Boston 2024

[CantabAmager]

The impacts of the Olympics upon automobile travel would be far down on my list of "things to worry about" with the Olympics, slotting in after the financial considerations, site locations, legacy plans for any new builds, I'm guessing that most potential Olympics visitors are not going to be hauling their car around, and that the event is not more than two months so "olympic gridlock" as an acute problem has a very short half-life compared to the fiscal questions. I guess the Heralds needs to sell papers too.

 

[tangent]

The impacts of the Olympics upon automobile travel would be far down on my list of "things to worry about" with the Olympics, slotting in after the financial considerations, site locations, legacy plans for any new builds, I'm guessing that most potential Olympics visitors are not going to be hauling their car around, and that the event is not more than two months so "olympic gridlock" as an acute problem has a very short half-life compared to the fiscal questions. I guess the Heralds needs to sell papers too.

Traffic is a distraction. The question is whether the City of Boston could go bankrupt and right now the answer is that very probably the 2024 Olympics would bankrupt the City of Boston

 

[Equilibria]

Fast responses to the Fox25 debate:

* No one sounded or looked particularly good. Dempsey started off with some good points, but by the end was pandering. Dude, you were an Deputy Secretary of Transportation. It's not a good look for you to be insisting that traffic will be gridlocked against all traffic studies. It's also not a good look to keep repeating that none of the $4.8 billion will go to the public infrastructure when (A) that's factually wrong, and (B) that's irrelevant. Also, I looked up that GAO report, Chris, and it has 52% of Federal funding being spent on security, not "one-third." It also is a bare-numbers report and does nothing but total Federal subsidies. It makes no statements about fiscal responsibility or performance, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

* Steve, you talked too fast, you didn't sound prepared, and you kept repeating yourself. I couldn't believe he let Zimbalist off when he was spouting per-sf and percentage-based tax breaks. It's $300M or 850K. Also, the percentage of the tax break will be the best one proposed by a developer, not 85%. The City will select its best deal, and it will make 300 times more per year in the forecast horizon than it would with no Games. Those are your arguments, not that "it's hyperbole." Zimbalist was citing meaningless statistics. Say that.

* Also, Steve, the right answer is "You are an economics professor from a DIII college. You really shouldn't be telling the guy who owns the Boston Celtics how much basketball tickets can sell for."

*Oh and Andy...

http://www.rifuture.org/speakers-co...ed-pawsox-site-with-skeffington-in-april.html

This is why you shouldn't take extreme implacable stands on things. When you're reasonable sounding about something else, you're still a hypocrite.

* I wanted discussion of the actual enormous problem with this bid - the risk of not finding a developer willing to take on $1.2 billion in decking costs. What I got instead was a bunch of rehashing of silly issues like "traffic" and whether Dan was from New York. No one was willing to answer the tough questions directly. Sad, but expected.

EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it some more, the risk isn't that they don't find a developer. If they don't, they'll lose the bid, and no one loses any money. The risk is that they make an irresponsible deal with a developer who can't get the job done, and who folds or walks away in 2019.

 

[tangent]

Ball is in the governor's court.

 

[stellarfun]

In the wary eyes of the electorate, it seems to me that B24 needs to overcome the following:

1. The widely-based conviction that major projects in Boston take longer and cost more (often much more) than predicted at first: the Big Dig being exemplar #1

2. Last winter's breakdown of the MBTA, which revealed the system to be antiquated, fragile, and operating with little operational margin if there is any major stress.

3. A perception there's nothing in the Olympics for me, or my community, but aggravation and headaches. B24's reliance on temporary venues means little lasting benefit, and spending $500 -$1,000 millions on venues that will have a three week lifespan simply bolsters that perception (And the electorate hasn't yet seen/heard of what the Feds will do for security purposes Wait until they learn of the screening protocols for MBTA riders.)
____________________________

Although I didn't watch the debate, from equilibria's description, the B24 proponents didn't move the public opinion needle. And the USOC is looking for about a 10 percent bump in the approval polling by September. Will be hard to do.

 

[tangent]

It was an interesting planning exercise. Unless Baker can save the bid with some major changes, then I think what comes out of it are some nice conceptual plans for the old Bayside Expo and for an upgrade to Harambee Park and Squantum Point Park.

 

[Equilibria]

Although I didn't watch the debate, from equilibria's description, the B24 proponents didn't move the public opinion needle. And the USOC is looking for about a 10 percent bump in the approval polling by September. Will be hard to do.

The debate was never going to move the needle, because the public doesn't trust the rich guys that run the bid. Even if Pagliuca had done a stellar job of making the case for the Games, and he didn't, it's impossible to argue with paranoia about traffic, hysteria about the blizzards and the MBTA, etc. These are not rational feelings people have, so they're not going to be debated away unless the public implicitly trusts whoever is telling them not to worry about it.

What moves the needle is something that fundamentally changes the bid - securing a commitment from a developer, firmly securing the insurance policy (interestingly, neither Dempsey nor Zimbalist really wanted to talk about that, because the insurance plan actually seems pretty strong), the IOC accepting a Walsh refusal to sign the HCA or to cap it, etc.

People want what they always want when it comes to infrastructure: transformative positive change for no cost and no headaches. A privately-funded Olympics can actually come closer to achieving that than a lot of other things, but there just isn't enough confidence in this bid for it to qualify yet.

 

[tangent]

What moves the needle is something that fundamentally changes the bid - securing a commitment from a developer, firmly securing the insurance policy (interestingly, neither Dempsey nor Zimbalist really wanted to talk about that, because the insurance plan actually seems pretty strong), the IOC accepting a Walsh refusal to sign the HCA or to cap it, etc.

Rejecting the taxpayer guarantee is about the only thing that would move the poll numbers enough to make a difference. But then that more than likely means the bid gets rejected by the IOC in the first round. So, either that or Donald Trump deposits his ten billion into an escrow account to save the bid.

 

[MBTAddict]

Ball is in the governor's court.

10000000% agreed. I know he has said it's not up ti him, and technically it might not be, but he is the only pol in this state that can really make this thing move one way or the other.

 

[WarpedReality]

Chicago 2016 spent a significant amount of time flirting with the possibility of rejecting the host city contract before finally bending to the IOC's wishes shortly before the final vote. If Boston 2024 were really cynical, they could encourage Marty Walsh to adopt that route.

It would buy time to plug the bids holes (firm up the insurance, recruit a master developer, find locations for acquatics/velodrome, etc). It would also cause many irrational Bostonians to invest emotionally in the bid; perhaps enough emotional investment will persist after the illusion of not signing the contract ends.

 

[lexicon506]

What's most fascinating about this process is that, no matter how Boston 2024 ends up, it is fundamentally changing how US cities bid for Olympics. Think Los Angeles or NYC 2028 will be able to get away without publicly releasing all bid documents and holding a referendum?

This ultra-public, transparent, and expedited process is now the new standard for any US bid. If the IOC doesn't like it then they have to face the prospect of the Olympics never coming to America again. That's why the USOC isn't eager to drop Boston--they realize this is the new reality. They need to try their best at this and build experience if there's to be any hope for future bids.

 

[West]

From the USOC to Governor Baker:

http://www.sunherald.com/2015/07/24/6335359/apnewsbreak-usoc-asks-mass-gov.html

DENVER (AP) -- A person familiar with the bid says the U.S. Olympic Committee has given Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker until the end of the day Friday to declare whether he supports the movement to bring the 2024 Olympics to Boston.

The person spoke to The Associated Press on Friday on condition of anonymity because the communication with the governor was confidential.

Another un-sourced quote, great. So this might play out to be BS.

However, if the rumor gets confirmed, Baker should tell them to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut (on the deadline, not the whole bid).

Boston 2024 and the USOC dropped a severely flawed plan into Baker's lap on his inauguration day, and Boston 2024 has been flailing all over the place since then. Bid Version 2.0 was released June 29 and Boston 2024 has been publicly declaring "never mind that version 1.0" in their attempts to not release the full Version 1.0. And Bid 2.0 still has some pretty huge holes in it. So Baker's team has had less than one month to review the "real" bid, which is still a significantly incomplete plan.

The USOC can set whatever deadline they want on the Governor, but the only way it makes sense for them to do so in this way is if they have lost patience with Boston 2024, want to move support to LA, and are trying to find a weasel's way to shift the blame to Baker and still have the time before Sept 15 to scramble together a bid with LA. The article linked above suggests that's the likely reason, though it does not attribute it to the un-named source.

It's not Baker's fault that the version 1.0 was so flawed, nor is it Baker's fault that the USOC so utterly failed to see those flaws, nor is it Baker's fault that the USOC may feel backed into a timing corner on the September 15 date by which they put in the name to IOC.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

From the USOC to Governor Baker:

http://www.sunherald.com/2015/07/24/6335359/apnewsbreak-usoc-asks-mass-gov.html



Another un-sourced quote, great. So this might play out to be BS.

However, if the rumor gets confirmed, Baker should tell them to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut (on the deadline, not the whole bid).

Boston 2024 and the USOC dropped a severely flawed plan into Baker's lap on his inauguration day, and Boston 2024 has been flailing all over the place since then. Bid Version 2.0 was released June 29 and Boston 2024 has been publicly declaring "never mind that version 1.0" in their attempts to not release the full Version 1.0. And Bid 2.0 still has some pretty huge holes in it. So Baker's team has had less than one month to review the "real" bid, which is still a significantly incomplete plan.

The USOC can set whatever deadline they want on the Governor, but the only way it makes sense for them to do so in this way is if they have lost patience with Boston 2024, want to move support to LA, and are trying to find a weasel's way to shift the blame to Baker and still have the time before Sept 15 to scramble together a bid with LA. The article linked above suggests that's the likely reason, though it does not attribute it to the un-named source.

It's not Baker's fault that the version 1.0 was so flawed, nor is it Baker's fault that the USOC so utterly failed to see those flaws, nor is it Baker's fault that the USOC may feel backed into a timing corner on the September 15 date by which they put in the name to IOC.

Nope. This needs some corroboration from a second source. I have a hard time believing an experienced political entity like the USOC is going to resort to the poor political form of dropping a short-notice ultimatum bomb on a state's governor to give first-time answers of questions about a city's bid. There are many reasons relating to the city's bid where they would want a statement from Baker on the record to gauge overall support, but none that require such short notice...and shrillness of the short notice.


I'm gonna have to recommend holding out for second independent sourcing on this rumor before there's anything to talk about. It doesn't make enough sense on the face of it.



EDIT: Baker's office already denying they've been given an ultimatum, so this source appears to be BS.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op..._baker_wont_be_pushed_to_announce_position_on

There's a USOC meeting on Monday, and the Gov. is proceeding as if it's business as usual as he's going to be giving the same neutral answer as usual.

 

[West]

Yep, I hate un-named sources on something this important, so I am with you on wanting a second source (and I relayed it because ... er, um...). And I agree the rumor smacked of "shrillness" as you put it.

Good that Baker's office shot it down. Now I'd love for an AP rival to dig up the person who planted it. Not going to happen, I know. But when these planted rumors get shot down, it is so rare to find out who did the planting, and that makes me notes.

On a related note: the Herald quotes him as saying "I get the fact that everyone would love us to 'yea' or 'nay' today. And I appreciate the fact that the timing in all of this is frustrating." I wonder if that' was a subtle (or not-so-subtle) dig at Shirley Leung for her column today, even more so than at this AP rumor? That column was silly on almost too many fronts keep track of. I have to imagine Baker had a good laugh reading it.

 

[tangent]

If I were in the governor's shoes I would express support but with the need to substantially cut the costs of the bid and further mitigate risks to City of Boston taxpayers.

Start with the nearly $2 Billion for a temporary stadium and get that under $400 million. Yes, drop Widett Circle and find a new location.


Oh did I mention they should put it here:

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You can mention they should put it there till you turn blue in the face. The same exact regulatory reasons discussed several pages back why it's impossible to secure a stadium site on deepwater port land within the timeframe they have to work with for bid approval still stand. As they will still stand the next 12 times you bring up the waterfront stadium.

Let it go.

 

[statler]

archBoston Drinking Game v2.0!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yep, I hate un-named sources on something this important, so I am with you on wanting a second source (and I relayed it because ... er, um...). And I agree the rumor smacked of "shrillness" as you put it.

Good that Baker's office shot it down. Now I'd love for an AP rival to dig up the person who planted it. Not going to happen, I know. But when these planted rumors get shot down, it is so rare to find out who did the planting, and that makes me notes.

On a related note: the Herald quotes him as saying "I get the fact that everyone would love us to 'yea' or 'nay' today. And I appreciate the fact that the timing in all of this is frustrating." I wonder if that' was a subtle (or not-so-subtle) dig at Shirley Leung for her column today, even more so than at this AP rumor? That column was silly on almost too many fronts keep track of. I have to imagine Baker had a good laugh reading it.

Now you've done it...you made me click on a Leung column to see what the fuss was about!

Now I've got to clean up this whole vat of stupid that's spilled all over my screen.

 

[West]

Now you've done it...you made me click on a Leung column to see what the fuss was about!

Now I've got to clean up this whole vat of stupid that's spilled all over my screen.

I humbly apologize. I owe you a beer at the least. Or a vat of industrial grade cleaning fluid.

 

[West]

Start with the nearly $2 Billion for a temporary stadium and get that under $400 million. Yes, drop Widett Circle and find a new location.

Oh did I mention they should put it here:

If Baker were to react as you hope and say, "yes, I'll support the plan, but only if the stadium is built over at the waterfront", I very strongly suspect that all the matters F-Line notes would be superseded by other events. Boston 2024 and the Mayor have meandered on so many fronts that if the Governor chimed in with a main stadium move, the USOC would think they were watching Larry, Moe, and Curley trying to get through a door together. The USOC would pull the Boston name from contention out of embarrassed sympathy before ever getting to the F-Line-described hurdles.

The only way I see by which B2024 could MAYBE wriggle out of the Widett trap (and it is a self-created trap) would be if the Suffolk Downs owners had an epiphany and very loudly and publicly offered up their land for temporary or permanent venue locations. And yes, I said maybe, because I know there's issues at Suffolk Downs aside from the owners clinging to their own lost cause. But at least in that scenario B2024 could legitimately say "hey, we talked to them before and they shot it down so firmly that we shelved it, and now, voila, they've given us reason to talk to them again." The timing would still alarm the USOC and lots of others too, but there'd be a legitimate story as to why they weren't proposing that site to begin with, and why they'd be changing now.

It's not going to happen at Suffolk Downs: those owners are far too married to their dream of a horse racing renaissance (or whatever the hell they're clinging to). It can't gracefully shift to the waterfront now, due not only to F-Line's concerns (which Davey might very well have identified), but now due to timing, too. September 15 is less than 40 business days away: it's Widett or bust. Probably bust.