Boston 2024 has promised at numerous points that Boston won’t be on the hook for any cost overruns.
But can we afford to believe them?
Let’s ask Seattle what happens when you get involved in a major project with regional implications (in this case, a major tunnel project) — with promises they wouldn’t be on the hook for potentially billions of cost overruns.
Originally the state and city were each financially responsible for their part of the project — the state for the tunnel, the city for surrounding infrastructure, like the new seawall, that would be needed to make the tunnel possible. Tunnel cost overruns would be covered by the state. Back to The Stranger:
But the state screwed Seattle at the last minute. One month after signing the agreement, the legislature passed the law capping spending and requiring Seattle to pay for all cost overruns—including all cost overruns on the state’s part of what is a state highway project.
This is an unprecedented funding arrangement: city taxpayers on the hook for a state highway project.
Obviously, these are two very different kinds of projects, but both have some very similar aspects.
- Both projects are projected to costs billions.
- Both kinds of projects often come with absolutely massive cost overruns.
- Both projects are something powerful politicians and corporations pushed/are pushing on a lukewarm public.
- Both kinds of projects have a history of promises made to the public that never materialize.
We should think very carefully before we agree to host the Olympics, because whatever bill of goods is promised us to go along with it can and almost certainly will be changed as corporate sponsors and the IOC worm their way in.
Seattle has found that out the hard way. We should demand answers to all specifics now, while we can, or the deal will get altered for our little Cloud City on the Hill.
It seems to me they could flat out refuse to appropriate money for the Olympics.
Hypothetical:
Boston is made the US Selection by the USOC, then the IOC quickly follows up by choosing it as one of the 3-4 picks across the Globe that it will consider going forward.
At that point, there’s going to be immense political and corporate pressure to get things done. This pressure will come from Beacon Hill and Boston pols, from powerful business interests in the state, from national politicians ,the USOC, the IOC and so on and so forth.
The City Council (or State Legislature) could be confronted with language that will have the city (or state) on the hook for cost overruns.
It may be buried in some piece of legislation much easier to pass, in what’s made to appear as a throwaway provision. This is the sort of thing that could be done in a way that some legislators wouldn’t even know they’re voting for it.
There is also every possibility that some phony deadline could be given to the city or the state, where we have to quickly agree to accepting responsibility for cost overruns or risk losing the games — a manufactured crisis to push it through.
Perhaps most importantly, very few of the present City Councilors/State Legislators would be on the Council/in the Leg when these potential cost overruns happen. There will be very few consequences for those who go along with this kind of provision — but it’s the kind of thing where leadership could crack down on someone who doesn’t fall in line, etc.
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.
being on the hook for cost overruns could be (and almost certainly will be) a condition of getting the games.
Hence my mention of how the IOC or Boston 2024 could manufacture a crisis for that kind of a provision to be signed, should we be selected.
Sounds like this is a private group rather than the City of Boston doing the actual bidding.
The city is involved at every level.
The mayor of the host city is one of the very, very few signatures necessary to host a bid.
Then there’s all the permitting, funding, infrastructure projects, security and so on and so forth.
Then, of course, there will be the eminent domain necessary for venues and ripping up the bulk of Franklin Park for the horse events — as is rumored to be in the plan.
Boston 2024 may have the veneer of a private organization, but make no mistake… it would be the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts and, to a lesser extent, the entire country that would have to put this thing on.
All the costs, money and otherwise, would be put on the burden of the public — while all the benefits and rewards will be privatized, given to the special interests pushing this and the IOC.
The Germans are freaking out about the people that want to put the dressage events at Sanssouci Palace in Potsdam.
As I am still undecided on this issue, the headline shouldn’t be taken to reflect my opinion — but I highly recommend using the translation feature in Google Chrome on this one!
…that a state should not be able to tell a city what it can and cannot do with its money unless the state itself is providing the money for a particular purpose.
they’re called unfunded mandates.
But most of the time, you hope they’re for good reasons. The Olympics isn’t a good reason.
The Boston City council does approve the budget and would have some ability to oppose budgetary items related to the Olympics.
Of course, by the time it came to that, it would probably be after the Olympics were already awarded to the Boston. It would be a lot harder to say no at that time.
This is exactly the point. In theory, the local and state governments could refuse to pick up the tab when the bill inevitably falls in their laps, but the Olympics promoters are banking that when that happens there will be too much momentum for politicians to say no.
Great piece by him in the Cambridge Day on these games.
Apologies for using a Harry Potter reference, but this is sort of like putting one’s name into the Goblet of Fire: Once you get picked, there’s no backing out. Whatever happens, we’re stuck with it, including cost overruns.
Or maybe a marriage is more accurate: You can get out, but it is going to be messy.
Does anyone think that if Boston gets picked by the USOC and, say, a year from now the consensus (once those pesky “details” are known) is, “Hey, we thought it was a good idea, but not so much now. Sorry!” that the USOC and other involved parties are just going to say, “Hey, thanks for trying. Better luck next time.”??? Especially after turning down other cities that would have followed through (especially LA) the USOC isn’t going to be having any of that.
Seems to me that the most effective way to cut this thing off is to make it clear to the USOC, before they make their decision, that there is significant opposition and a chance that the city would back out.
… all this talk is just so much inferiority complex about how Boston can’t do what purported ‘bigger’ and/or ‘better’ cities can do. I refuse that.
I daresay the urge to think this is twofold: a sense of the Olympics being bigger than it really is in concert with the notion of Boston being smaller than it really is. Both notions are false. The Olympics isn’t the end of the world and, if Boston gets it, Boston will deal with it. If Boston don’t get it, Boston will still be a world class city.
The talk is we don’t want to mortgage our future to do this.
Of course we could do it if we wanted, but the cost and the opportunity cost would be mind boggling.
The big point is Boston is already on the map. We’re already a world class city. We already have the best colleges and hospitals. We’re already the center of biotech and one of the centers for finance.
The Olympics takes away from all of those things. It creates hell for the next 10 years as land is left in limbo and can’t be developed. It causes traffic and security nightmares. It siphons off resources that could be better and far more effectively spent. It risks the things we’re already good at — for no tangible long term benefit.
If we want to invest in cultural events residents could enjoy and partake in, let’s do that. Let’s make sure First Night gets the funding it needs. Let’s push hard on Hub Week and turn it into something that could someday rival SWSX. Let’s invest in our subway and infrastructure to enhance neighborhoods and encourage the kind of small business growth that not only grows jobs, but makes neighborhoods more vibrant and interesting.
Let’s invest in Boston’s outlying neighborhoods. Let’s build new parks and cultural institutions — and enhance the ones we already have. Let’s invest in our students, so they’re ready for college and careers and can afford to stay in the city and state they grew up in.
There are so many amazing things we can do for the city, which will have longer term benefits and be something far more residents of the region could take advantage of. Most of these things can be done for a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.
Boston’s MO is about being smart. That’s what makes us great. The Olympics isn’t smart. If we want to become even more of a world class city than we already are, the answer isn’t the glitz of an Olympics for the benefit of the .1% around the world. It’s to do things that are authentically Boston — to expand and enhance the great culture we already have.
I have never seen the Olympics as just being about the uber-rich. In fact, I don’t see it as being much about the uber-rich at all. I see it as a unifying event with roots thousands of years deep where athletes, many of whom most emphatically not of a wealthy background, come together for a couple of weeks every couple of years in a spirit of friendly competition and national pride. Sure, tickets are pricey, but there’s a lot more to it than that.
The only people who actually get to see these games in person are the very wealthy. Even for local residents, historically the ticket prices for events are so high that locals can’t go. Hence why so many of the stands are so empty for most of the time, even for some of the more popular events.
Saying the Olympics are for the .1% isn’t an attempt to label the games, it’s just an accurate description of who gets to see them and enjoy the venues and city its in.
…at least in Rio for 2016, where half the tickets are going for less than 30 USD and many for less than 20 USD. Opening Ceremony tickets start at 86 USD, but if you are the 1% you can always get them for $2000. Follow the link for a second link to an article suggesting Boston has the advantage over other US bids due to its compactness.
… and the actual — you know– athletes competing in them. Unless you’re prepared to argue that they, you know, don’t really count…
The actual total operating costs of the actual 20 days of the actual London Olympics were paid for through tickets and advertising. The actual 20 days of actual athletic competitions paid for themselves. However, in the face of that, your (competing) claims are now:
A) That the costs will have to overrun, because… well, I don’t know why… but just because, I guess..
2) Only rich people will go to them because they cost so much…
I don’t think you can escape the conclusion that IF Operating budget covered THEN no overruns and so we can’t have both A and 2 as described above. They exclude each other.
Personally — and this is just me, see — if I were a restauranteur or hotelier in Boston, or even just worked for one… I wouldn’t give a flying leap why the .1% came to town, only that they did (as they already do) and that they eat in my restaurant or sleep in my hotel…. I doubt very many restaurants and hotels want to turn away the .1%, however much your psyche is disturbed as you find their presence distasteful. You don’t seem to be giving much thought to those in Boston who actually do wish, fervently, for MORE .1% to arrive daily…. most of whom are waiters, waitresses, busboys and hotel staff whose income is dependent upon largesse from the clientele.
If anything Boston has a superiority complex. We are way smaller and have inferior public transportation and infrastructure than nearly all of our USOC competitors, and also far antiquated 19th century laws regulating booze, hours of operation, taxi cab services, and strong local governments that are a significant barrier to the regional planning that will be required for this undertaking.
We would have to make wide-scale permanent changes to our city and region in order to attract the games, and I honestly do not trust that the Olympics will be the catalyst needed to achieve those changes. I do not trust the legislature or organizers to fund those changes in a fiscally responsible manner. And I certainly do not trust the IOC, which has an even worse track record than all of the other players involved in this potential fiasco.
It could be awesome though, opponents are not discounting that possibility. This one isn’t. I am saying that I would rather be a stone cold skeptic than a wide eyed optimist on any kind of public project of this scale. If voters are unwilling to even fund our roads, bridges, and transist system-which unlike the Olympics are things we desperately need to fund, we can be damn well sure there is no public will behind tax payer funding of any kind for these games.
If anything, skeptics like us are saying prove to us that these games will be worth the costs, be upfront and honest about the costs, and let’s have an open and transparent discussion with significant public input. We do not want another Big Dig on our hands, let alone to be left on the hook like London, Athens, Montreal, and so many other cities were with massive white elephants and 30 year repayment plans.
I for one would prefer to go through life as an optimist rather than a skeptic, and while it shouldn’t take the Olympics to motivate us to improve our infrastructure, that may be exactly what it comes down to.
Thinking we can use happy thoughts to place trust in people and a process that have historically been unworthy of that trust is not optimism. It’s a delusion – one that meets Einstein’s definition of insanity, repeating the same mistakes and expecting different outcomes.
Boston has every reason for optimism about its future. But it is prudent, right and proper to be skeptical that the Olympics should be a part of it.
…you in particular seem so harshly anti-Games? From you it has always seemed to be more visceral than just you don’t think they can work.
As are most of us, and he doesn’t like the idea ideologically of spending money that could be spent on the public to fund a large scale event that largely benefits and profits private corporations, and a historically corrupt ‘not for profit’ in the IOC.
That said, I think if an Olympics could spur positive smart growth development, without any cost to taxpayers, than I would be for that Olympics. I just happen to think such an Olympics is unfeasible in Boston for the present on the timetable proposed. We just won’t have the infrastructure in place by 2024. If I thought Boston had a chance at winning the bid, I would be a lot less skeptical. My own experience working on a few minor projects related to Chicago 2016 underlines that skepticism. The costs of that failed bid are still being born by the Chicago taxpayer, and by those whose mental health clinics and schools are being closed to patch up the budget.
This is starting to sound like the same “liberals” who won’t support space exploration, resuming moon missions, or a manned mission to Mars or whatever else the next great thing might be just because the benefits aren’t immediately obvious and there are “better” things to spend money on. Yet JFK identified as liberal and championed a manned mission to the Moon.
We could build an interstate system, launch a War on Poverty, create Medicare and Medicaid, AND try to send a manned mission to the moon.
We’ve starved our government so much since the late 70s that I’d be thrilled if the potholes got filled within 6 months and the Green Line doors didn’t fly open while the train was moving.
Scripture says that without a vision the people perish, and we desperately need a vision to get to what you describe.
but it’s not things like the Olympics.
We need to do what we already do, just better.
Education, biotech, tech, history, art, music, parks, diverse neighborhoods — these are the things that make Boston great. We don’t need something as superficial as the Olympics to improve upon what we already have; we need to double down on our recipe to make sure more and more in Boston share its success, so it reaches into the outlying neighborhoods and across the broader region.
Jconway is correct above – Boston does have a superiority complex and rightfully so. Boston of all cities CAN make this work because Boston is a place that does anything it sets its mind to. I don’t see anyone arguing that Boston “needs” the Olympics in order to prove something.
I have no idea either what this will actually cost us or what we would get from it.
I am diametrically opposed to the public being fleeced so a bunch of billionaires and millionaires can have a three week party they aren’t working to pay for themselves.
I meant to write “willing to pay for themselves”
(Not working to pay for)
…so it sounds like you’ve cornered them into a can’t win with you situation.
Lots of times.
It’s very common for the Olympics to be sold to the public by saying it will be low cost and mostly privately financed. It just hasn’t materialized that way for a very, very long time — forcing governments around the globe to bail them out.
The IOC makes the rules. JConway’s diaries alone make that very clear, if you want a community member’s take on it who has been deeply exposed to the issue. And as he’s pointed out, local committees trying to get the games always bend toward those rules.
I’m just not willing to accept at face value whatever Boston 2024 has to say with that context, particularly since Boston 2024 has at every step of the way avoided transparency and acted in absolute secrecy, without allowing any community or neighborhood groups have any input in the bid process — the people who would be most effected.
If they wanted to earn our trust, so we could take them at their word, they have a funny way of showing it. So I reject the notion that I’ve walked them into a corner. They’ve created the corner themselves, and deserve all the scrutiny they’ve been receiving from concerned citizens such as myself.
Therefore they have no record one way or the other regarding fiscal responsibility. That’s why I asked about city involvement earlier. It sounds like Boston 2024 is a group of private citizens who should be allowed to get their ducks in a row before we all jump down their throats.
A group of people who will profit immensely by these games is hardly some random group of folks trying to deliver us an Olympics.
Let’s not kid ourselves.
Only that they are from the private sector rather than an official arm of the city government.
should be more concerning, not less.
This is particularly dangerous given the political power the executives and lobbyists on this committee wield. They are among the most politically powerful people in this state that anyone could put together who don’t hold elective office.
The make up of this committee and the way the process has played out is absolutely disconcerting. This isn’t just some ad hoc group brainstorming some silly idea. If it’s selected by the IOC, it’s selected by the IOC and there won’t ever be any democratic aspect to this proposal.
Had Boston 2024 made great care to include activists and neighborhood groups at all levels of planning — so we’d know there were people on the committee who could ensure neighborhoods would be protected and that the games would truly be funded fairly — then there’d be far less reason for concern, even if the details were still kept secret for now.
That’s just not the case, and the fact that neighborhood groups and activists across the state were uninvited to take part in the committee’s work is very telling. It de-legitimizes the entire committee and process.
…that the well-connected have just as much as any grassroots group to pursue a goal for their city and state. Being connected is not per se a bad thing. You said the Mayor’s signature is required and he arguably speaks for the City, though I guess I am a little surprised the Council doesn’t have to vote to make the bid official. I have often pushed back against those (JohnD comes to mind.) who think we hate the wealthy just ’cause, but frankly your attitude toward them on this topic makes that argument rather difficult.
I begrudge a process that would allow the wealthy and powerful to decide everything and purposefully keep everyone else, who may raise some issues having to do with neighborhoods and funding, away.
… especially given your own reasoning that Boston has a ‘superiority complex’: under such aegis one might expect a confidence simultaneously willing to distrust skepticism and confront optimism while still moving forward. Not a single thing on this entire blog written in opposition to the Olympics, however, allows for any such confidence: it is sure rampage and de facto overreach on the part of the bidders and clear fumbling and persistent placement behind the eight ball for all others.
Your parade of horribles could happen. I fully accept that possibility.
it is the raging surety with which it is posited that such, and worse, will happen that I reject.
I’m an optimist, and I believe the people who tell me that they have a secret plan that will ensure that the nuke won’t cost us a cent.
And think of the benefits for the um…people who will benefit from it. Not only that, it will show all those folks at Fukishima and Chernobyl how a world class city does things.
You other liberals may want to talk my nuke to death–go ahead and try. But I say let’s move forward with this plan while we talk. Things will be different with this nuke. In due course, like after we have the foundation in, we can reveal a little of our proprietary plan and tell you how it’s different.
Hey, but who needs a plan? I have a vision!
…Let’s imagine that everybody, everywhere, is going to get Ebola, so why do anything!?!?
MIT has had a 6MW nuclear reactor in Cambridge proper since 1958. That is, actually, how a world class institution does things.
…You were saying?
I am genuinely curious to hear your reasoning. Have at it.
I am genuinely curious to hear your reasoning. Have at it.
… that’s a problem. It’s your problem. It is twofold:
1) That ship sailed. If you want to see any reasoning upon my part, either for or against, you’ll have to go read what I first presented some several weeks ago. It’s all right here on this blog. Asking me now, however genuinely, is late and suggests you were not genuine then when we went around and around on it prior… And I’m not sanguine about re-hashing arguments you ignored prior…
B) More importantly, you assume that because I’m looking through the holes in your logic and questioning your perspectives on the city and/or the Olympics means I want to or ought to make a case ‘for’ the Olympics. It is possible that I could be as determinedly against it as you are and still disagree with your logic and find your perspective flawed. Or I could be completely indifferent. Whatever my motivations, If the Olympics is a bad idea, it’s unlikely that bad logic and distorted perspectives is going to work in attempting to kill it. However, and this is something you should seriously consider, if bad logic and flawed perspective are what brought you to the conclusion that the Olympics is a bad idea, then it’s actually still up in the air as to whether or not it is a bad idea. This is not me saying, therefore, it’s a good idea. This is me saying you’ve not made your case.
I don’t recall you doing part A at all-just part B. Poking holes from every angle, it’s a good APDA debate tactic for an opposition member, but the case for the Olympics is an affirmative one. You can’t simply negate our reasoning against it to justify it-however much fun or success you seem to think you’ve had at that. What’s the positive case, what’s the governments case to use debate terms for this project?
If you referred to it several weeks ago Im happy to read it. I don’t recall it being advanced in any of our go arounds.
…. I have no wish to justify it. I don’t particularly care one way or the other any more. I’m not trying to negate your reasoning. I’m merely pointing out that your reasoning isn’t good reasoning and, in fact, it negates itself. Someone who’s ostensibly on your side –absent any emotional investment and/or poutrage — should have the same problem with it…
That’s not your point. Your diary is entitled “Can we believe Boston won’t be on the hook for Olympic cost overruns?.” The title of your diary is not “Boston is awesome regardless…”
The title, the tone and content of your diary posits the absolute surety of overruns (Olympics big) and further suggests the inability of the city to handle them under any circumstance (Boston small). That’s it. It’s a clear sense of inferiority where the Olympics are all damage and the city is all shortcomings. I cry bullshit on that.
And yet —somehow— smart isn’t enough, for you. What makes us great isn’t great enough to surmount the the Olympics. You’re all:
Problem: Olympics.
Solution: None. Not even smarts.
So we’re great… but not great enough? How does that make ANY sense at all?
I’d really love for you to say that to Nancy Kerrigan and I’d pay to hear you say that to Mike Eruzione…Or Usain Bolt… or, indeed, any of the 15,000 athletes who’ll come here, or LA or Rome or Nairobi — or wherever the Olympics is held– I’d love to hear you call them party entertainment — prostitutes even– who perform solely for the amusement of the .1%. Is that really where you want to go? If Wikipedia is to be belileved, Nancy Kerrigans father worked three jobs to fund her dreams of skating competitively. Mike Eruziones father was a bartender. Hardly entre to the .1%. Usain Bolt is the son of a grocery store manager. If you think this is a party for ‘the benefit of the .1% around the world” you’ve been drinking the wrong kool-aid.
The Olympics is about the best in the world competing against the best in the world. That’s what it’s about. That’s why, despite Sochi and despite Beijing, despite Greece and despite the corruption of the IOC, it’s still a draw, it’s still a spectacle and it’s still a sight to see. If you don’t want to pay for that, say so. Don’t fudge the issue with fantasia about inability or skullduggery or some inchoate notion that the .1% get something more out of it than the rest of us. Say what it is, and defend or defy that… but you’re not getting anywhere making shit up.
Here are some things that would not happen without the public “being on the hook” for cost overruns:
Subprime mortgage securities
Construction of nuclear power plants
Modern Olympic games
Google “moral hazard” for more.
I was surprised at how shabby and long in the tooth the basic infrastructure has gotten since I returned from 10 years in Seattle.
We are among the top 10 wealthiest states with an economy the size of Thailand but the years of GOP governors and Democratic crook ward heelers have made the place look like someone blew the rent money on crack.
The DINO’s seem to have internalized their fear of Grover Norquist so he becomes a proxy force in a place that should have laughed him out of town.
And the ditz progressives wasted the time focused on picayune identity politics that induces eye glaze on the unaffiliated.
Now we are supposed to go through the same parade of frauds and cheats over some stupid and embarrassing jock fest, that’s mainly a hangover from the rise of mindless nationalism, so insecure boosters can yap about how world class we are.
As others have readily noted, the area has enough going on without gumming up the works over this preposterous conceit and borderline scam from our provincial oligarchs who should have been reined in a decade or so ago.
I take comfort in the low likelihood that it will ever happen.
I’d love to read sabutai’s paper and hear more from him. I mean that genuinely, since he tends to be someone with a great international and rational based arguments. I think the boosters have to put facts on the table and not just well meaning assurances.
I want to see a detailed plan with an honest assessment and public conversation about the costs. Seems like a fairly basic things we can agree on.