The Globe reports today that Boston 2024, under pressure from both landlord and tenant groups, has scrapped a particularly ill-conceived part of their plan to find enough housing in Boston for spectators. Here’s what they originally had in mind (p. 33):
approximately 100,000 students live off-campus in privately-owned, rental apartments throughout the city. In line with the academic calendar, the majority of Boston apartment leases are one-year in duration with a lease commencement date of September 1. As a result, students who vacate the city during their summer break opt to sublet their room or apartment to other tenants.
This scenario presents a tremendous opportunity for spectator accommodations, offering places for visitors to stay in neighborhoods popular for students such as Allston/Brighton and Fenway, which fall within walking distance to the University Cluster and provide convenient access to public transit.
Using a third-party specialist to manage the operation and create a streamlined program for Boston-area landlords, leases signed for September 1 of the year preceding the Games could be executed as 9-month leases, as opposed to typical 12-month leases. Regulations would then be in place to support reasonable rates for spectator accommodation for the duration of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Wow. First of all, have any of these people actually seen those student apartments? Not exactly what the international tourist set has in mind for an Olympic visit. Second, did they seriously think they can tell an entire segment of the market to execute 9-month instead of 12-month leases?
Third, the most shocking part is the bit about enacting regulations “to support reasonable rates for spectator accommodation” – i.e., rent control. Rent control, of course, has been illegal in Massachusetts since a 1994 ballot question banned it. The Globe gets a great quote on this subject:
Kathy Brown, coordinator of the Boston Tenant Coalition, questioned why regulations to hold down rents, if legal, should be limited to international visitors.
“If they can do some restrictions for spectators, let’s see about some protections for hard-working Bostonians, as well,” she said.
Yeah, how about that.
Anyway, this part of the bid has been dropped – per the Globe, Boston 2024 assures us that “we are confident that there are more than enough accommodations for spectators in the region, and we will not be pursuing it further.” Though it’s unclear exactly where those accommodations will come from, since, as Boston 2024 itself says (p. 33), “the majority of [the 50,000+ hotel rooms in a 50 km radius of Boston] will be allocated to client groups that take precedence over spectators.” It’s unclear who “client groups” are, but my guess is that phrase refers to the visiting one-percenters.
In any event, there’s undoubtedly a lot of other stuff in the Boston 2024 bid documents that, when you read it carefully, might raise a few eyebrows. I confess I haven’t taken the time yet to read the whole set of documents. But there are surely some more terrific nuggets of awful yet to be discovered. This is a great project for the BMG hive mind, so have at it!
chris-rich says
That’s up there with the one that imagines we’ll have a sparkling new perfect public transportation system to roll out for the upwelling Swells.
I thought LSD was out of favor or at least fairly hard to obtain. The main thing the 2024 rubes have demonstrated is how wealth and position do swaddle the mind to a point where a kind of incapacity takes over.
bob-gardner says
I was looking forward to the traditional opening ceremony being replaced by a long line of U-Haul trucks delivering the Athletes and their belongings to their apartments along Comm. Ave.
centralmassdad says
Then the U-Haul carrying the torch can accidentally get stuck under an overpass on Soldiers Field Road.
chris-rich says
That is a nice image of the whole process so far. Credit is due to Adam Gaffin for promotion of the term ‘Storrowing”.
petr says
… without rehashing the questions of outcome, readiness, feasibility, etc, can we at least acknowledge that pressures upon Boston2024 seems to be working. It’s all well and good to laugh at “hilariously terrible” parts of their ideas but absent even a semi-critical eye (which we are not sure to get with the globe) we may be left with impression of adversarial posturing and antagonisms where, in fact, none are present.
Much of what I’ve heard is that Boston2024 will be nothing more than unelected, unaccountable ‘oligarchs’ who will run clean way with the CommonWealths resources as soon and as fast as they can.
This seems not to be the case.
The first criticism that I, personally, ever heard against even the inkling of an idea for a Boston Olympics was “Well, it’s going to cost millions just to bid, why waste that money?” That turned out to be a pretty trenchant criticism and one, apparently shared by Boston2024 who went through the trouble to raise $75 Million dollars of private funding and then insure the city, up to $25 million, against the possibility that that public funds would be wasted. As gestures go, that’s significant.
Now, apparently after doing what they said they would do — engage and evaluate — they’ve actually dropped some portion of their plans.
Maybe they’re not the ‘oligarchs’ some here want them to be?
jconway says
You think they are the benign experts, the very reincarnation of Robert Moses that should just be entrusted to make all these decisions unlike us fickle voters. Isn’t that the gist?
Also you can’t mask over the fact that they dropped this due to incompetent planning, not benign paternalism towards public outcry.
petr says
… “no”, then?
To be clear, and without regard to what you think that I think and/or feel… that is to say: going strictly by the test of publicly made statements and public actions what conclusion do you — having yourself worked on an Olympics bud — draw about Boston2024? If my assessment is wrong, what is the correct assessment?
HR's Kevin says
Is it supposed to be reassuring that they backtrack when it becomes obvious how idiotic this part of the plan is? It would be a lot more reassuring if the plan contained no idiotic parts to begin with.
God knows what kind of crap is hidden in the documents they refuse to reveal.
Al says
Those off campus student housing are not empty during the summer. Aren’t they still occupied by students going to summer school or staying in town working? What would have happened? Would they get evicted for the duration while landlords charged obscene rates to Olympics attendees? Of course, it might force upgrades to the properties to make them acceptable to non student tenants. Then again, landlords would jack up the rents post Olympics. Just musing.
petr says
… the leases, ordinarily 12 months running from September to September would be, for one year, shortened to 9 nine months and then, administered by a private company for the three months before, during and after the Olympics, leased to foreign visitors. So a lease signed on September of 2023 would be 9 months in length and would end in May of 2024. June, July, and August of 2024 would be managed and leased for the Olympics. September of 2024 leases would resume a 12 month schedule.
Landlords and tenants were alarmed and, apparently there are some questions of conflict with the abolition of rent control laws that happened in the ’90’s.
It certainly raises questions and would have been, most likely, one of the trickier balancing acts for public-private partnership.
Apparently something similar was tried in Atlanta for ’96 but I’m not sure of the details.
chris-rich says
And it is all completely outside of whatever formal arrangements tied to leases.
It’s just another example of isolated people speculating on something they don’t know a thing about.
When the boosters stoop to this level of abject witlessness, they may as well just go tell the IOC that they are unfit to run a student science fair and get while the getting is good.
hesterprynne says
I’ve been trolling the private fundraising section of the bid, which begins by softening up us Massachusetts folk as “generous, compassionate, enthusiastic and altruistic.” Probably true enough, although for Boston2024 to point out that “we” raised $60 million in 90 days for the Marathon bombing One Fund gives “us” a little too much credit, not to mention being exploitive of tragedy and raising subliminal security concerns.
Most of the anticipated $75 million is expected from deep-pocketed one percenters, but there’s a role for the rest of us to play:
$3 million from social media (through membership in the “Boston 2024 Fan Club”);
$1 million from 150 Millennials (who presumably have neither student loans nor aspirations for homeownership);
$2.5 million from Corporate Employee Events at which “companies would encourage donations from their employees from ‘fun’ activities in their offices” (note to Boston 2024: the use of quotation marks around “fun” totally gives you away).
But not to be a naysayer. Elsewhere in the bid documents, Boston 2024 informs us that state law imposes a $50 fine for directing “any profane, obscene or impure language or slanderous statement at a participant or an official in a sporting event.” What about a dedicated revenue stream for the next 8 years where we’d put the fines when we swear at Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins and Patriots games? Our free speech rights are already compromised, so why not? We’re generous, compassionate, enthusiastic and altruistic. It could definitely happen.
Christopher says
…state law also forbids taking the name of the Lord in vain, so I have to wonder how enforced or enforcible that provision is.
HR's Kevin says
Yes, we all know there are all sorts of unenforceable or unenforced laws on the books. Why put it in the bid document? Are we promising to start cracking down on this stuff? If not, we are being dishonest to the Olympic committee by including this in the bid. Probably more the latter than the former.
petr says
… of just how serious Boston is about sports. Your mileage may vary
HR's Kevin says
Boston loves sports so much that it has a law that is not enforced and is frequently violated?
I would tend to agree that profane language at sports events does indicate a passion for our local teams, but I don’t think that is what the bid document was saying. 😉
petr says
… the laws against blasphemy (however much they are or are not enforced) indicate a robust Christianity that once obtained the law against foul language and insults against sporting event particpants likewise indicates a stongly held (and equally as long standing as the religiosity) respect for sports. Whether ot no we enforce it, it is part of our founding documentation…
Christopher says
…I strongly suspect that our Puritan forebears wouldn’t have much use for such frivolities as sports:)
chris-rich says
It may rest on assumption that the grubby details will be fixed by servile public servants every ready to fluff the oligarchs no matter how absurd the demands or unreal the assumptions.
By rights, they should be running a proud multi faceted PR roll out to get the public more enthused and surf a favorable news cycle.
Instead, they’re like deer in the headlights as if stunned by the breadth and intensity of public indifference and hostility from many quarters while their most visible allies in city and state government engage in measured back pedaling to reassure the riled that eminent domain is off the table.
It’s becoming a bonfire of reputations and vanity.
Christopher says
…but state law is what was referred to, so I was just commenting on that.
petr says
… I had a chance to review the document in question and it is not, in fact (as I stated earlier) the demonstration of Boston’s commitment to sport. It is due diligence on the part of the Bid Committee in response to a direct question “What are the existing laws, if any, in your city/county/state that relate to sport?” by the USOC. The submission is really just a series of answers to questions and in answer to this particular question the Bid Committee listed the existing laws, one of which is the fine in question.
I hope this satisfactorily answers your question, “Yes, but why put it in the bid document?”
hesterprynne says
More info on the state law I referred to upthread that imposes fines for blaspheming at sporting events:
It doesn’t go back to the 17th century — it was enacted in 1963, at the urging of a Boston representative displeased by the reception that Fenway spectators were giving to the mediocre 1962 Red Sox.
Petr is probably right that the Boston2024 bid does not cite the law as evidence of the city’s commitment to sport and willingness to fund it through fines. But if the theory is that Boston2024 reported the existence of the law only as part of its due diligence, then there’s the question why Boston2024 did not also, for the same reasons of due diligence, report the existence of a number of other such laws, including the one that gives a city permission to conduct sporting events after 1:00 pm on Sundays, provided that the mayor is on board.
petr says
…The document in question, upon page 6 (page 12 of the PDF), has a chart that describes, under three headings, “Jurisdiction”, “regulated sport/related entity” and “law or regulation” a variety of laws. Under the jurisdiction of “Massachusetts” and regulated sport/related entity of ” sports events”, it says “State law delegates authority to administer licenses to local mayors or selectmen, including procedural requirements for public notice and hearings, as applicable” which would describe the law to which you point. It doesn’t specifically reference the clause about Sunday scheduling, but that is the law in question. The chart does also reference a specific law of the City of Cambridge law specifying permitting on Sundays in public parks.
I suppose, for completeness sake, it ought to be footnoted and/or reference appendices to cite the actual laws and paragraphs, like hesterprynne did by linking, but it does not do that. Nevertheless, under a thorough reading of the section — including the chart — the laws are clearly listed. Due diligence. Accomplished.
chris-rich says
It has it all, succinct, astute and wryly funny.