As you know, after months of behind-closed-doors meetings, planning, and actually submitting a formal bid to the U.S. Olympic Committee for Boston to host the 2024 Olympic games, we finally had a public forum at which a representative of Boston 2024 – Juliette Kayyem – squared off with a representative of No Boston Olympics – Chris Dempsey – to talk about whether this is actually a good idea. If you missed the hour-long discussion, you can watch it at this link. [Sidebar to the Globe: whatever crappy video server you are using to host that video is painfully slow. Just put the damn thing on YouTube, would you please?]
Let’s start with the fact that, for a group that has repeatedly proclaimed its interest in “transparency,” it’s kind of hilarious that the first time Boston 2024 shows its face in public is after the still-secret bid is actually submitted to the USOC.
Aside from that, how did it actually go? From Boston 2024’s perspective, I think the answer has to be “not well.” Most extraordinary was the moment – mentioned by practically every report I’ve seen on the forum, and described by the Globe as “jaw-dropping” – in which Kayyem admitted that she has not actually read the bid that Boston 2024 has already submitted. Which practically forces one to ask: then why are you here? Isn’t the point of this forum to talk about what hosting the Olympics would mean for Boston? How can we have an intelligent discussion about that if the representative from the organization that submitted the bid doesn’t actually know what’s in it?
More generally, I’ve seen two opinion pieces on the forum; both conclude that Kayyem and Boston 2024 did a lousy job of making their case. I haven’t seen any independent observer arguing the contrary. Here’s Garrett Quinn from MassLive.com, who is himself a big-time sports fan, and who in the past has seemed somewhat grudgingly open to the possibility of a Boston Olympics:
Juliette Kayyem, the former Democratic gubernatorial candidate and a security expert, struggled mightily when repeatedly confronted by No Boston Olympics co-chair Chris Dempsey on the negatives of hosting the games in Boston. The bulk of the forum had Kayyem on the defensive as Dempsey referenced over and over the white elephants and headaches that have been left behind in previous Olympic host cities around the world with the notable exception being Barcelona in 1992.
The Boston 2024 plan though advocates a revolutionary new path for how the games could be hosted, something Kayyem’s rebuttals honed in on. Kayyem argued that Boston could set a standard for others around the world to follow in a “new Olympic movement.”
This line of discussion though lent itself to mostly talk of how of the games would be different going forward if Boston hosts them and not why Boston should host them.
This allowed Dempsey to rip everything about the bid, including the secretive process behind the crafting of the bid….
Kayyem struggled, again, when confronted with the issue of how Boston 2024 has not hosted a single public forum since their initial meetings on Beacon Hill during the winter.
Quinn’s bottom line:
All of the defensive posturing by Kayyem was a lost opportunity for her and boosters of the games like Suffolk CEO John Fish to pitch the general public on why Boston and its residents would actually want to host the massive athletic spectacle.
And here’s another assessment, from Globe sports columnist Eric Wilbur:
So, exactly what promises did the private bid sent to Colorado Springs entail? Your guess would be as good as Kayyem’s. She hasn’t read it.
“So even a member of Boston 2024’s executive committee hasn’t read the bid,” Dempsey said.
Well, technically, Kayyem told the crowd that she doesn’t speak for Boston 2024. This was right before she told the crowd that she did, indeed, represent Boston 2024. [This was, indeed, an embarrassing exchange in which Kayyem was weirdly unclear about whether she does or does not speak for Boston 2024. It occurs at about 10:25 in the video. -ed.]
Got that?
It’s this exact sort of confusion that has Boston residents parts livid and confused about what Boston 2024’s intentions truly are. The group insists that its bid is being backed by private funds, only requiring public funds for infrastructure improvements that are already on the drawing board. But No Boston Olympics points out the cost overruns that have inflicted every Olympics bid in recent history, and wonders how much of the tab the public will really pick up in the end. These are billion dollar concerns that Boston 2024 seems to shrug off with a condescending shrug that implies we don’t know all the details.
That’s because we don’t. Boston 2024 has kept those details from us like parents maintaining the magic of Santa Claus, with the inevitable truth waiting to derail the childhood-like enchantment….
Boston’s Olympic boosters insist we have to dream big, and frankly, there’s no reason why we should be anti-Olympic. Dempsey’s goal is to get the backers and politicians to think smart in the absence of a public vote. But if the Olympics are indeed a goal we want to pursue, doesn’t it make entirely more sense to pursue an aspect of them that we can handle from both financial and realistic standpoints?
It’s probably too late for that now. Boston 2024 has scared everybody off from having that discussion by never having one at all about its own intentions.
If Monday proved anything, the discussions forthcoming won’t be any less misleading.
Wilbur’s comment about skeptics’ concerns being met with a “condescending shrug” is consistent with my own reaction to the forum. Kayyem, unfortunately, has a tendency to meet criticism of her position not head-on, but instead by insisting that the critic either is saying things that are “not true” (without then explaining the actual facts), or simply doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. This happened several times during the forum. It does come off as condescending, and it does not inspire confidence that the organization on whose behalf she is speaking is serious about a public dialogue on the merits of hosting the Olympics in Boston. On Twitter, Wilbur said that “the Boston 2024 argument pretty much boils down to, ‘Hey….c’mon. You know?'” And that isn’t far from accurate.
I remain where I’ve been all along on this: not flat-out opposed to the Olympics coming to town, but skeptical, and suspicious because things that sound too good to be true usually are. Boston 2024’s performance at Monday’s forum did nothing – zero – to address my skepticism, and I’m guessing anyone else’s who isn’t already on board. They need to do much, much better.
I have reason to doubt that the secrecy and vagueness around the bid proposal is anything other than intentional. Rarely do municipal proposals occur in a transparent fashion with a public debate in Chicago, but the Olympic bid largely unfolded in a transparent and public way. It was because of this that the pricetag, communities effected, and long term legacy of the Games could be seen by all, debated, and effectively opposed by a grassroots opposition campaign that made it clear to the IOC that the city did have the full support of it’s citizens to host the games.
I think part of the reason this bid is beginning in secrecy, open ended promises and commitments, and without significant community input is to ensure that the Olympics remains a vague feel good idea Bostonians can latch onto, rather than a concrete multi billion dollar redevelopment scheme wrapped around the Flag and the Olympic rings.
The Globe also fumbled its event, too. They made the Eventbrite page password protected a few days in advance so that no one could get tickets (They may have “sold out” of their free tickets but did not explicitly say so), and they refused to allow people without tickets in at the door. There were, by my count, at least 100 empty seats in that auditorium.
…It makes total sense for the Boston Olympic Committee to send someone who hasn’t read the bid, if they are more worried about what’s in the actual bid than they are about being embarrassed at having their public representative admit they are in the dark.
When Kayyem was running for Governor, would she have send her Field Director to represent her at a debate? Wouldn’t voters be just as insulted at that, as they should be by having someone who hasn’t read the bid be the Olympic representative, at a time when they are claiming they are ready to be “more transparent”?
Really David, so the antis stacked the room and went off on her and now you’re falling for this transparency bullshit?
Transparency comes next month when and if the city gets the nod from the national Olympic Committee.
The case is strong against releasing the forensic details of the bid at this time. First off, there aren’t any at this stage. Second, no American city has released the details, including our current competitors. Legitimate reasons not to. Were the Cubs and Red Sox releasing detailed info on their talks with John Leicester?
The next stage comes next month when the bid is released and the details are ironed out. No real commitments and everything negotiable.
After the American city is chosen then everything is on the table. Right now the cities don’t want to have each other knocking smaller details of their opponents.
One more thing. As for this John Fish is only in it for the money then I say yes and no. Because of his business he has a good idea of the long-term capital improvements of most of the local universities and colleges plus the cities infrastructure wants.
This knowledge is what is driving his argument that we need the shit anyway and even if we don’t get it we win. It happened in New York.
then there’s no way to possibly stop this if the bid proposal sucks, or demonstrates that this whole idea is bad for Massachusetts.
Chicago is left paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a hole in the ground where a hospital that served low income residents used to be, now that the Obama library selection committees passed on it, we may have to sell it for pennies on the dollar to a private developer just to get it off our hands.
All of the transit improvements were tied to getting the games, Springfield is in no mood, especially with an incoming Republican Governor-to do any of that now without them.
And what did New York get out of it’s failed bid? The East Side Stadium fell through and the Jets ended up at the new Meadowlands anyway. Barclays was unconnected to the bid, and a lot of residents are angry at the Atlantic Yards proposal.
Arthur T will definitely have to raise prices and lay off a lot of workers to satisfy his new partners. Mr. incredible’s inside knowledge said so. Gonna happen any minute now.
No. And we know how that turned out.
Are you Benedict Cumberbatch, after all this? A British background would explain your accent, for starters.
A Leicester man is responsible for the term “Minutemen.”
Leicester is also the name of a town in England.
Other town names found in both England and New England…
Bedford
Cambridge
Falmouth
Lancaster
Leominster
Norwood
Norfolk
Oxford
Portsmouth
Worcester
Weymouth
And…
… wait for it….
Boston!
Wouldn’t that be a kick if we bid on the Olympics and ended up holding it Boston, England….
n/t
See here.
I once starting to consider what a tour of Massachusetts towns in England would be like and how long it would take…
is the first line is from the witty and succinct GABRIELLE GURLEY at CW
the last paragraph is
1. “I haven’t read the report.”
2. “We’re going to have public forums after the US Olympic Committee has made its selection for host.”
The first answer suggests to me that the people behind this — with the exception of a very small few — don’t even know what the heck is in the report.
The second answer is completely unacceptable, because if Boston is selected before any public input is taken, then it’s already too late. Maybe we’ll be able to make some small improvements here or there, but the Olympics will be foisted upon us with absolutely no recourse.
My questions:
Just who has read the actual report? Who has seen the executive summaries and would know which locations are being proposed and what actual proposals are on the table for funding?
What happens if Boston is selected by the US Olympic Committee and the public makes clear that it doesn’t want it? Are we going to get any say?
Will eminent domain be authorized? For what locations?
Who on earth thought it was a good idea to bar the public from knowing anything that’s going on? Do they have any respect for the fact that this is a democracy?
Why is Boston 2024’s Committee only comprised of the extraordinarily wealthy or extraordinarily powerful? Why hasn’t a single community organization been represented on the organization?
The FAQ section of the Boston 2024 website, structured as a series of myths debunked with facts, is incredible.
http://www.2024boston.org/faq
The best is probably second one, with this gem:
Bringing up winter Olympic cities is too dumb to reply to, but Atlanta and St. Louis?!?
Atlanta had more than a few issues, but they also had much more space, including a large and dead downtown, and the space and need for a new baseball park. In terms of facilities Boston could use, only a soccer-specific stadium makes sense. An Olympic park or village doesn’t make much sense anywhere near the middle of the city. The comparison is fair in terms of city population size, but the capacity for new construction is not at all similar between the cities.
And St. Louis. I had to look up when they hosted. Yes, that’s right, 1904.
Apples to apples . . .