david

Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4095 Posts

Recommended: 494 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. That's true - however, (1 Reply)

    in those cases the revenue still goes to local aid, as I understand it. The teams may obtain revenue in other ways, but I don’t think it comes from ticket sales. E.g., from the MassLive story you linked:

    Cahill said the teams get a cut of the sales in different ways. Major League Baseball, for example, reached agreement with a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corp. of New York to allow the Red Sox team logo to appear on instant tickets. Scientific Games, a gaming company, pays the Red Sox an undisclosed sum for supplying prizes such as cruise packages, trips to spring training in Florida, season tickets and team paraphernalia.

  2. This has happened before. (0 Replies)

    From the Commonwealth Mag story:

    It’s not a unique approach to use lotteries to fund Olympic games. The 2012 London Olympics relied on nearly 2.2 billion pounds (roughly $3.5 billion) from the country’s National Lottery and money from that agency is still used to fund Olympic athletes. Canada used a lottery to help recoup the costs of the 1976 Montreal Games.

  3. Of course, this would be marvelous, (1 Reply)

    if we had the financial wherewithal to manage it. More on that subject at a later date…

  4. As things have turned out, though, (2 Replies)

    her bully pulpit is clearly bigger in the Senate than it would be as head of CFPB. When was the last time we heard from that guy? How many people even remember his name? (I can’t come up with it off the top of my head.) US Senators naturally have more public and media presence than do the heads of administrative agencies.

  5. Not sure that would work. (2 Replies)

    If there’s a law, say a state law, in place putting Boston legally on the hook for cost overruns (or for anything else), it might be possible to obtain a judgment against the city in court. Those things are complicated and I’m not exactly sure how it would work – would depend on the specific language of the law, among other things. But it’s not a straightforward situation, and just saying “they could refuse” isn’t enough.

  6. Also, (1 Reply)

    it’s something for her to consider. Only she really knows how physically fit she is, and how much stamina she has. Running for president is unbelievably taxing, physically and otherwise – we’ve all seen candidates visibly age over the course of just a few months. Months on end of constant travel, very little sleep, and being 150% “on” every waking hour … I don’t know that I could do it, and I’m a lot younger than Senator Warren.

  7. Great post. I agree with all of it. (0 Replies)

    In the Senate, Warren can talk about what she wants to talk about, and as she’s shown, she can make a lot of noise and make a lot of people very uncomfortable while doing it. That’s fantastic. And she can and will influence the presidential race by doing exactly what she’s doing, from where she is right now.

    But as a presidential candidate, she loses control of the conversation, and, as Charley correctly points out, would have to talk about a bunch of stuff about which frankly she may not have much to say.

    The big question, I think, is how can she best succeed in what she’s trying to do. My inclination is that she can best do that from the Senate; in any event, I will certainly defer to her judgment on that question, and as of now at least, her judgment seems to be not to run.

  8. Indeed it could, (1 Reply)

    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.

  9. Clicking what box? (0 Replies)

    Do you really think that a “block user” feature is just a matter of our clicking a box in a magical admin panel somewhere? I can assure you, that’s not the case. It would mean serving up a potentially nearly infinite variety of different views, depending on the personal preferences of thousands of registered users. It’s a non-trivial programming task. And I’d be very interested in the answer to johnt001′s question below: what “properly run” sites do you have in mind that offer this marvelous feature?

  10. As one of the skeptics, (1 Reply)

    I don’t particularly think it advances your argument to call anyone opposed to, or even dubious about, the Olympics “paranoid” or “throwing tantrums.” Let’s try to leave language like that over at RMG. I’m pretty sure I haven’t talked like that, and I don’t recall other skeptics doing so either.

  11. Heh (1 Reply)

    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.

  12. LOL (3 Replies)

    a) Nobody is forcing you to participate here.
    b) Things like a “block user” feature cost money. We already operate this site at a financial loss. If you wish to help with development of new features, a good first step is to subscribe. We can discuss larger gifts at another time.

  13. Fine! (1 Reply)

    At least we would know.

  14. Heh (0 Replies)

    Yes, the Council has to approve any pardon or commutation.

  15. Well, (0 Replies)

    since Elizabeth Warren does have an account here, the rules do extend to her. Just FYI.

  16. Well, to be fair, (0 Replies)

    they did submit a detailed bid that was hundreds if not thousands of pages long. So … ya know, someone has been doing some planning for something.

  17. Don't know if it's routine, but (1 Reply)

    as jconway observes, Berlin is already committed to it. “‘[T]here will be a vote for all Berliners to decide. We want the widest possible support for this.’” Seems perfectly sensible.

    And yes, the IOC considers public support. For instance, in evaluating the 2020 cities the IOC commissioned a poll (PDF, scroll to Annex C) in each of the three final candidate cities. They may have more detailed public support requirements, but I didn’t see them on a quick Google search.