An interesting question arose in this thread on the question whether there should be a referendum in Boston, or in Massachusetts, on hosting the Olympics. After all, we don’t ordinarily put public policy questions, even pretty big ones, on the ballot. Why should we do so in the case of the Olympics?
Right off the bat, a couple of reasons occur to me.
- In democratic countries, a referendum on hosting the Olympics appears to be fairly standard practice. Consider: Berlin, another possible 2024 host, is committed to “a vote for all Berliners to decide.” Similarly, several of the countries that have withdrawn their bids to host the 2022 Winter Olympics have done so because the question failed at the ballot. Oslo, Krakow, Munich, and Davos/St. Moritz all withdrew (or declined to bid) after voters rejected the idea of hosting the games.
- Famously, the only two remaining cities competing to host the 2022 games are Beijing and Almaty (Kazakhstan). Guess what? “No public referendums are being held in Beijing or Almaty.”
- Hosting a casino has some aspects in common with hosting the Olympics (of course there are differences too). Among them, the possibilities of a lot of traffic, a lot of people from outside the community descending, crowds, security issues, and so forth. And as you know, the Massachusetts casino law – itself just approved by a ballot question – provides for a vote in any community in which a casino might be built.
- It’s politically stupid not to hold a referendum. A positive result allows backers to proclaim that the public is behind the bid, without fear of contradiction. Whereas relying on polls, or on elected officials, can and will always be second-guessed.
For all these reasons, Marty Walsh’s statement to WGBH regarding a referendum strikes me as, frankly, bizarre. Here’s what he said (starts at 13:10):
ADAM REILLY: Do you think that there should be some sort of a citywide vote on whether residents of Boston want the games here?
MARTY WALSH: I don’t know that I necessarily think that we need a vote on it. There has been some dialogue, probably not enough dialogue, we probably should’ve had more dialogue, and there will be a lot more dialogue if we get to the next round, but I don’t necessarily think we need to have a vote on it. I’ve seen polling numbers where a majority of Boston are in favor of the Olympics.
Walsh goes on to explain that he hasn’t heard from very many people in opposition. But obviously, the number of residents from whom he personally has or has not heard isn’t especially relevant. And, as I’ve already said, polling numbers can be, will be, and in fact already are being, debated and disputed.
Seems to me Boston should be more like Berlin, Oslo, Munich, and the other cities that have held or will hold referenda on hosting the Olympics, and less like Beijing and Almaty. I frankly can’t imagine what the case against a public referendum would be. So come on, Boston 2024 and Mayor Walsh, just back a referendum. Then everyone will know that you mean it when you say that you only want to have the Olympics in Boston if the people are behind it.
Christopher says
I suspect if put to the people they would support an Olympics.
David says
At least we would know.
sabutai says
With all the anti-Olympic paranoia and rumor-mongering on this site, I fully expect people around here to argue against the wording of the question or supposed lack of information before the vote, or the color socks the bid chief is wearing.
Nonetheless, a referendum is a good idea. But who votes? The whole state, including those three hours from anything Olympic? People in Nashua who will be more affected than people in North Adams?
ryepower12 says
All of Boston, then any city with a proposed venue large enough to impact traffic or heavy security. So if they wanted to build the pool in Cambridge or something, Cambridge would get a vote. Wherever tennis would be located would get a vote. If the non Boston venue proposals fail, they can try other towns.
Peter Porcupine says
If Boston gets it passed, they will whine to the state who will then raid local aid to help them – and we in the boonies who get zero benefit and a lot of hassle ALSO get to help foot the bill!
This is the casino vote all over again. Benefit the few to be paid for by the many.
If there’s a referendum, we ALL get to vote.
methuenprogressive says
Even if all activities were inside city limits, which they can’t be, the impact of an Olympics would be geographically far reaching.
ryepower12 says
At least for those venues.
Don’t worry, though. If we get a vote in it, it will fail, just like they have in every country that’s allowed a vote. People don’t want to mortgage their future for a two week party for the world’s millionaires and billionaires.
methuenprogressive says
The regional impact will be huge.
ryepower12 says
I just think it’s all moot because there’s no way in hell a referendum passes in Boston. IMO.
petr says
… While I don’t agree much with your other bullet points it is this point, in particular, with which I take particular –and particularly strong– exception.
I think that with respect to casinos the legislature included the community vote not out of any discernible political principle but out of sheer unadulterated cowardice: they were too afraid to stand by their own decisions. That you use this to justify possible further cowardice by politicians is a harbinger of the much feared ‘slippery slope.’ Fairly soon, I daresay, political cowardice will be the order of the day, if it isn’t already.
The people voted for Marty Walsh to do a job. If they thought that he couldn’t do the job right, which includes permitting and regulating public events, and managing all the sub-projects of improving infrastructure (all of which, under any other circumstances, would be subject neither to plebiscite nor referenda) then they should have been more careful with their vote.
David says
Well, once you assume the answer to a question, it’s pretty hard to come up with any answer other than the one you’ve already assumed. That is, if you indeed “think that with respect to casinos the legislature included the community vote not out of any discernible political principle but out of sheer unadulterated cowardice,” then any other public policy issue put to the ballot has presumably been put there for the same reason. Ergo, Olympics referendum = cowardice. But don’t expect those of us who don’t share your initial assumption to go along with your conclusion.
petr says
… I’ll just be here in the back seat, critiquing everything you do.
Representatives are not puppets. The plebiscite is not a ventriloquists trick. If it was, they elected could blame the hand up their backside, for any and all unpopular measures and ‘scape any responsibility for doing the job they were elected to do.
Ballot “initiatives” are a mechanism for the plebiscite to ‘initiate’ something the legislature may have either overlooked or deliberately dodged. Referendum are actual references to existing legislature that might have struck a chord with a sizeable number of the population. There was no procedure, until the casino legislature, for the plebiscite to comment on pending or proposed legislation and none at all to affect a veto upon the contemplated actions of an executive.
If the questions of ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ have any meaning at all then the only ballot that counts is the one that elects, or re-elects, the politician. Anything else is an attempt to evade the job: that is to say an attempt to place the responsibility for doing something, or not doing something, elsewhere. For what other reason would they do this, besides cowardice? Incompetence, mayhap?
HR's Kevin says
He was only elected for 4 years. And just because he won an election doesn’t mean he is entitled to totally ignore the voters for the next four years. If the citizens of Boston want to vote on this, then why shouldn’t they?
As I already said, the Olympics was not in any way an election issue in the Boston mayoral race. It never came up.
Furthermore, Marty Walsh is doing a pretty crappy job of making transparent decisions so far. He has not demonstrated that he fully deserves our trust.
Christopher says
That’s just a couple of terms away, which by Menino standards is just getting started.
petr says
… in addition to the other reasons I’ve already laid out, the case against a referendum is opportunism: that some slick pol will use the results, whatever the results, to either push his/her own agenda, or stymy someone else’s. This is already happening with the local casino votes.
Consider the case where a referendum is held and the vote comes back a clear “no”… So we decide not to bid. Very well. No Olympics. What happens, then, in 2016 when infrastructure and transportation improvements that were, previously, tied to the Olympics bid come up for debate? How many politicians who are opposed to infrastructure and transportation spending will use the Olympics bid to vote down that spending? All of them. They will, with one voice say “we already put it before the people and they said no.”
But the actual worst nightmare for you is a return with a clear “yes”: it will be license for all the worst projections to come true. Putin style spending? The people voted for it. Eminent domain on every other street corner? Well, the people voted for it. You want white elephants dotting the landscape? Hold a vote and give the politicians an impenetrable shield behind which they can stand and the elephants will be whiter and bigger than any previous elephant you’ve ever seen…
ryepower12 says
There are no public projects tied to the olympics. Moreover, the planners have repeatedly claimed they don’t intend to add to the transportation projects already on the plate (other than venues), so according to Fish & co, there never will be.
petr says
… an interesting tack to take, since you recently penned a diatribe in which you pointedly mocked the pubic statements and intentions of the planning committee for Boston2024. For you to rely upon statements you previously mocked rings… well.. rather hollow.
ryepower12 says
you missed my sarcasm
If I was more cheeky than I already am, I would have ended my last comment with “If you believe them.”
I was only pointing out that where you expressed (faux?) concern about transportation projects, Fish and Company have made “assurances” he won’t add any.
You know… if you believe them.
petr says
… it is your sarcasm, and not I, that missed…
Not wanting to “add any” is distinct and different from existing projects that are very much, at present, tied to the Olympics bid. Some of them are presently in the planning stage. What happens, in the context of a ‘no’ vote for the Olympics bid, when those projects get to the funding stage? That was my answer to David, wherein he declared “I can’t imagine what the case against a public referendum would be.” It’s very simple: some politician will conflate a ‘no’ vote for an Olympics bid with unwillingness to spend money on infrastructure in exactly the same way you’ve conflated “extra” or “added” projects with “existing” projects.
ryepower12 says
no one except a tiny, tiny few has even read the Olympic bid?
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. Wildly so. There can’t be any currently planned projects tied to the Olympics when
-the bid hasn’t even tied down any projects to begin with,
-the bidding process came after most every currently planned project was written into the books
-and when seemingly no one has read the bid to begin with — including the public face of the 2024 committee itself. Juliette Kayyem hasn’t read the bid, but all the planners at the DOT have? Suuure.
petr says
‘Cause above you said the exact opposite, to wit:
ryepower12 says
Your labyrinthine thinking is difficult for me to navigate.
I’m just not so sure how saying there are no projects currently tied to the Olympics is the “opposite” of saying “the planners have repeatedly claimed they don’t intend to add to the transportation projects on the plate.”
Trickle up says
As I read it the thread you cite was not about holding a referendum but about a suggestion that people should generally stfu about things until the next election, because elected officials.
Nonbinding referendums (this would have to be) are especially blunt instruments that can produce ambiguous results that are easy to ignore (and perhaps should be in some instances).
In a real democracy grass-roots groups are not shy about advocacy between elections.
Or to put it differently: the 1% playas have their organization working (in as much secrecy as they can manage) to shove an Olympic fantasy down our throats. Why shouldn’t the rest of us organize, agitate, and speak out about what would be best for us too?
We’d be fools not to.
Jasiu says
Seems like every two years there is at least one non-binding question on my ballot. I don’t know the procedure, but as part of that organizing and agitating, could such a question be put on a ballot in the near future (in the absence of an “official” question)?
David says
though it seems (from the Secretary of State’s guide) that it has to be done district by district. You need 1,200 in-district signatures to put a question on the ballot in a particular state Senate district; multiply that by 40 districts, and you effectively have a statewide ballot question. This year, the deadline to turn in signatures for the November ballot was July 9.
Trickle up says
Ch 53 Sec 18A also provides for nonbinding questions by municipality.