It’s not showtime yet, but auditions are underway for the big stage of the 2024 Summer Games here in our wee burg of Boston.
Somehow Boston edged our the U.S. competition to become the USOC pick. Now of course, it will go up against numerous cities around the world for the same prize. Or is it a prize after all and not a curse?
Last week I sat in for the unabashed boosters who proclaim the (to them) certain glories of hosting an Olympics games. While clearly skeptical, I tried to put their position forward, the likes of thousands of jobs, huge advances in infrastructure and housing, tens of thousands of new jobs, and all financed privately with no tax dollars. There is another view.
Today Aaron Leibowitz represented No Boston Olympics with that view. It centers from every angle with we don’t know.
Click below to hear 24 minutes with Leibowitz on the Olympics bid and process.
NoBostonOlympics leads the public opposition. It starts with the secrecy and obfuscation. Leibowitz notes that the bidding process to this point lunged and plunged ahead in camera. Under the umbrella of Boston 2024, the boosters have gone from we’ll tell and show you nothing, to we won the bid for the U.S., to we’ll surely be transparent…eventually, to we’ll show reporters our bid but they can’t have copies, to we’ll have public meetings around town. Those meetings do have a schedule, which is here, starting next week and then one monthly through September.
I’m not sure Boston Mayor Marty Walsh reads the dictionary the same way as most of us. He has claimed repeatedly that this drive to host the games will be entirely transparent and open. So far that has not at all been the case. Whether opening up the bid and books and process to hoi polloi will turn us too into boosters will only be seen if that happens.
Meanwhile, WBUR stepped in with its own poll of citizens. A bare majority was in favor of having the games here, a third were opposed, but most tellingly, three quarters wanted a public vote, like a referendum, on the matter. Leibowitz noted that in cities seeking games, 70 to 90% of the public normally supported the bid.
NoBostonOlympics cites the invariable massive cost overruns in Olympics going back 60 years or more. Many have pointed to white-elephant stadia and other facilities after what Leibowitz called “a three-week party.” Moreover, Olympics history shows that a lot of public money, paid by taxes, will be required; the Boston 2024 folk and Mayor Walsh swear that we are different and this Olympics would be privately financed.
Leibowitz and I kicked around the billions of preparatory infrastructure improvements. That is a fascinating sales point for pro and con sides. The pro-Olympics folk hold that having to plan and prepare for games would force the Boston area to invest in roads, bridges, housing, mass transit and other permanent public goods. The con folk make it plain that if we need these, we should simply do them without the huge added costs associated with the Olympics.
There are those arguing that we are so clever here that we can show the IOC and the whole world the right way to host games physically and financially. Leibowitz counters that much of the process and costs are out of the host city’s control and responsive to IOC requirements. Those who believe that we in Boston and Massachusetts can avoid the pits into which the other host cities have fallen are simply “naive,” he says.
NoBostonOlympics is also hosting public meetings, with notifications on the mailing list, main site, and Facebook page. At the least, they want that promised transparency. They think a public vote, maybe a ballot referendum next year would make sense. They are also lobbying legislators and city councilors.
Leibowitz said they were getting some good responses already. However, he cited a quote in a Boston Magazine article that so far pols are afraid to be openly anti or even questioning of the Olympics. Until the public is also expressing skepticism, being anti-Olympics may be seen as “unpatriotic.”
~Mike
I’m involved with No Boston 2024, another opposition group (allied with but different from No Boston Olympics). We have a meeting this Thursday at 7 PM at the Community Church of Boston in Copley Square. Please join if you’re interested!
I’m not impressed with this:
And this…
Somehow doesn’t jibe with this…
People who believe “Boston is one of the great cities on earth, and we don’t need rings to prove it.” don’t say thinks like “Boston really wants to play with the big kids” or “Somehow Boston edged out…” They can’t say those things, because those things are at odds with each other: either Boston is one of the Big Kids or it isn’t one of the “great cities on earth”
Why can’t they just outright say: “We don’t think Boston is up to the task,” and be done?? It would, it seems, have the virtue of honesty.
With some paraphrasing of one of his strongest arguments from the great mind:
To denote the near infinite number of stars in the galaxies in the universe? It also applies succinctly to the Big Dig, er the Olympics that we are looking at undertaking. Sagan was a proponent of spending more money on people and less money on missiles and military equipment. At the local level, Boston should spend more money on it’s people and less money on schemes and projects that enrich developers at the expense of the Commonwealth.
The Olympics could very well be the kind of project that helps ordinary people, Mayor Curtatone has a nice proposal outlining how it could do so, so far it seems that Boston 2024 and Marty Walsh are choosing to ignore that proposal, ignore the opposition, and try and get the bid passed as quickly as possible with as little oversight as possible.
You rightly pointed out in 2008 that Boston barely handled the 2004 convention and is nowhere near capable of handling the 2024 bid, I would be sincerely interested in actual arguments from you as to why this bid makes sense rather than endless snarky comments belittling it’s opposition.
Perhaps I forgot it, but Boston handled 2004 quite well. Best parking I ever had. No traffic to speak of.
Are you trying to say that all people who are opposed to the Olympics are not using the exact same rhetoric?
In any case, who really cares whether Boston is “one of the big kids” or not? The vast majority of people in the region simply don’t care.
I think it is pretty clear that not everyone who is opposed to the Olympics believes that Boston is not up to the task, so I don’t see how saying the opposite is “honest”.
… that the only rhetoric I’ve heard is that Boston is A) already great-and-awesome and 2) unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. Massmarrier posted either all of the above quotes or links to all of the above quotes.
But to address your point of “not all people who opposed…” If different people oppose the Olympics under different, opposing, grounds then they oppose each other, also… So the reason to oppose is opposed to another reason to oppose. The people who think Boston is awesome must, therefore, think that Boston can walk and chew gum simultaneously whereas the people who do not think that Boston can walk n chew gum all at once must, therefore, think that Boston is NOT awesome. They are therefore opposed to each other. If you have a multitude of reasons to oppose something, that’s doesn’t meant opposition is the default, or even the coherent, choice.
If, in fact, they are not different people, but the same people then they are not being honest. They might believe one or the other, or neither, but they cannot believe both.
Perhaps they are not being honest with themselves?
If that is the only rhetoric you have heard, then you clearly have not been paying much attention. That being the case, why is your observation especially interesting?
You really are picking nits here.
… there are some people saying Boston doesn’t need to the Olympics because Boston is already a world class city. There are other people saying Boston simply isn’t a world class city. There is yet a third, perhaps sizeable, group of people saying both.
So the people who are arguing that Boston is a world class city are at odds with the people who are arguing that Boston is simply not a world class city… though they purportedly share the same goal of not having an Olympics in Boston… And the people who are arguing both are, in fact, arguing with themselves.
Maybe it’s just me, but not only is that of interest, it’s quite fascinating. That you want to hang your rhetorical hat on that is, likewise, quite fascinating.
Why does it matter that not everyone who opposes the Olympics does it for the exact same reason or whether they all think Boston is a so-called “world class city”?
I would argue that the whole “world class city” rhetoric comes primarily from the original Olympics boosters, and some from the anti crowd are simply echoing it back. The phrase actually means absolutely nothing.
… because some people voted for Mitt Rmoney because they thought he would make a better president… others voted for Mitt Rmoney because Barack Obama was black. For some other people, neither of those reasons are legitimate but one is, at least, understandable and the other is risible.
Try again
The one thing I’ve noticed about proponents is a funny mechanical outlook as if it is all gears, pulleys and imaginary leverage that this expensive spectacle will magically set in motion.
This mechanistic outlook recurs in other unrelated arguments here, as if life is a car engine to fix.
The opponents seem to understand that this is a kind of urban ecosystem with endemic elements in a dynamic state of interaction. They are more alert to things as they are and don’t believe things as they are will change when played on a blue guitar.
Beyond that, the diversity of opinion regarding whether Boston is adequately world class can still lead to a similar conclusion. We don’t need it.
The mechanists haven’t done the best job of making it clear how the contraption is going to magically spin out fixes that our crooked legislature and callow run of GOP governors have blown off forever out of fear that the haunting specter of Tax and Spend will roost like some vulture on the porch.
The organics have an easier job, describe things as they are while being steadfast about scoffing at any fatuous claims that “oh no … baby… this time it’ll be different…” That would be the persistence of pessimism cited by the glib.
The tourism canard is interesting. The argument that tourism is an economic engine to drive us out of the slovenly hovel we’ve made of the place is mainly a comfort to bar tenders and hard hats.
I’m gradually making the rounds and canvassing friends about this. They are a diverse bunch and don’t always know one another.
Reactions range from utter scoffing derision to more tempered observations about our present and long standing incapacities such as road net, hotel room numbers and and intrinsic layout and design.
But so far, no one, that’s NO ONE.. thinks it is a good or smart idea. I promise when someone in the crew agrees that it will be all the things the mechanists fervently believe it will be, you all will be the first to know.
And while attempts to wave the NIMBY cudgel are to be expected, one could just as well argue that this isn’t a ‘back yard’. The thing will have a fat regional footprint with out sized benefits, if any, mainly blessing Boston, while downside liabilities mainly afflicting the rest of the cantankerous commonwealth.
Are we to be swayed by bartender delusions of the big score or should we subject this pile of wishful thinking foam and froth to the most ruthless scrutiny possible?
One interesting precedent may be in the claims advanced about another presumed economic multiplier, the arts.
Arts advocates have been yapping for years about how the arts lead to economic enhancements. The argument is a variation of ‘build it and they will come’ or ‘rain follows the plow’.
I fervently wished it were so, but I have visited and or lived in several places that went along with it and results have been negligible. Does anyone see any notable transformations of Pittsfield, North Adams or Lynn as a result of their two fisted embrace of the the transformative economic power of the arts?
Me neither and I spent a significant part of my life as an arts advocate and really, really wanted it to be so.
Boston already has plenty going for it regardless. I do feel like the opposition only has to raise doubts, find one thing that can’t be answered at least to their satisfaction. Kind of like how evolution and climate deniers argue with someone who may not have all the science at the tip of their tongue, but at least understand that the science of those things is valid.
Yes, that may well be why I mentioned opponents have an easier task.
Climate change denial and Olympics aversion are interesting bedfellows, but unlikely to produce any viable offspring.
And one can think what one will, but the booster chorus here has been pretty fervent about arguing that this may be the needed lever to fix the consequences of a few decades of co-mingled sloth and avarice wafted over the fruited plain with weapons grade venality.
It may well be that the dodged bullet lodges in some other sucker venue city and this tumult will subside.
Til then, the early and often opposition is a nice expression of the general low regard boosters and shills have come to enjoy as a consequence of their own persistence.
We have empirical evidence and historical examples on our side, like Darwin did, they just have the power of positive thinking and if we believe in Boston hard enough, we can get whatever we want. It’s just like the prosperity Gospel. It helps believing the Earth was created in just seven days when you think Boston can get it’s crap together in just eight years.
The insurgency against it all is still in a nascent stage but has done a pretty good of shredding the various pitches.
The billable hours for communications consultants are likely to be a significant part of that initial budget. And all this firepower is so far directed at a relative handful of initial opponents that will likely increase as the nothing sandwich contents are disclosed.
I’ll laugh if it backfires.
Creationists just say God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
It’s all well and good to ratify your satisfaction, but that amounts to what?… Your satisfaction?
The same could apply to me. It looks like the elements of opposition are demanding a a greater degree of detail than satisfies you. There is a rest of the world out there you might check when time permits.
It’s neither you nor me and will evolve as a fabric of consensus either way the decision breaks.
Like a creationist, when I ask where’s the evidence they point me to genesis and you point me back to the bid site which says diddly squat on any if these questions.
What are the costs? Whose paying for it? What does the city get beyond bragging rights? Are the Olymlics the most effective way of getting those benefits? I haven’t heard you answer any of those questions beyond “trust the bid, trust the boosters, they know what they are doing”. How is that not a claim to faith? It certainly isn’t a claim to evidence.
http://www.2024boston.org/faq
How hard is that?
Take the page they’ve labeled ‘faq’ which purports to separate myth from fact and pick it apart. Closing your eyes, clapping your hand over your ears and and saying “LALALALALALA” doesn’t make it any less of a defense for their position.
Furthermore, a document dump is planned for this evening. Do yourself a favor and don’t come here tomorrow without having read through it.
In any case, it will be interesting to see what so-called “proprietary” information has been redacted from the document dump.
I do not believe that you are debating in earnest. I will no longer engage with you on this topic.
Is that a threat or a promise and how does one sign up for this engagement exemption?
And noted the Myth/Fact structure was larded with conceits.
You want more neutral language like Problem/Solution. Calling legitimate likely concerns myths and offering fabricated answers out of pr handouts doesn’t really count. It mainly suggests the consultants who drafted the FAQ are likely to be airheads with a poor sense of constituent mollification.
In other words the FAQ is a simulacra… a withered booby prize..okay?
It might make a cool performance piece though.
or we would not be having this discussion.
…insult anybody considering something that you don’t agree with. I was pretty much on the fence, but I feel a surprising absolutism on the No side.
I haven’t been insulting. I just want to see the affirmative case, Curtatone have one of sorts and I feel I was fair in my assessment. Petr gave me a link to a bunch of talking points I’ve already refuted, but I am eager to hear your perspective.
And a quality resource with working experience and process insight into what has gotta be a fairly unusual lore trove.
But it isn’t what the boosters want to hear, so your dismantling wounds them even though they expect the rest of us to believe that a spume of froth is the rock of Gibraltar.
However, I suspect the effect will be stronger in pushing people away from the Olympics rather than toward it.
include:
Boston2024 will need bonds from the state and maybe even legislative authorization for new bonds to be issued for construction of the buildings and some infrastructure improvements they will seek (and despite petr’s pathetic comments last week, they will try to reach into my and every other taxpayer’s wallet for this);
since the Commonwealth already has more dollars in bonding authorized than it can spend under the state cap, any accelerated spending or new-as-yet-unauthorized-bonds, they will need to convince the Commonwealth to not fund projects elsewhere in the state (it won’t bother me but this kills the South Coast rail proposal);
they will need permission from the federal government to use any property owned by the USPS at the General Mail Facility at South Station;
they will need permission from the UMass board and maybe the legislature to use the old Expo convention facilities in Dorchester for the Olympic Village;
they will need permits from numerous state agencies to use state park properties including the banks of the Charles or the Merrimac;
they will need state Highway dept approval for curb cuts on state highways;
they may need further state and federal permits;
they will need to deal with the NIMBY crowd that lives on Beacon Hill and who won’t like losing “their” Boston Common;
and now they need to deal with Bob DeLeo who today said he wants the games spread out across other communities.
And then we are going to have to sort out whether there is a legal conflict between Bob Popeo and his numerous state and local government client, including the aforementioned DeLeo who spent $200,000 on Popeo last year alone.
As expected, the newly published bid documents aren’t much more than glossy brochures filled with beautiful color pictures of athletes and pretty graphics, but very little if any supporting information to justify their figures.
If you look at transportation part of the posted bid documents it seems pretty clear that they realize that there is absolutely no way that Boston can support regular commuting/traveling patterns along with Olympic traffic (the plan does included the dreaded Olympics-only roads and highway lanes). They don’t really have a plan for this other than ride-sharing and marketing/outreach to convince everyone to stay off the streets.
Not that this should really be a surprise to anyone, but any non-retail businesses with offices downtown or in Cambridge should plan to shut down for the weeks the Olympics are in town.
There is the quid pro quo to Mitt Romney, since the operating premise is that the Republicans in Congress will bail out the Commonwealth.
Which said Republicans would be stupid to do…
However at least Romney is conspicuous in his fiscal honesty here:
DeLeo is quoted in the State House News Service today:
In addition to the location of venues, DeLeo said paying for the Olympics is an
issue he’s concerned about.
“I don’t want to see Boston turn out to be as some Olympics have in the past, in
terms of where you’ve had millions and millions of dollars in deficit, where you’ve had facilities that have had to be mothballed because they’re of no further use to the community,” he said. “So I’m interested to get some finalization in how that is going to be addressed.”
and then
“Right now I’d like to see if I can get answers to some of the questions which I
just raised before I would be able to answer that. I feel that we’re sort of caught up in the frenzy and excitement of being chosen as the city. But I think we have a ways to go in terms of finding out some of the answers, some of the solutions to some of the problems that have been raised.”
A broken clock is right.
I might add, he is at least consistent in penny pinching. No new taxes, no new transit revenue, no new transit-kinda hard to have an Olympics. At least he is honest about that.