Boston 2024

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/05/27/boston-2024-bid-book/

Boston Magazine got a FOIA-obtained copy of the "real" B24 bid book with all the sections redacted from the publicly-released version. Including itemization of required public financing and creation of a new public authority to manage it. Which is quite a bit more than "no public financing."


Herald's already picked up on it, so consider that hornet's nest stirred.

 

[Equilibria]

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/05/27/boston-2024-bid-book/

Boston Magazine got a FOIA-obtained copy of the "real" B24 bid book with all the sections redacted from the publicly-released version. Including itemization of required public financing and creation of a new public authority to manage it. Which is quite a bit more than "no public financing."


Herald's already picked up on it, so consider that hornet's nest stirred.

The redacted version of the documents released in January mentioned those things. This version just has numbers associated with them. Boston Magazine doesn't parse what a "public authority" actually means in this case. The public authority would have bonding power backed by the City to purchase the land with $85 million upfront and construct "infrastructure," repaying those bonds with a TIF plan on the resulting mixed-use development and the sale of the land to developers post-Games. It's not a taxpayer-funded enterprise, but it does raise the question of what happens if the redevelopment of "Midtown" doesn't produce the anticipated revenue.

The worrying part of that is not the $85 million in land costs, but the other $250 million to be spent on "infrastructure," which in this case presumably includes the deck on Cabot Yard. Effectively, Boston 2024 is expecting the public authority to cover the decking costs. The good news about that is that the City then has the ability to just say no to that wasteful enterprise and save the "bid" more than $100 million. The bad news is that Boston 2024 has stuck the public with covering the worst part of its plan.

I get that the assumption is that the $250 million would be effectively reimbursed by developers that would benefit from the deck after the Games, but that's not a safe assumption.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It's not the details, it's the optics. It's always the optics. The numbers were withheld in the officially-released version, especially the fine print about the decking costs. It took a FOIA to get it. And another feeding frenzy has begun that they have no control over.

It's like the whole Falchuk business last month, except a bit more above-board. Did they not anticipate that exactly this was going to happen? Did they not anticipate that if somebody else got the first word showing those redacted numbers that they'd have no control over where the feeding frenzy took things, and that their explanations of why it's S.O.P. to not release those numbers (non-final, etc. etc.) are now not going to make a whit of difference because they left that flank wide open and exposed and now it's going where it's going out in the wild? Did they not anticipate that the open question of exactly how much the public would be on the hook for would be the very first thing bullseyed when (not if...when) this information became public because it's such a contentious fault line. Did they not anticipate a need to make the first move framing it as "no, no...this is not actually structured to hit the taxpayers"? And did they not anticipate that the very next question would be "What happens if the assumption of revenues turns out wrong?"


They apparently anticipated none of this bleeding obvious outcome. THAT'S the self-inflicted wound. Not the details. It wasn't about the details with Falchuk's slimy leak either. They have a pre-existing trust issue, nobody believes that there's any true transparency in what they're being told, this is more fuel for the fire...and they did not make any attempt to control the messaging on something they had to have known was going to become public because they knew a FOIA filing was churning.

It's always the optics. And this is yet another cock-up on the optics.

 

[West]

The Boston Business Journal obtained these docs jointly with Boston Magazine, and I think BBJ's article has a bit more meat on the bones:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2015/05/27/boston-2024-report-highlights-need-for-public.html

Also, in an AP story printed in the Portland Press Herald about Boston 2024's meeting in Lausanne, the writer quotes Pagliuca as saying the revised bid plan is being worked on feverishly and will "hopefully" be ready mid-July:

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/05/...res-ioc-the-city-will-embrace-the-2024-games/

Every other article is still saying Boston 2024 is promising the revision for June sometime. I don't know if this is a mis-quote, or if Pagliuca is trying to find some wiggle room on timing.

He also says the city's residents will embrace the revised plan once they understand it, but then what else can he say?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The Boston Business Journal obtained these docs jointly with Boston Magazine, and I think BBJ's article has a bit more meat on the bones:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2015/05/27/boston-2024-report-highlights-need-for-public.html

Also, in an AP story printed in the Portland Press Herald about Boston 2024's meeting in Lausanne, the writer quotes Pagliuca as saying the revised bid plan is being worked on feverishly and will "hopefully" be ready mid-July:

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/05/...res-ioc-the-city-will-embrace-the-2024-games/

Every other article is still saying Boston 2024 is promising the revision for June sometime. I don't know if this is a mis-quote, or if Pagliuca is trying to find some wiggle room on timing.

He also says the city's residents will embrace the revised plan once they understand it, but then what else can he say?

Well, we've already got one questionable assumption about revenues in there...and that's the outright reliance on the BCEC expansion for the Games going head-on with Baker's assertion that the financials for the BCEC expansion are soft.

Granted, Baker's statement came after this bid book was submitted...but again: they knew the FOIA filing was in-process and would be approved. Hello...preemptive framing? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone feel like exerting any proactive control over the trajectory of this debate?


This is the shit that they just can't 'reboot' in June-July like it's flipping on a light switch. Messaging is something you hone with constant reps. It's May 28. They're off to another no-good, very bad PR day on May 28 where they got caught completely unprepared and stuck in neutral for something they knew was coming. Now they have to play more defense because they coughed up the puck and aren't in control of the messaging. These errors don't just stop on a dime. It's an inertia thing. Right now the inertia is stuck in the wrong direction on the messaging. Either they start getting their reps playing offense...like, yesterday...or the best they can hope for before Fall is treading water. Because it takes that long to get your reps in and sustain the PR pressure on offense.

You can't be having no-good, very-bad PR days on May 28 caught completely flat-footed and have realistic hopes of a July renaissance. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Equilibria]

Well, we've already got one questionable assumption about revenues in there...and that's the outright reliance on the BCEC expansion for the Games going head-on with Baker's assertion that the financials for the BCEC expansion are soft.

Granted, Baker's statement came after this bid book was submitted...but again: they knew the FOIA filing was in-process and would be approved. Hello...preemptive framing? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone feel like exerting any proactive control over the trajectory of this debate?

It wasn't just that Baker's statement came after the book was submitted. The BCEC expansion wasn't soft until he made it soft. It had been approved, was moving along with design, and was universally expected to move forward. Baker stalled the project as collateral when played another round of whack-a-board.

This is the shit that they just can't 'reboot' in June-July like it's flipping on a light switch. Messaging is something you hone with constant reps. It's May 28. They're off to another no-good, very bad PR day on May 28 where they got caught completely unprepared and stuck in neutral for something they knew was coming. Now they have to play more defense because they coughed up the puck and aren't in control of the messaging. These errors don't just stop on a dime. It's an inertia thing. Right now the inertia is stuck in the wrong direction on the messaging. Either they start getting their reps playing offense...like, yesterday...or the best they can hope for before Fall is treading water. Because it takes that long to get your reps in and sustain the PR pressure on offense.

You can't be having no-good, very-bad PR days on May 28 caught completely flat-footed and have realistic hopes of a July renaissance. It just doesn't work that way.

I know you're committed to this argument, and FWIW I don't entirely disagree, but I think the only people who really see inertia here are those of us who are following every little detail in every publication, plus whatever we can dig up online. The average person in Boston knows basically nothing about this bid and isn't interested in the numbers - we found that out back in February when a series of blizzards and broken train cars cratered poll numbers. The public is disinterested and shortsighted.

Also, I don't think it's fair to blame Boston 2024 for the Herald writing inflamatory stuff. You could have the best PR people in the world doing the best job possible and it wouldn't do anything to stop rabble-rousers like Eric Wilbur from bashing you. It's not possible to engage those people, so all your responses end up sounding arrogant and overly-technical.

This was a FOIA request for a document that the USOC probably wanted sealed in the first place. It contained very little explosive or damaging information. If the media insists on portraying it that way, there's really very little that an entity of less than a hundred people "feverishly" working on the next draft can do about it. Just wait it out and know that you've got more than a year after September to make this case politically.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It wasn't just that Baker's statement came after the book was submitted. The BCEC expansion wasn't soft until he made it soft. It had been approved, was moving along with design, and was universally expected to move forward. Baker stalled the project as collateral when played another round of whack-a-board.



I know you're committed to this argument, and FWIW I don't entirely disagree, but I think the only people who really see inertia here are those of us who are following every little detail in every publication, plus whatever we can dig up online. The average person in Boston knows basically nothing about this bid and isn't interested in the numbers - we found that out back in February when a series of blizzards and broken train cars cratered poll numbers. The public is disinterested and shortsighted.

Also, I don't think it's fair to blame Boston 2024 for the Herald writing inflamatory stuff. You could have the best PR people in the world doing the best job possible and it wouldn't do anything to stop rabble-rousers like Eric Wilbur from bashing you. It's not possible to engage those people, so all your responses end up sounding arrogant and overly-technical.

This was a FOIA request for a document that the USOC probably wanted sealed in the first place. It contained very little explosive or damaging information. If the media insists on portraying it that way, there's really very little that an entity of less than a hundred people "feverishly" working on the next draft can do about it. Just wait it out and know that you've got more than a year after September to make this case politically.

It doesn't matter. None of the points you make are incorrect; they are very correct. But "those of us who are following every little detail in every publication" are too small a constituency for them to worry about. The most-invested of the wonks are ALWAYS too small a constituency to matter. You, me...all of us...we're preaching to an impossibly small choir here on this thread. Joe commuter in the car listening to "Traffic on the 3's" who gets his/her news at skin-deep level is who they have to worry about. And I'm not talking Herald readers looking for any excuse to get angry at a meme. I mean the proverbial neutrals who just don't have time to pay attention, other than "Jeez...didn't they have some big kerfuffe last week about somethingorother? And the week before? Who's running this ship?"

Let them get influenced by a steady stream of bad news that the organization keeps getting caught flat-footed on when they know it's coming and know it's liable to snowball the bolder they let their critics get, and it's not going to matter. The general-purpose enthusiasm's going to stay stuck in neutral with spikes of negativity. Like it has all year. That's what the inertia is. Inertia is not a policy wonk thing that only 3 people care about, it's the "same shit, different day in Massachusetts" mentality with the disaffected and/or the slightly surly in the general public. B24 is not controlling the messaging; they are letting the critics and the freakshow have the floor. That isn't short-staffing. That isn't being busy. It's being passive and unprepared. And that doesn't reverse itself in a timespan less than what several sustained months of going on offense nets. They seem to be under the impression that when the 'reboot' comes they've got a whole year to bust out a revamped offense. Slump-busting doesn't work that way.


It is by no means over, but they are kidding themselves if putting all their eggs in the 'reboot' basket and rearranging deck chairs at the top is going to change behavior that's led them to getting eaten alive by negativity. They have to change the behavior and re-train their brains to start consistently getting the first word and framing the parameters of the debate for a change. Let somebody else do it every time, and steady stream of small fires leaving burn marks all around is what you get.

 

[tangent]

It still comes down to the plan, it has always been about the plan. A good plan will get support. A bad plan will not get public support. And a mediocre plan will not win the bid.

The Olympic bid has public support if there is not a huge amount of public money needed. Some transportation improvement costs, a large investment in UMass dorms and/or a TIF with a realistic expectation of net payback or at least no loss can be sold as being investments that we would do anyway only accelerated for the games.... As long as the costs are inline with what those things would cost regardless of the Olympics and aren't significantly more because of some sort of Olympic premium.

But there is just no way that "Midtown" is going to be worth in land value or in incremental tax value the $300 to $400 (or more) it costs to make that area ready for a development post games. At least not without a permit for a thousand foot tower along with it... which might be what ends up happening to actually recoup the public costs (or at least a 500 or 600 foot tower).

But then you get back to the discussion point of deciding whether "Midtown" is actually worth all this effort and tax subsidy or if investment focused elsewhere could accomplish the same types of post games development in other locations and at a greater benefit to the city.

Many on these boards would probably like another large tower for the skyline, but the only issue I take with a tower there is whether Midtown is a good location for one. Maybe it is a good location or maybe there are better locations that wouldn't have to be subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

What about East Boston re-development? What about the Seaport area and area around the convention center which still need a lot of build out before it is really a complete part of the city with a walkable street grid that extends past the convention center. What about a tower at government center? What about other neighborhoods where smaller scale TIFs could spur development investment?

And what kind of city block will really be created if it is next to an elevated highway and a bunch of train tracks? We just got through the Big Dig to eliminate an elevated highway through downtown and now we want to build the downtown out to where it is next to an elevated highway?

This last point more than any is what gives me pause. Is there really enough future money and economic activity to justify building this midtown area when so many other areas of the city are still under-developed or in a poor state? Or will all those taxpayer subsidies just suck investment away from those other areas depriving the city of both tax revenues and better alternatives for investment and development?

Or can we have our cake and eat it too and expect that we can host the Olympics, build Midtown with a half billion in taxpayer subsidies, have it be a great place and then still also make investments in all these other areas of the city where investment could do a lot of good?

Or would it be better to not waste so much money building and taking down a temporary stadium and build something at least partially permanent that could be used for a soccer stadium and/or venue for other sports and events? But the economics of the temporary stadium are still very uncertain as it isn't clear whether building a temporary stadium around a permanent one really saves you money. And it certainly doesn't seem like the economics of a permanent stadium would ever justify a half billion dollar tax subsidy.

I was listening to an economics professor on the radio this morning talking in regards to a taxpayer subsidized stadium in Providence for the Pawsox (Provsox?)... saying a stadium like that creates about as much economic activity as a movie theater mega-plex and we would never consider taxpayer subsidies for one of those.

Of course if we are talking about BCEC money from the hotel tax, then I am all-in because that is playing around with boondoggle fund money anyway.

With BCEC money it is just about how much of a net loss there will be and not whether there will be. Most importantly tourists only vote with their wallets and, so far, the hotel tax hasn't turned them away.

 

[GDX163]

Baker is apparently claiming that he never knew there was a connection between Boston 2024 and the BCEC expansion.

"Speaking at the State House with reporters, Baker said he was unaware that the Boston 2024 bid to represent the United States was contingent on plans to use an expanded Boston Convention and Exhibition Center to host a variety of Olympics events and serve as a key source of parking capacity when the Games were in full swing.

Last month, the Baker administration cited budget strains and weak financial forecasts for putting a hold on the planned $1 billion bond sale to fund the BCEC’s proposed expansion.

“No one ever brought it to my attention. It was never a part of the conversation. Ever. Not once, okay? Never,” Baker said Thursday, as reported by State House News Service."

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/n...s-he-was-in-the-dark-on-boston-2024-plan.html

 

[GDX163]

This is a curious statement to say the least considering Boston 2024 obviously included the BCEC Expansion in their Key Venue Plan, released six months ago (pages 37-40).

http://cdn.2024boston.org/docs/USOC_Submission_2.pdf

 

[lexicon506]

This is a curious statement to say the least considering Boston 2024 obviously included the BCEC Expansion in their Key Venue Plan, released six months ago (pages 37-40).

So let me get this straight.. Somehow I knew all about the importance of the BCEC to Boston 2024's initial plans, but Baker claims he had no idea? Does the man need help getting dressed in the morning too?

 

[bolehboleh]

So let me get this straight.. Somehow I knew all about the importance of the BCEC to Boston 2024's initial plans, but Baker claims he had no idea? Does the man need help getting dressed in the morning too?

That is strange. I'm 10,000 miles away from Boston and I knew about it. I want this olympics and even though I usually vote Dem, I still want Baker to succeed - unfortunately, he's not giving me a lot of confidence.

 

[FK4]

That is strange. I'm 10,000 miles away from Boston and I knew about it. I want this olympics and even though I usually vote Dem, I still want Baker to succeed - unfortunately, he's not giving me a lot of confidence.

a better question is why the governor should take any flak for the olympics-ramifications of stopping a construction project like the bcec. the state has no obligation and really no license at all to be building something for that reason.

 

[Equilibria]

a better question is why the governor should take any flak for the olympics-ramifications of stopping a construction project like the bcec. the state has no obligation and really no license at all to be building something for that reason.

He shouldn't. Boston 2024 is a private non-profit looking to use a State facility. The state can choose not to build that facility, which means that B24 must (and will) find another site. If that's what Baker had said, it wouldn't be an issue for me.

However, I'll just go ahead and repeat this thing I wrote back in April, which I think hasn't lost any relevance in the months since:

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.

Charlie Baker is handling Boston 2024 the way Roger Goodell is handling deflated footballs. Ignorance by-design. Hand everything off, and claim you know nothing about anything. That way, if things go horribly wrong, you can blame everyone else.

EDIT: Actually, Roger Goodell has had the good sense not to say things like "No one ever brought it to my attention. It was never a part of the conversation. Ever. Not once, okay? Never." Going back to that comment about petulance...

 

[393b40]

Can you blame the guy? Baker does not want his name associated with Boston 2024 in any way, shape or form. I do not blame him since this thing is going down burning in an epic fashion.

 

[tangent]

Ignorance by-design. Hand everything off, and claim you know nothing about anything. That way, if things go horribly wrong, you can blame everyone else.
.

Well, from my perspective the move to delay the start of the BCEC expansion creates an opportunity for Boston 2024 to propose changes to that expansion including locating the Olympic stadium there.

Also, the BCEC expansion was slated for Indoor Volleyball with a seemingly viable (perhaps preferable) alternative of Conte Forum at Boston College... so not exactly a deal breaker.

 

[Equilibria]

Also, the BCEC expansion was slated for Indoor Volleyball with a seemingly viable (perhaps preferable) alternative of Conte Forum at Boston College... so not exactly a deal breaker.

Quite right.

 

[George_Apley]

Well, from my perspective the move to delay the start of the BCEC expansion creates an opportunity for Boston 2024 to propose changes to that expansion including locating the Olympic stadium there.

Not being snarky, but genuinely curious. Is this something that's been discussed officially at all? Or just a pet project? I've seen you beating this drum for a while now.

 

[West]

With regards to Baker's comments, I don't think they've been reported well so far. If you are willing to do a 21 day free trial, you can sign in to the State House News Service and see the source interview video.

http://statehousenews.com

I did the sign-up at about 8:00 and got my password at 12:15 or so. I'm having a hectic day and can't try to transcribe it here. But a few quick impressions after watching it once:

- Baker comes right out and says he never read the original December bid. It's not my job to defend him, but let's remember he was ramping up to assume his new job. And let's also recall the USOC picked Boston on his inauguration day.

- Later in the brief interview he dismisses the initial bid pretty completely, and says he's waiting for the "real plan", that is, the next version.

- so, what follows is my interpretation here, I'm no longer paraphrasing the video:

I've said before that the road to a successful bid runs more through the Governor's office and the Statehouse than through the Mayor's office (though of course they need to keep the Mayor on board, too). Baker was not at all brought into the loop during the campaign. He gets greeted on inauguration day with the news that "Boston" is the bidder. Over subsequent weeks / months he sees a lot of ex-Patrick staffers and the Mayor running with the ball, fumbling it often. And while he maybe never read the bid, he did not say no one in his admin read it. I'm sure he became keenly aware that the infrastructure spending was almost all going to be at the state level, and that the B2024 folks were spinning the "already in pipeline" schtick pretty far beyond the actual pipeline that had actual funding. Then add in the MBTA thing and his probable pre-existing skepticism on the BCEC expansion. Now the papers are filled with "disclosures" (which I agree aren't all completely new news) about formation of a state agency to acquire land, etc, on top of the infrastructure spending.

I think he's fuming mad, and am not surprised that he is. the B2024 folks have been spending lots of quality time in Mayor Walsh's office and have visited Baker a few times. But Baker and DeLeo and Rosenberg control the purse strings that matter to B2024.

In this video, Baker repeatedly dismisses questions about "who said what to whom" and "what's gone before" and so on. I think he's trying to get it through to B2024 to stop putzing around in Lausanne and at City Hall. As far as Baker is concerned, the first "real" pitch B2024 will be making to the Commonwealth is the one they make in June: all that came before is just warmup.

Before seeing this video, I had more sympathy for Equilibria's arguments that Baker is being too cutesy about how he dismisses that first plan. After seeing it, I think he's pretty close to saying what Equilibria's post from April wanted him to say, though not all the way there. I still wish he'd be more blunt, in the manner Equilibria suggests, but his comments yesterday, unfiltered through other media, are not so terribly coy any more.

So, I'll flog my point again: we should forget about Walsh for now, the key to this bid's political success is on Beacon Hill, and the Governor is defining the bid as only approaching the starting blocks.

 

[HenryAlan]

John FitzGerald needs to be removed from moderating these Boston 2024 meetings. In a civil public meeting, you give a person a chance to respond to the answer to their question and then you are justified to ask him to sit down after the follow-up question. FitzGerald has a documented history of stacking the deck at public meetings and this kind of well publicized lack of basic decency on the part of Boston 2024 or city officials is the last thing Boston 2024 needs at this point.

This might be true, but the level of hyperbolic hysteria demonstrated by some of the noBoston folks is really difficult for any kind of useful response. They remind me a great deal of the Bridge Forest Hills folks.