On Friday, the Boston Globe released the first post-USOC announcement poll about how people in Boston and Massachusetts as a whole feel about the city’s 2024 Olympic bid. This poll has been widely cited as saying that the people in the city and across the state back Boston 2024.
But does the poll really show such support? Not if you dig deeper into the questions.
(1) The first question was “How strongly do you support or oppose the bid?” This is a strange question, given that no one has ever seen the bid and that Boston 2024 has no plans to release it in full.
Nevertheless, this question produced the numbers most often cited: 55.30% support vs. 39.59% oppose. These numbers were similar whether people lived in Boston or not:
Boston: 53.73% support vs. 40.45% oppose
Rest of State: 55.98% support vs. 39.21% oppose
Statewide, 34.91% were strong supporters and 27.12% were strong opponents. In Boston, those numbers were 34.44% and 29.25%, respectively.
(2) Next, the poll asked, “If Boston were chosen to host the Olympics, would you purchase tickets to attend the games in person?”
45.32% of respondents said that they would definitely or probably attend, whereas 49.07% said that they would definitely or probably not attend.
Boston: 48.54% attend vs. 44.60% not attend
Rest of State: 43.94% attend vs. 50.98% not attend
(3) Next, the poll asked, “In your opinion, how likely is it that the Olympic expenditures, such as infrastructure and site construction, will produce a lasting economic benefit for the City of Boston?”
A plurality of respondents found the Olympics unlikely to produce a lasting economic benefit for Boston: 48.38% somewhat/very unlikely vs. 45.45% somewhat/very likely. “Very unlikely” was the most common answer with 28.37% of respondents, and “very likely” the least common with only 19.76%.
There was a divide between Boston and the rest of the state here, but the public was fairly evenly split in both cases. In both Boston and the rest of the state, “very unlikely” was the most common answer.
Boston: 47.72% likely vs. 44.82% unlikely
Rest of State: 44.48% likely vs. 49.91% unlikely
(4) The next question asked, “How about a lasting economic benefit for Greater Boston?”
Here, again, a plurality found a lasting economic benefit unlikely: 48.25% to 43.77%, with “very unlikely” again the most common answer.
The results here were largely similar to those of the prior question.
Boston: 46.27% likely vs. 43.16% unlikely
Rest of State: 44.69% likely vs. 50.45% unlikely
(5) The next question asked, “How about a lasting economic benefit for the rest of the state?”
Here, a majority found such a benefit to be unlikely: 57.61% vs. 33.10%, with “very unlikely” the most common response at 37.22%.
There was a clear divide between Boston and the rest of the state, but a majority of respondents—whether inside Boston or not—didn’t see a benefit as likely:
Boston: 51.45% vs. 47.55%
Rest of State: 60.25% vs. 32.35%
(6) The next question asked respondents to identify which of two statements was closer to their own view:
(a) Most costs will be carried by business and there will be long term economic benefits.
(b) Financial support for the Olympics will come at the expense of other worthwhile causes.
Respondents overwhelmingly said that the latter statement came closer to their view: 54.43% to 23.13%. (22.44% were unsure.)
The results were similar for both Boston and the rest of the state:
Boston: 52.07% to 25.52%
Rest of State: 55.44% to 22.1%
(7) The final question—and the most important one—was “Would you support or oppose Boston’s bid for the Olympics if taxpayer dollars were used to back the 2024 Olympic bid?”
The public was overwhelmingly opposed here: 60.85% opposed vs. 32.92% supportive. “Strongly oppose” was the most common response, with 43.27%. “Strongly support” was now the least common, with only 10.85%.
The whole state agreed on this:
Boston: 61.00% vs. 31.74%
Rest: 60.78% vs. 33.42%
If 61% of people oppose the Olympic bid if taxpayer dollars will be used—and taxpayer dollars will be used, as we already know (See here, here, here)—then 61% oppose the Olympic bid. Focusing only or primarily on the results for the first question is thus disingenuous.
The disingenuous part IMO is claiming that the promise of no tax dollars was ever intended to include things that are generally publicly funded anyway such as security and infrastructure. I suspect many respondants assume as I do that the no public money pledge meant no public funding for things that are part of the Games themselves such as stadia or an Olympic Village. That is why you can get a subset of respondants who say they support the bid while opposing tax dollars FOR THE OLYMPICS PER SE which has not been discussed. Speaking of the bid, the first question isn’t strange at all. It’s obviously not asking about the details of the bid documents and should be interpreted, as again I assume most respondants did, as supporting the simple fact that Boston has bid for the Games.
Do you support spending taxpayer dollars on free ice cream? Do you support spending taxpayer dollars on saving puppies and kittens? As long as the letters T-A-X are in there somewhere, people’s natural reaction is going to be “no way.”
We have seen plenty examples of cities responding enthusiastically to spending money on stadiums to keep or lure a major sports franchise. Of course, Boston isn’t one of those, so here in New England that might be true.
You have a bare majority of 3-5 points if it is a something for nothing pipe dream that quickly flips to a larger majority against once actual potential costs are aired.
And this is early.
Time has a nice summary. http://time.com/3660945/boston-olympics-2024/
Because just as everyone hates taxes, everyone loves infrastructure.
We may end up with a lot of structures that are financed by public money that are then deeded over to tax-exempt institutions. And that’s just talking about the “benefits” of having the Olympics here. The call it infrastructure; I call it institutional expansion.
…they really are talking about public infrastructure – upgrading a traffic circle and a T station.
It’s interesting to see who is pushing this: Bob Kraft and John Fish.
Even if Suffolk Construction doesn’t get Olympic contracts, it would profit from the change in real estate values and the increased construction in Boston.
And, Kraft owns the soccer team, Revolution. He must be considering the impact of Olympics soccer on his team. Of course infrastructure improvements in Foxboro (like more parking and wider roads) would also help Kraft’s retail empire.
So, you can look for these guys to engage in some type of PR campaign to sell the Olympics to everybody. The polling results will change as the PR campaign occurs.
We can start by considering the source of the Globe poll.
Sage Systems is a full-service consulting company with expertise in constituency-building for large projects.
From their website:
Real Estate Development/Community Process:
Real Estate:
The merits or lack thereof of the Olympics aside, its proponents are playing big league politics.
The parking and road network for Gillette are built out.
The Boston stadium for the Revolution is another matter, though I suspect that’s going to happen regardless of the Olympics. The parcel it’s supposedly eyeing has pretty much no future if a stadium doesn’t get built on it — nestled against I-93 makes it a poor site for housing or office/retail. I’m sure Kraft will try to get as much money as possible to build it, but I’m guessing the city will give him the land for a song because it’s one of the few spots where a stadium makes sense.
Wasn’t it supposed to be a Somerville stadium near old industrial spots near North Point? To attract Latino fans/be near new green line stops?
Also is Foxborough being considered for an Olympic site? I know it hosted a World Cup event (and that was the crappier Schaffer/Sullivan/Old Foxboro), but I am not sure the roadways could handle that kind of capacity, nor the commuter rail.
Speaking of the World Cup, that is how the IOC should do the Olympics. A Host country and you can spread the events out in different cities. If soccer teams had to fly to the middle of the rainforest, surely Olympians could handle travel during a similar competition window.
Of course using Boston 2024 logic, getting the World Cup is the right push America needs to adopt high speed rail.
The original discussion had been about the Inner Belt, but that might have necessitated development on the air rights over an MBTA maintenance yard (or the Grand Junction Railroad giving up some property). The second idea had been Assembly Square, though Kraft never showed much interest beyond using the rumor of a potential stadium in that area to help with the team’s annual season ticket push (e.g. buy tickets now so that you’ve got priority when we move to Boston). Supposedly Revere and Providence had spoken with them too.
Starting to look like all of that was the Krafts marking time until they could rekindle a conversation in Boston. Menino was a brick wall. Walsh has a Moakley bent (nothing more beautiful than a construction crane).
Foxborough’s built to handle what it currently handles. Doesn’t matter if it’s the Pats, the Olympics or the monsters of country music tour. I would think it would be a secondary facility for the Olympics just because it’s well outside the city and it doesn’t have a track.
Love the idea of spreading around an Olympics to multiple cities.
The wiki entry on it is quite fascinating. Friends of mine are pushing to make it into a bike path (the portion over the river would be quite stunning), but it may end up being more viable for a future North-South connector line. The tracks are quite old, and an interesting vestige of industrial history for the area.
I remember trains crossing the street grade on the Alewife parkway for the Watertown Fitchburg branch when I was a kid, I guess this one baking company insisted on getting it’s flour via rail until the tracks became too dangerous for use, right through the turn of the century. But it’s now a possible benchmark for the GJR advocates to study.
I’m just mixing down Waltham video that will include the last segment of the Watertown Branch where it rejoins the main Fitchburg line. I did the Cambridge and Watertown parts as far as the Arsenal last year.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn9_gps3Y_g7w1SNgfn6bkl7o7ZJMflhr
Grand Junction has two rail beds in the Charles crossing. It carries a daily run to the Chelsea produce center from a new yard in Framingham. CSX vacated the Allston yard last year.
The active track one was repaired and belongs to DOT. Commuter rail uses it to shuttle engines and stock from South Station to it’s repair yard near North Point. The inactive one was stripped of all rail and ties but the bridge frame remains and is the element people are considering for a bikeway.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn9_gps3Y_g7j7ynL1rynJyqYI_j1227D
One of my past times is looking at the ghost rail infrastructure and keeping track of how it is being converted to bikeways.
An important section of the Mass Central Rail Trail would have been done more than a decade ago if it weren’t for Westonian xenophobia.
And that was the main reason.
I covered that last year and 2013 from the now buried point where it left the Lowell line in Somerville to the point where Route 20 rides over it in Wayland.
It isn’t just xenophobia. It is classic rich asshole selfishness.
Westons use that thing extensively as it works quite well now as an ad hoc trail. It serves joggers, fat tire bikes, dog walkers and the occasional horse back run.
And it is like an open air rail artifact museum. It even has cattle culverts from the days when Weston was a sleepy sheep and cow town.
There is a killer old depot in Weston that has become a rental home. And it’s near a stunning concrete bridge.
http://youtu.be/ZH5bsfLCDlE
You can also see examples of Weston Who Ya Know clout as they buried one crossing with a back fill because they didn’t want to build a bridge.
Rail trail creation is strange here. Dover is cock blocking another effort involving the Bay Colony line that runs from Newton Lower Falls to Medfield. I covered the Needham stretch along High Point last summer.
http://youtu.be/tupIljR2jzI
I still wonder about the main outfit that removes rails for the scrap money as they seem to drag things out quite well on their own.
The DOT handed down a ruling last year that lets towns make a basic trail surface with rock dust instead of requiring much more expensive pavement. It’s like a trial phase.
The DCR is very keen on finishing the Waltham to Wayland section, which is being called the Wayside Trail.
Lynn is also punting on completion of the Northern Strand trail, a really strange line that meanders all over the place through Malden, Revere, Saugus and Lynn.
In many ways both are well situated and are just rotting away. There is a concentration of Latin American and Asian immigrants there now including a significant soccer constituency.
They are also close to the Airport, the Blue Line is fairly reliable as the T goes. The road net is no prize but what is?
But of course, Beacon Hill is where good ideas go to die and bad ideas get fast tracked.
You’d think there would be some action, but it’s like they are holding out for some imaginary big score.
I laughed when Revere got hosed by Everett as the casino location after all the ankle grabbing they did to get it on their side of the line.
Suffolk Downs is a huge swath of land, right on a subway stop and a short hop to the heart of Boston, that could easily become an entire neighborhood. It should be a well built up, densely situated mixed use neighborhood, with low and mid rises. That could be a freaking awesome area.
A soccer stadium would be a tragic waste of space there, especially given the huge need for affordable, middle/working class housing in the city.
But the owners get to decide. Wonderland is similar.
I love Belle Isle Marsh and have made video clips for it as well. It’s part of Harborwalk. I made video for nearly all of it from Belle Isle to Savin Hill.
It would be particularly wonderful to see humans finally evolve beyond their various athletic prowess jock fetishes that amount to a weak brainy monkey trying to emulate brawnier mammals.
Then we could be rid of all this crap and finally focus on the only thing we really have, a magical living planet that is our home.
but not for track or the opening/closing ceremonies
Sounds like a reasonable response. The devil’s in the details.
This will swing by 20% at least.
The number of stories that are going to come out about the parks that will be destroyed, the businesses and homes that will be taken by eminent domain, the public money that will be spent, the costs that will spiral, the security state that will creep in — and especially if the construction began — is going to make this a deeply unpopular games.
Ye of little faith!:)