Boston 2024

[SlothofDespond]

There is an air of 'we can do this' in Melbourne, it's the opposite here.

I believe few doubt Boston could do this. It's the epicenter of one of the richest and most politically connected centers of the first world. Of course Boston can do it. Many doubt whether it can be done without becoming a boondoggle and a headache for residents. And frankly, there is absolutely zero reason to trust the IOC of the USOC. The IOC in particular is a poster child for large scale corruption. There is no good reason to get in bed with that.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, something that you will be telling your grand kids about. The only negative arguments are that it might cause bad traffic for a while or taxes might go up for a while. If the taxes do go up, it will be to pay for crap that needs to be fixed anyway. I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here but it feels good to rant!!

A once in a lifetime opportunity for what? A bunch of sports few people care about. Track and field? Gymnastics? Swimming? Please.

 

[The EGE]

It's interesting that the majority view here seems to be pro-Olympics, as that's the opposite of what I'm seeing around me. I'm not seeing "no, we can't do that in Boston", what I'm seeing is "Why would we want to do that here" and "Why should I believe this is going to benefit me?" Promises of magical federal transit dollars only go so far.

 

[Ruairi]

I believe few doubt Boston could do this. It's the epicenter of one of the richest and most politically connected centers of the first world. Of course Boston can do it. Many doubt whether it can be done without becoming a boondoggle and a headache for residents. And frankly, there is absolutely zero reason to trust the IOC of the USOC. The IOC in particular is a poster child for large scale corruption. There is no good reason to get in bed with that.

That's the difference, there's an initial doubt that wouldn't be as prevalent in Melbourne. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's what I've seen.

A once in a lifetime opportunity for what? A bunch of sports few people care about. Track and field? Gymnastics? Swimming? Please.

250,000 people turn out to watch rowing here every year. People care, even if you don't.

 

[West]

It's interesting that the majority view here seems to be pro-Olympics, as that's the opposite of what I'm seeing around me. I'm not seeing "no, we can't do that in Boston", what I'm seeing is "Why would we want to do that here" and "Why should I believe this is going to benefit me?" Promises of magical federal transit dollars only go so far.

Although I know some people who were dead-set anti from day one, I've also heard tons of people start off with "I'd be for it if ____" and then they talk themselves out of it with some combination of (not in order):

- we've dug a huge hole for ourselves on so many governance fronts, we've just got too many priorities in front of anything like an Olympics

- disbelief that if we can't turn around the T for our own sake (lots of evidence for that), we'll somehow fix it for some athletes who'll be spending a few weeks here.

- disbelief in those "magical federal transit dollars" you mention

- Big Dig hangover, terrible MA track record with budgeting a mega-project, however much anyone likes the end result

- DEEP distrust of the IOC and USOC, spilling over to DEEP distrust on the promises that the taxpayers won't take a hit

- DEEP despair on the political dysfunction on Beacon Hill

- the rollout was, as Ruairi put it, done mostly by a bunch of old well-connected guys in suits. To be fair, they had a few others there, too, some young athletes, but the roster is just way too stacked with the usual suspects.

- the USOC's mandate to keep details secret before January 2015 (this was true for the other three cities, too, not just Boston) was seriously bone-headed. I admit to using 20-20 hindsight. The main competition in any given democratic city is not with other cities, it's with the bidder's own NIMBYs. Just be open from day one, let the other cities look over each others' shoulders, so what if they steal ideas. Springing things on people always elicits suspicion.


To all that - some of which I agree with, some not - I'll add my own thought that has grown over time: even if they had ignored the USOC's guidance and been very public through 2014, it would still have been a radically over-compressed time frame prior to the IOC vote in 2017. If Boston really wants to take a shot at an Olympics, we should be thinking about 2028 at the earliest. 2032 or 2036 might make more sense. And we should be expecting to have at least one failed bid along the way - very few cities get in on the first try.

And if we were trying for a bid on THAT time frame, we'd be able to be more sincere about fitting the bid into the larger planning conversation, rather than doing this behind-the-back dribble of "this bid will force us to have the conversation we've been avoiding, AND act on it, otherwise we'll stay dysfunctional forever!"

 

[tangent]

The USOC and Boston 2024 needs to really ramp up their "what the Olympics can do for you" message. Housing, city improvements, transit improvements, etc. The No crowd has a louder voice than the Yes crowd right now. The Boston 2024 people need to be at T stops handing out flyers during the rush and talking to people. They need to be out there every single day getting people's votes.

Everything you just said would make me vote No Olympics on the referendum. They need to focus on the merits of the games themselves not try to bribe people with a bunch of boondoggle side projects that will be paid for with higher taxes. The Olympics aren't about spreading around money it is about the world getting together to celebrate healthy peaceful competition in sports.

 

[tangent]

I am in favor of the Olympics... But right now it appears I am about $2B or $3Billion in public spending away from what Boston 2024 is proposing. But that isn't clear because it is a high level number with just an outline of a plan. I support public spending for dorms at UMass Boston/Bay side/Olympic villiage, so that could be $300m o $700 million in state money right there. Another $50 to $150 million in T station improvements and completion of West Station. Another $50 million in road repair and pedestrian improvements near the venues. Altogether I could see about a Billion in state money being an appropriate number above the already ordered orange and red line trains and other already scheduled projects. Things like a "media center" or anything that won't be of clear public use and compelling long term benefit shouldn't be on the public dime. Also, the public shouldn't be on the hook for making Widett Circle suitable for the stadium. It is a poor location.

 

[West]

Governor Baker just lit a fire under Boston 2024's ass, while covering his own:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...ore-details/7U9mbdNufAhWaSStoHahHP/story.html

“Part of the reason there’s so much of a focus on the personalities is because we don’t have a product to discuss,” Baker said. “To me, that’s the big missing piece in all of this. ... I think this is going to succeed or fail on the quality of the product and the quality of the work that’s done to determine how this is going to work, where the venues are going to be held, who the partners are, and what the price tag is going to be.”

He did not say there's an insufficient amount of product. He said "we don't have a product", and then reiterated by calling it the missing piece. He defined it not as a half-baked plan, but as a non-plan. He's telling them to quit selling a product when they don't yet have a product.

Baker just took several giant strides back from the bid, the same way one steps back from a building if one suspects an imminent structural collapse. And he had not exactly been cozied up to the bid before. If it all falls apart, he's off to one side, and if asked why he stood by, he can say "I was governing away like a busy governor should instead of being distracted". If Boston 2024 - and Mayor Walsh - manage to pull together something, and get the tide turned on the PR front, Baker can always later say "now THERE's a plan, THAT's what I wanted to see!" and jump on the bandwagon. His critics will call him a cowardly opportunist, his fans will call him a sensible manager who kicked the various butts into gear, both descriptions will have some degree of truth. Walsh, by contrast, has lashed himself to the mast.

 

[JohnAKeith]

I find myself having a high opinion of Charlie Baker, which isn't necessarily surprising since he's been described as "the smartest man in politics" but up until now I really didn't have an impression of him at all. He seems to believe certain things and make decisions based on them, not necessarily based on the political benefits of each. I didn't feel that way about Patrick nor do I feel that way about just about every other elected official.

Of course, I may be wrong or maybe he's not as "great" as I think. (And, politics has a sad way of affecting people, doesn't it?)

I think he just doesn't love the idea of an Olympics and it's coming through in his comments.

Is Marty Walsh a proponent for the Olympics because he likes the idea, because it was thrust on him before he could get a handle on his new job, or because he's a union crony?

 

[George_Apley]

I tend to agree about Baker. I like him, and even though I don't love some of his instincts (reform/reorganization can solve our problems), he's earnest and pragmatic.

I think Walsh likes the Olympics because he thinks it can do great things for the city and help accomplish many of the goals he has for the long term, while getting other people to pay for a lot of it.

 

[George_Apley]

From here:

Rio would give their left nut for what is going on right now down in Brazil? 2016 is already becoming a human rights issue with families being forced from their homes for this sham.

I'm not happy with prospect of the Olympics coming here. Fools gold.

What? New England is not remotely in the same boat as Rio where human rights and poverty are concerned. Seems a foolish comparison to me...

 

[Equilibria]

He did not say there's an insufficient amount of product. He said "we don't have a product", and then reiterated by calling it the missing piece. He defined it not as a half-baked plan, but as a non-plan. He's telling them to quit selling a product when they don't yet have a product.

I can see where Baker looked at the plan and said "this has its head so far in the clouds that it doesn't really count as a plan." If he thinks that, he should say that. He shouldn't say "they haven't given me anything to read," because they published a document hundreds of pages long. When he says it this way, he sounds like he's either been too lazy to read the bid documents (which is incredibly irresponsible regardless of whether he supports the bid) or he's speaking petulantly, and neither one is a good look.

I want to like Charlie Baker, but I haven't been able to so far. He threw the MBTA under the bus, freezing them out so that he could blame them for being distant and evasive. He's now refusing to engage with the Olympic bid which, even if you think it's a sinking ship, is still the most mobilizing issue in the city. The two biggest issues that he's had to face since taking office, he's backed away from to wait and see who wins. That's not pragmatism, it's cynicism. It's definitely not leadership.

 

[393b40]

John Fish needs to hire a new PR firm... going out an calling the opposition unpatriotic has got to be on the top five list of stupid mistakes you should never make.

 

[tangent]

John Fish needs to hire a new PR firm... going out an calling the opposition unpatriotic has got to be on the top five list of stupid mistakes you should never make.

The local committee needs to get Mitt Romney to lead this bid. Mitt really believes in the mission of the Olympic games and has a good track record from Salt Lake City.

 

[George_Apley]

The local committee needs to get Mitt Romney to lead this bid. Mitt really believes in the mission of the Olympic games and has a good track record from Salt Lake City.

Yeah.. the best way to get Bostonians to support the Olympics is to make Mitt Romney the face of it...

 

[datadyne007]

Yeah.. the best way to get Bostonians to support the Olympics is to make Mitt Romney the face of it...

Your response is better than mine which is simply: Ahahahahaha.

 

[tangent]

"they haven't given me anything to read," because they published a document hundreds of pages long. When he says it this way, he sounds like he's either been too lazy to read the bid documents (which is incredibly irresponsible regardless of whether he supports the bid) or he's speaking petulantly, and neither one is a good look.

Hundreds of pages of high level and somewhat speculative stuff. I think Baker's comments are spot on. They need to take the initial feedback, get on with nailing down a few alternative locations for venues and put together a concrete plan.

All the costs are driven by the venue locations and what is required to make them ready. Those venue locations are mostly speculative at this point until you get agreement from the land owners.

So far, the Volleyball stadium and Velodrome really need to find new locations based on the initial very negative feedback. And maybe the Olympic stadium itself needs to find a new location possibly somewhere around the Convention Center. Maybe behind the convention center where the Convention Center Authority doesn't want it and are hurriedly trying to get approval to build their already planned-for expansion before they get pressured into making changes to accommodate the Olympics (because they want to expand the convention center itself and not have a temporary stadium that oh by the way Kraft wants the location afterwards for a soccer stadium).

About the only solid costs Boston 2024 could really flesh out would be related to the Olympic village at the new Bayside residential campus for UMass Boston and some of the other locations at Harvard and MIT or other preliminary locations. But that is going to require a lot of work with Umass Boston to hammer out what would work for both an Olympic village and a residential campus afterwards. Usually those kinds of more detailed plans take a pretty long time to come together, especially when working with a University.

 

[Equilibria]

Hundreds of pages of high level and somewhat speculative stuff. I think Baker's comments are spot on. They need to take the initial feedback, get on with nailing down a few alternative locations for venues and put together a concrete plan.

I think Baker's opinion may be spot on. His comments, however, were not. Simply dismissing something indicates that you're not willing to engage with it constructively, and the Governor has built quite a track record in the past 3 months of not being willing to engage constructively with anyone or anything. He sits on the sidelines expressing his doubt and ambivalence, presumably (because I don't know him professionally and he's only had 3 months so far) until the point is proven one way or another and he can claim he was on that side all along. You summed it up perfectly in your initial post and called it brilliant politics, and it is. It's just terrible leadership.

FWIW, Hamburg has organized opposition now, too: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...NYSX3ZbUIPEmwjXAn42CKI/story.html?p1=story_hp

I like their name much better than the Boston group. I respect No Boston Olympics - they have legitimate arguments and make reasoned cases for them, but I'm missing the "something better" part.

Chris Dempsey said in his fawning BDC profile today that he believes that the Olympics have diverted public opinion from problems that really matter, like housing and transit. Leaving aside that the bid has actually galvanized public support for housing and transit far more than would have been possible otherwise, what's YOUR plan, Chris? You're a former Assistant Secretary of Transportation, so how would you recommend fixing infrastructure? How would you improve housing? Most importantly, how does not bidding for the Olympics make those things easier or more likely?

 

[tangent]

The point about the plan is that until we get the next iteration of the plan with the issues and more specifics addressed, then people are going to just fill in the blanks with their hopes or fears. And as far as taxpayer funding there is a lot to be fearful about. Even the hope for all these fringe benefits is simply feeding the legitimate fear that this becomes a huge boondoggle. The average Olympic budget has been exceeded by something like 200 or 300% on billions of dollars. Taxpayers being required to write a blank check to backstop that has not been addressed by promised insurance. It is unclear at best whether an insurance company would insure the Olympics for billions of dollars in potential cost overruns.

 

[datadyne007]

FWIW, Boston 2024 released a set of principles recently, saying they will not bid unless all of the criteria they list are satisfied.

BOSTON 2024 BELIEVES THAT HOSTING THE OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES PRESENTS A TRANSFORMATIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY OF BOSTON AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. WE BELIEVE THE GAMES WILL ENHANCE OUR FUTURE AND BE A CATALYST TO CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS, SPUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE AND INSPIRE THE NEXT GENERATION. THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AND POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EFFORT THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT MANNER FOR THE GAMES TO WORK FOR MASSACHUSETTS. WE BELIEVE THAT AN EXHAUSTIVE AND TRANSPARENT COMMUNITY PROCESS WILL LEAD TO A BID THAT REFLECTS THE BEST OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT, THAT MEETS AND EXCEEDS THE CRITERIA BELOW, AND THAT MAKES A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR OUR COMMONWEALTH EVEN BRIGHTER. BOSTON 2024 IS COMMITTED TO SUBMITTING A FINAL BID TO THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE ONLY IF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET:

• Hosting the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games is consistent with the future of Boston and Massachusetts and leaves both better for hosting the Games.
  
• Tens of thousands of good-paying jobs are created for Massachusetts residents leading up to and during the 2024 Games.
  
• Thousands of affordable housing units are created as a result of the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
  
• The 2024 Games serve as a catalyst for improvements in public transportation and infrastructure that benefit residents both pre- and post-Games.
  
• The 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games create opportunities for transit-oriented, mixed-use development in the City of Boston.
  
• There is a clear and measurable plan for the inclusion of women and minority-owned businesses in all aspects of the 2024 Games.
  
• Education and youth sports opportunities are created for the young people of Massachusetts.
  
• A sophisticated plan, including multiple layers of insurance, is put in place to protect the city and state from financial risk.
  
• The federal government designates the 2024 Games in Boston as a Special National Security Event and pays for the security costs.
  
• A majority of people in Massachusetts support bidding for the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

https://www.2024boston.org/principles

Emphasis mine.

 

[tangent]

FWIW, Boston 2024 released a set of principles recently, saying they will not bid unless all of the criteria they list are satisfied.

Yes, what we need are some hard numbers on things like what the state will be paying for new dorms from the athletes village and whether the Olympics with be paying for Olympic specific requirements that will increase the overall cost over and above what we would otherwise be paying for dorms to meet the needs of UMass students.

And then updated plans reflecting actual agreements (at least in principle) with landowners.

It is the basis for a good plan, but I'd expect several iterations in a very short time before we get to something that is deserving of the broad support needed.