to mention that the Olympic people aren't asking for public money, so why exactly do they need public permission other than for goodwill?
Click to expand...

It's not just about goodwill. Boston 2024 is a strange entity - it's a private non-profit that is not asking for any direct public funding but claims to represent the people of the region. It is also proposing a massive project that will have a significant impact on a lot of people. I guess I could see the comparison to Harvard or MIT - private institutions with massive impacts on communities that produce master plans in secret, but they don't claim to have a public interest.

Boston 2024 has plenty of precedent in prior efforts to host international events in cities - politicians and titans of industry working in the shadows to bring in the Olympics, World's Fair, whatever. Boston hasn't seen anything like this in at least a century, though, so it's understandable that it's jarring to people.
 
People who are activists about stopping (or supporting) urban activities are accustomed to the formalized development review process and can't get their heads around the idea that not everything works that way.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with what you're saying, but on this particular point, what's strange to me is the outcry over not being involved during what basically amounts to the preliminary fact finding and/or feasibility stage. It would be like someone complaining that Don Chiofaro didn't have a public discussion while he was in the shower thinking it would be a good idea to buy the Harbor Garage. It's just nonsensical. Why should the public expect input at the preliminary stage? If Boston 2024 had come to people then, the public would ask what the plan was, Boston 2024 would say there was no plan, and the public would laugh them out of the room! Now we have a plan (granted, I'd like to see them release exactly what they sent to the IOC), and low and behold, now we've got public meetings.
 
It goes beyond even that. Do people expect involvement during the initial architectural and engineering meetings for the Arch? Do they want to supervise drilling for core samples? That's where Boston 2024 is right now. Anything that is built will go through the usual process, anything requiring public funding will need political support, etc. The virulent anger is somewhat puzzling, but I suspect it will dissipate once the more public phase of planning gets under full swing.
 
The virulent anger is somewhat puzzling
Click to expand...
Agree. Even Adam Gaffin, who usually devotes a good 50% of Uhub to making fun of NIMBYs, and who I personally think is one of Boston's leading voices of reason, is HUGELY anti-Olympics. And not in a sensible "economic studies show..." type of way, but a "THEY'LL PUT CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES AND ARREST US IN THE STREETS" tin foil hat type of way. I don't get it.
 
Maybe you guys are talking about other news reports, but that article above doesn't have any unreasonable or "virulent" responses to the bid.
 
underground said:
Agree. Even Adam Gaffin, who usually devotes a good 50% of Uhub to making fun of NIMBYs, and who I personally think is one of Boston's leading voices of reason, is HUGELY anti-Olympics. And not in a sensible "economic studies show..." type of way, but a "THEY'LL PUT CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES AND ARREST US IN THE STREETS" tin foil hat type of way. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

The Olympics is a mega event, and causes people to think irrationally about its consequences. The IOC is a nebulous, and allegedly nefarious organization that lots of people don't trust. Combine that general feeling of unease with the hyper-local politics of Massachusetts and it's really not that difficult to understand people's fears, irrational though they may be.
 
Last edited:
There are legitimate concerns with hosting the Olympics. But throughout this whole process so far, nothing has aggravated me more than NIMBYs repeatedly using "just think about the traffic!" as a legitimate reason to stop the bid in its tracks. IS THAT SERIOUSLY ALL YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT!? Yes, traffic will likely pick up during the Olympics and Olympics-related construction. Deal with it.

Good lord, some people's inability to look beyond their own nose is truly remarkable.
 
Has anyone ever been to Montreal here (I'm sure someone has)?
 
Matthew said:
Has anyone ever been to Montreal here (I'm sure someone has)?
Click to expand...
Ok, so at least me and Fattony. Why do you ask? Montreal (Quebec) has this strange construction-corruption thing going on in recent years, which I bet was also present in the 1970s too (recall that their O-stadium was not done in time for the games..s'posed to have a tower and a cable-stayed shade cover and didn't).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top