Perhaps you can’t fool all the people all the time, but many politicians certainly seemed to be trying.
–Andrew Zimbalist
As chair of our school building committee, I’m in the midst of developing school building project. It’s a long, sometimes tedious, sometimes grueling, chore. It’s my town’s version of a mega-project, and certainly the largest project I’ll ever be involved in. Fortunately, we are guided through the process by a project manager and an architectural firm. These folks are our representatives in our dealings with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), which will fund about 60% of our project. It would be nice if we could eschew some of the bureaucracy and the experts, but quite frankly, a lot of money would wasted without them. The MSBA and our hired experts make sure our decisions are fiscally sound and educationally feasible, and because schools are their business, they know what they’re doing.
What’s good for building schools, however, evidently isn’t good for the Olympics. The Special Commission Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth passed over three different economists in favor of politicians and business people. This was the committee appointed to examine the feasibility of Boston hosting the Olympics.
The Commission was guided by “two core principles to be used in determining feasibility”:
(1) any potential investment in an effort to host the Olympic Games could only occur if it was aligned with the long-term economic development and infrastructure needs of the Commonwealth
(2) any potential investment would offer clear, long-lasting, and significant legacy benefits to the Commonwealth after the Games had come and gone.
One might think an economist or two specializing in sports and building stadiums might be helpful in determining the effects of the Olympics on long-term economic development, but the powers that be decided that the commission should be filled with event boosters.
Andrew Zimabalist should know. Stan Rosenberg solicited his resume for the Commission. Yet Zimbalist was not appointed. He tells the following story in Circus Maximus, his book about the economics of the Olympics:
Mitt Romney suggested to Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick that Boston bid to be the host city. Patrick took the matter to the state legislature which in turn appropriated funds for a study to be performed by a ten-member commission to be appointed by the governor.
After passing the appropriation, Massachusetts state senator and majority leader Stan Rosenberg e-mailed me to ask if I would be interested in serving on the commission. I responded affirmatively, depending on the timing and volume of the work involved. Senator Rosenberg [who represents Northampton where Zimbalist, an occasional guest on public radio, teaches at Smith College] thanked me and asked me to send him a résumé. He then sent my résumé with a cover letter to Deval Patrick, urging my appointment to the commission. Apparently, a similar interaction occurred between Victor Matheson, an economist at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, and an expert on mega-event economics, and another state legislator. I also pointed out to Senator Rosenberg that Judith Grant Long, a well-respected expert on the effect of the Olympics and other sports mega-events on urban economies, taught at Harvard University.
As it turned out, Governor Patrick did not appoint any of us to the commission. Instead, eleven executives were appointed, all from the tourism industry and construction, the industry that had the most to gain if Boston were to host the games. After several months the commission concluded that the matter warranted further study. As of mid-July 2014, no decision had been made, although the USOC had selected Boston as a finalist among possible U.S. host cities.
With Governor Patrick’s maneuver, my cynicism about our political process and what interests it serves reached an all-time high. Perhaps you can’t fool all the people all the time, but many politicians certainly seemed to be trying.
On the eventual makeup of the Commission, Zimbalist should be corrected. Six of the eleven commissioners represented state or city government. The remaining five–the private citizens–were all business people. Zimbalist blames Patrick, but the report of the commission clearly suggests that the senate and legislature’s leadership were equally responsible.
Here’s a list of the members:
The Governor named Mr. John F. Fish (Chair), Chairman and CEO, Suffolk Construction, Mr. Stephen Freyer, President, Freyer Management Associates, and Steven Tompkins, Sheriff, Suffolk County to serve on the committee.
Former Senate President Therese Murray appointed Eileen Donoghue, State Senator and Senate Chair, Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business, Mr. Ralph Cox, Principal, Redgate Real Estate Advisors
Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo appointed Cory Atkins, State Representative and House Chair, Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts, and Cultural Development and Mr. Daniel O’Connell, President and CEO, Massachusetts Competitive Partnership.
The Senate Minority Leader’s appointee was Mr. Jonah Beckley, General Counsel.
The House Minority Leader’s choice was Ms. Andrea Crupi, Legislative Aide.
The Mayor of the City of Boston appointed Ms. Cindy Brown, President & CEO, Boston Duck Tours and Frost Ice Bar, and Mr. Christopher Cook, Director of Arts, Tourism, and Special Events, Office of Mayor Martin J. Walsh
I don’t know any of these folks, but I’m sure none of them has written a book on the economics of the Olympics. And I’m willing to bet none of them has advised New York City on hosting the Olympics. And although one or two could have a degree in economics, I don’t think any of them is an economist or a tenured professor at a prestigious Massachusetts college or university. In fact, I don’t know of any reason why any of these people should have been excluded from the Commission. For all I know, their experience is and was valuable. But was there a skeptic among them? Was there someone with an extensive research background in the Olympics or similar mega-events? The answer seems to be no. Instead of an economist, an actual expert, the Special Commission Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth got the CEO of a duck boat tour company.
If my fellow citizens decide to build a new school, it is very unlikely that it will greatly exceed its budget. Large projects rarely come in under budget, but the MSBA, our project manager, and our architect, almost guarantee that we will be very close to our estimate. The reason for such precision is simple: building schools is their business. They’re experts. Our government’s decision to leave Olympic experts out of the feasibility process doesn’t bode well for the their cost containment.
Mark L. Bail says
From Circus Maximus:
jcohn88 says
Zimbalist will be giving a talk later this month at the JP Forum here in Boston: https://www.facebook.com/events/1408086079514118/.
jconway says
If all the backers, up front, admitted it would lose money and would do nothing to help with long term public infrastructure projects, and really, they just wanted to sell the world on Boston and host a great event for three weeks. I think if they had just been honest about that, and we have to play hardball against other cities for the IOC nod, than there wouldn’t have been this issue. It might still be unpopular, but I would have far more respect for a take it or leave it approach to selling the Olympics.
Instead, they have over-promised and under-delivered on transparency, cost containment, and what the long term impact will be. Look for Walsh to start pondering a graceful exit strategy, and soon.
HR's Kevin says
He seems constitutionally incapable of ever actually admitting to making a mistake. It would be very difficult for him to back away from the Olympics without at least tacitly admitting that he screwed up.
I am also not sure that his active base of supporters in the construction industry would let him back off.
Don’t forget that this bid isn’t really about the Olympics. It’s about large scale construction projects and real estate deals.
jconway says
Especially if the majority opposed to the games continues to climb and this issue becomes the signature one for his Mayoral term. First term Mayors are significantly easier to beat, and just as Rahm couldn’t quite shake the Mayor 1% label because of the school closures, it will be hard for Marty to escape Mayor Olympics if he doesn’t bow out soon. Unlike Rahm, the progressive wing of the Democratic party is his base, and unlike Chicago, Boston has a much better bench for progressive political talent. I am not backing a challenger to Walsh in the slightest, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets one if this issue becomes his albatross.
HR's Kevin says
No one is making noises about running against Walsh, and so far he seems to have the city councilors mostly cowed. He also has amassed probably the largest campaign war chest we have ever seen for a first termer. While the Olympics is not popular, a lot of people aren’t really paying that much attention and might not actually care about it until they see their taxes go up or become personally inconvenienced by some Olympic construction project. That may not happen until well after his reelection.
I really don’t think that Walsh’s base is really progressives. Look where his money comes from. His biggest contributors are not JP progressives but those involved in the construction and real estate industries plus police and fire unions.
If he really were thinking about backing off, then wouldn’t you think that he would start to deliver on his promise of transparency? He hasn’t done that, and he won’t. We all know that he has access to a lot more information about the bid that he will not reveal.
jcohn88 says
His core base is Dorchester/Southie. But he only won the general because of the racially diverse and progressive activists who worked for Arroyo, Golar Ritchie, and Barros in the primary.
I volunteered for Arroyo (who has been a disappointment in the cabinet, sadly) before volunteering for Walsh post-prelim in October (mainly as an anti-Connolly) vote. Walsh has been a disappointment so far. I would love to see someone run against him (particularly Ayanna), but I don’t know if anyone is interested.
Al says
the St Patrick’s Day parade took place. He didn’t want to antagonize his South Boston supporters, a voting bloc that traditionally turns out in big numbers every election.
paulsimmons says
Old-school South Boston (post-gentrification) consists of maybe 15% of residents and 30% of voters within the neighborhood.
Consider the general election turnouts in the 2013 and 2014 cycles for the two South Boston wards.
2013 Boston Total Percentage: 38.17%
Ward 6: 41.55%
Ward 7: 40.93%
2014 Boston Total Percentage: 41.99%
Ward 6: 43.46%
Ward 7: 40.60%
Decent, relative to the City, but nothing to crow about. Southie simply isn’t decisive anymore in Boston elections, except at the margins.
jconway says
It seems DeLeo, Rosenberg, and Baker are all skeptics towards this proposal, at least skeptical enough to get a third party audit of the financials. Brattle Group is highly respected as an economics consultancy boutique, I know they did a lot of hiring from our department and produced some interesting white papers for the Kennedy School and Commonwealth magazine in the past.
Mark L. Bail says
Digging into Boston 2024 Feasibility Study, I came across this gem:
Mark L. Bail says
A Report of the Special Commission Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth