A lot has been written about the cost of a potential Olympics. The Boston Globe, among others, has reported the budget of the games to be at $4.5 to $5 Billion. This is not strictly true: this is only the cost to organize and run the actual Olympics. It does not include the bid costs and does not include costs to prepare public infrastructure. By way of analogy, if you own a car your operating costs are what you pay for fuel, excise, insurance and regular maintenance… and do not include the initial cost of the car, wht you paid to trick it out with fuzzy dice or a custom steering wheel, or your time and effort in learning how to drive it…
According to the bid documents, should the city of Boston be chosen to host, the Olympics will start on Friday, July 19 2024 and end about two weeks later. Spending will continue until the the 25th of August, 2024, upon the completion of the Paralympic Games. It is expected that the cost of doing this to be around 4.5 to 5 Billion dollars. This is the cost of the actual operation of the games themselves. Furthermore, that cost is expected to be fully recouped through ad revenues, ticket sales and other revenue.
From a reading of the bid documents here is the breakdown of the total expected cost of the 2024 Olympics (as they stand now):
Bid Budget: $75 Million
OCOG Budget: $5 Billion
NON-OCOG Budget: $3.4 Billion
______________________________
Expected sub total: $9.15 Billion
Importantly, this does NOT include security costs which are expected to be between 1 and 2 Billion dollars (although, purportedly, existing security infrastructure in Boston is held in high esteem and thus new spending on it may be therefore lessened) and are expected to be borne solely by the Federal Government… so we can split the difference, say security will be $1.5 Billion and guesstimate the full, final, total, to be projected at:
$10.65 Billion.
______________________________
“OCOG” is the “Operating Committee Of the Games”, the follow on body to the Bid Committee that will not, indeed cannot, be formed prior to the selection of a city as host. As of today, the bid committee has committed to, and insured, that the city will bear no costs for the bid itself and has said that the city will not bear OCOG costs. They have ponied up the bid costs and expect to pony up OCOG costs, with recoup through ticket sales, ad revenues and other revenues.
NON-OCOG costs, presently budgeted for $3.4 Billion are the real point of contention as they are the place where extra public money will be spent, if extra is spent at all.
The $3.4 Billion includes existing spending and proposed spending and would mostly cover improvements to transportation and infrastructure.
The cost of at least 3 venues remain in doubt: an Olympic Stadium; a VeloDrome; an Aquatic Center. In addition the costs of an Olympic Village are not concretized. I have no estimates as to what these might costs in excess of the $3.4 already budgeted. The hope is that, for the Olympic Village at least, any costs are recouped later as part of housing solutions for the city.
Never having done an Olympics before, I can say that I have no idea if these numbers are realistic. But they are the numbers the bid committee, and therefore the city of Boston, is moving forward with and they have been blessed, FWIW, by the USOC.
Having read through some of the bid documents at length, I can attest that the committee certainly appears to have listened to concerns and has acknowledged and attempted to address them. The twin notions of leveraging existing private (mostly college) venues and leveraging public infrastructure spending against stressing walkability (thus reducing the expected load on public infrastructure) makes sense, in theory. Will it play out in practice? I dunno.
Who can guarantee they will do this? What if they simply fail to come up with all of the money? Isn’t the city/Commonwealth ultimately on the hook?
The bid specifically calls for public-private partnerships that have bonding authority. Since those bonds would be worthless without the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth backing them, any defaults would be absorbed by the taxpayers.
In shortr, the bid calls for the taxpayers to be on the hook for the construction of all of the sports facilities, the Village and the two media centers and then claims that each facility can be sold afterward to re-coup the costs. That is an assumption of colossal proportions as 2025 market conditions are unknown. Heck, we don’t even know real estate market conditions three years from now. And it is an act of intellectual dishonesty for petr to keep saying the taxpayers are only being asked to pay for infrastructure. He is wrong, again.
The Commonwealth can’t afford to issue too much debt, or it’s bond rating will drop and taxpayers will have to pay higher interest.
To avoid this the state imposes an administrative bond cap, borrowing less than what is authorized legislatively.
This cap represents a finite limit and if you carve out a big chunk of it for the Olympics then other projects will be at best deferred. It’s worse if costs go over and the chunk gets bigger; the cap however does not.
In this way the Olympics represent a tax on the Commonwealth’s ability to do needed capital projects in a timely way and perhaps at all.
Decision about what is and isn’t funded under the cap are made by the executive, so this shifts decision-making power to the Governor and A&F.
I’ll quote the explanation from the state’s web site in case it is taken down or modified at some point:
The practice actually predates FY 91.
If the private-public bonds are not backed by taxpayers the effects are less direct, but in that case the market will demand a premium that will add costs to the debt.
on the state bond cap, a subject I have repeatedly mentioned on BMG.I described the big question on another post. The second big question will be whether non-Boston projects are delayed because Olympic area projects leapfrog the line of already approved projects elsewhere in the Commonwealth. All of those projects have to live under the cap.
I helped write a few of those five year spending plans with their bond caps, way back when I was living in MA.
Clearly those are at considerable risk, but also Boston-area projects that do not further the IOC’s purposes.
… specifically calls for this only in the creation of the Olympic Stadium: which stadia is to be managed by a public authority and which bonds will no doubt be private-use bonds that may not need to be backed by the full faith and credit of the CommonWealth. Any prospectus attempting to sell the bonds might specify future revenues or even sale of the land in the case of a temporary venue. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that the CommonWealth will back the bond, but it’s not the only, or event he default, option.
But mark-ball asked, specifically, about overruns attached to the statements made by the Bid committee about the bid budget and the OCOG budget. The stadia and other new venues are NON-OCOG budgeted. The Bid committee has committed to paying the $75 Million for the bid and has insured the CommonWealth, up to $25 Million against overruns. The OCOG costs are expected to be fully recouped by ticket sales, ad revenues, IOC and USOC revenues and other revenues. The OCOG itself, probably made up of public and private individuals, can issue bonds that are backed up by the future revenues from the games and not by the credit of the CommonWealth. Anybody can issue bonds. Apple computer issues bonds. David Bowie issues bonds. The worth of a bond is based upon how likely it is to be repaid. The Bid committee thinks that for the OCOG recoup of costs isn’t likely to be a problem.
I’m not telling you what I think. I’m telling you what I read from the bid documents. You can distrust it. You can paint all manner of a parade of horribles to awfulize the situation even further. You can detest me for it. But I’m just reporting what I’ve read.
Here is just one obvious example that contradicts you. The bid calls for the UMass Building Authority to construct 7000 housing beds in time for the games and then convert them to dorm space. Part of that proposal includes using land owned by parties other than UMBA and then selling off some of the buildings Obviously the bidders intend a pub/private partnership where they skim the residual money to subsidize the other Olympic projects.
Please tell us that you are just not competent at urban planning, as opposed to intentionally dishonest.
Bonds that are issued by a temporary NGO and not backed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth or the City would be rated lower than Greek debt notes issued today. Stop making claims about bond finance where you have no knowledge of the subject. Dumb-ass comments crowd out a rational discussion of whether the Olympic bid is worthy.
… that’s an excellent question. I don’t have the answer. That’s one of the reasons I wrote this diary. I tried to use a neutral tone and present the facts as I read them in the hopes that questions like this can get asked and, ultimately, answered. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that most previous OCOG budgets have come in on schedule and that, more or less, the actual operating costs are a solved problem. I do get the feeling that NON-OCOG budgets are where the problems occur. But I don’t really know.
Under the bid, the taxpayers of Massachusetts and Boston will be required to pay for any shortfalls in the capital projects (stadia, Village, velo, media centers, etc). That is because the bidders state they will get legislative approval for public/private partnerships that have bonding authority backed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth.
The bonds pay for the projects. If there is not enough money to pay the people who loaned “us” the money, then the taxpayers of the state and the city pay the difference. So if the OC makes a faulty projection about anything as important as the complex real estate market more than ten years from now, then we pay.
Any amount of shortfall will only be known after the properties are sold off to pay the bond holders, potentially at a gain or loss, after the year 2025. The limits of how much we might owe and when we will learn that amount will be well after 2026 and perhaps much later.
The details about the order of who will be on the hook cannot be learned until the OC gets legislation enacted after 2016.
If petr wants to dispute this, please explain to all of us why the Article 9 dispute resolution mechanism does not apply.
This MIGHT become true someday but only about the capital projects, not, as far as the bid documents say, about OCOG budget. It might happen that bonds issued against the CommonWealths credit are used to pay for stadia and other venues. I do not dispute that. Never have.
The specific question to which you are specifically responding to, specifically refers to the specifics of the OCOG budget. Since you uprated the specific question, I assume you read it. However, I have my doubts, since you’ve conflated possible public funding for stadia and what not, with the statement I made specifically, precisely and only about OCOG costs and to which mark-ball replied with a pertinent question.
I specifically wrote this diary, using a neutral tone, to try to understand the terms of the debate: to try to understand what is meant — and what is not meant — by “cost” according to the people who have laid out the costs to manage and administer the Olympics. I specifically said that NON-OCOG budgets, (which is that to which you refer to when you talk about the capital projects) is the point of contention and has a lot of questions still to be answered (you actually agreed with my in you attempts to disagree… wow) The number “$4.5 to $5 Billion” is given as “the cost of the Olympics” but that’s not strictly true, that’s only the cost to plan and operate the games themselves and assumes stadium and other venues are in place: which assumption is a necessary fiction at this point.
The Bid committee thinks that OCOG costs will be recouped entirely. You can dispute their claims. You can disrespect me for trying to at least understand the face value of what they are saying. But you can’t conflate what they are saying about the OCOG budget with what they are saying about NON-OCOG budget to bolster your contentions, because it does not bolster your contentions. It actually makes you look like you don’t fully understand and are responding unthinkingly.
with anything you wrote. At no point did I mention the operating budget.
Full stop.
Go back and re-read what you quoted from me. It says “the taxpayers of Massachusetts and Boston will be required to pay for any shortfalls in the capital projects.”
And you actually have disputed that taxpayer money will be used to pay for any part of the Olympics. Go back and read what you wrote in response to my statements two weeks ago about that subject.
In response to a question about the operating budget.
duh.
I posted a comment from CNBC about Erin Murphy, the Exec VP of Boston 2024
“Murphy counters that no taxpayer dollars would be put toward the “operation of the games,” although public spending would go toward infrastructure costs like roads, buildings and transportation.”
She clearly indicated that Boston2024 would not pay for any of the stadia, press facilities or the Village. You re-quoted my post and claimed her comments indicated there would be no public expenditures. You even wrote this wildly inaccurate post:
The Boston2024 bid comes in at about 5 billion for private funds raised PLUS another 4 or 5 billions of already identified public infrastructure funding without allocation for security, which is expected to be carried by the Feds. The total cost of putting on the games is expected, not as the article cites to be only 5 billion, but over 10 billion. If we do not host the Olympics that 4 or 5 billion dollars of already identified public infrastructure spending will still be spent. That is the, hoped-for, beauty of the bid: it leverages existing public funding so that the 5 billion of private funding is for the actual running of the Olympics on top.
Of course your post does not account for the facility construction which Olympic 2024 has long indicated the taxpayers will fund. And even though the powerpoint document indicates it, you still claim the taxpayers will not be on the hook for the costs. How often can you be this wrong and still claim that everyone else is?
in the operating budget. There was no question asked of you about the operating budget.
That’s just… I don’t even know what to say to that… Are we even on the same planet?
Here’s the exchange:
Simple enough for a fifth grader. Maybe you should get yourself a fifth grade.
that you never said the taxpayers were not on the hook for capital costs of buildings? Despite the fact that you quoted the Exec VP of Boston 2024 saying that the taxpayers would have to fund the buildings?
You were not responding to a question. You made an assertion that happens to be irrelevant to the issue of capital costs. Now you are quoting yourself.
I hear all of these snowballs whizzing around, looking for a target but you actually quoted the Boston2024 comment that contradicts your claims about capital expenditures.
that the city or state is on the hook for overruns. Here’s my transcription:
http://nepr.net/news/2015/01/23/public-funding-likely-for-boston-olympics-says-sports-economist-zimbalist
I’m not sure how that differs from what I said. I think the underlying assumption is that OCOG costs will be recouped. Maybe that’s not a good assumption. But that assumption is based upon the fact that the actual games pay for OCOG costs. I don’t know where that hasn’t been true for any of the games, ever. Ticket sales, ad revenues and other merchandising are pretty lucrative: the actual Olympics remain pretty popular and between tickets, ad revenue and merchandise I don’t know that they are not going to get back the $4.5 or so they put into it… I guess, maybe, in the instance where the actual games did not recoup the OCOG costs then somebody is on the hook. Who that somebody is remains to be seen. It could be the public, but I don’t see how the IOC can enforce that. In addition, it seems a limit might exist on how much it is possible for the OCOG budget to overrun: seems like that might be finite. I suppose, though, that a private entity could sell their own bonds and pay back from the tickets and any overage would redound to the city. I don’t think I denied that. I think I said that the OCOG expects that that won’t be the case for OCOG costs. Maybe they are wrong.
I wrote clearly that the main point of contention is NON-OCOG budget which nobody has disagreed with. I still think that is the case.
is what’s important:
Then there is the unfortunate track record of things falling short. Projected budgets are never enough to cover actual costs.
Look… I”m not saying and never have said that cost overruns aren’t a possibility.
I’m engaged in telling you precisely where those over-runs are likely to occur, if they occur, by a breakdown of the costs according to the the bid documents. It’s why I wrote this diary. I keep discriminating between bid budget, OCOG budget and NON-OCOG budget and you act like there are no distinctions to be made… It’s actually getting a little frustrating.
Here it is again:
— The bid budget will be $75 Million. The Bid committee has already insured the CommonWealth up to $25 Million. So only in the events of A) bid costs going in excess of $100 Million and 2) the Bid committee not raising more money will the bid cost the CommonWealth ANYTHING. There will be no cost overruns associated with the BID budget.
— The OCOG budget is $4.5 to $5 Billion. The OCOG fully expects, the USOC and the IOC agrees with them, and nobody else denies, that the bulk of these costs will be fully recouped by the actual revenue (ad, tickets, merchandising, etc) of the games themselves. These are the operating costs of the games and they assume all venues built. No construction or infrastructure spending is involved in the OCOG budget. If these costs DO go over, it is unlikely to go over by very much and so it’s probably that another insurance policy that would protect the CommonWealth, like the Bid policy, could be put in place. What is more, ticket prices won’t be set until relatively late in the game and can be adjusted to make up for shortfalls, if any, in other revenue streams. No, I’m not %100 certain, but It’s a fair bet that there will be no overruns associated with the OCOG budgeting.
— NON-OCOG budget is, presently $3.4 Billion. It is possible, and I’ll even stipulate LIKELY, that this number will be revised upwards in the coming years. I’ll say it again, here, in the NON-OCOG budget, is where the bulk, perhaps even the entirety, of pubic costs, if any, and public costs overruns will occur if they occur. This is the cost of the Stadium, the Olympic Village and other venues. This is all I’ve ever said on this subject. I’ve not denied it: I have tried to clarified it. You should thank me. If you oppose the Olympics then a simplistic, “I don’t know where cost overruns are, I just know they gonna happen,” isn’t going to cut it.
The OCOG budget numbers are the numbers that the press, Globe and Herald and others, are using as “the cost to host the games.” This is, I repeat, not strictly true. This is the operating cost to plan and execute on a series of events held between July of 2024 and September of 2024. The NON-OCOG budget numbers, in addition to the Bid budget is the total cost “to host the games.” This number, for everyone to add up for themselves, is at present around $9B (absent security costs), of which at least $5B is unlikely to have overruns.
Am I stating, or claiming that anybody stated, that this $9B number isn’t going to change? No. I have not. I have never, ever, stated that. I have stated, I thought clearly, that if there is change, it is likely to come in the sub-total that is the NON-OCOG budget. I think that’s important to know for both supporters and opponents of the Olympics. That’s what counting the cost is all about.
where the cost overruns are?
First, somebody somewhere, who is under the impression that “the cost of the games” is, in toto, $4.5B, will hear that $10B number and FREAK OUT and call THAT “cost overurns.” This is not true. Now where and why this is not true is, IMHO, an important thing to know, probably before they freak out at the purported overruns…
Secondly, while, as noted, the total cost to prepare the city and the CommonWealth for the Olympics, in an easily discernible way, using basic arithmetic, is going to be in the neighborhood of 10 Billion Dollars, various entities, including your man Zimbalist the Boston Globe and many people here at BMG (supporters, opponents and those who may be neutral) have stated that “The cost of the games” is projected to be $4.5 to $5 Billion. By the simplest definition of operational “cost of the games” this is true. But by the notion of “what’s it going to cost to put on the games’ this is not true. Of course, if the operational “costs of the games” do not, ever, exceed $5B, whatever else may overrun, then by the same simplest definition of “cost of the games” and “overruns” the Olympics will not have cost overruns. I don’t think that’s a particularly compelling argument so I would prefer to keep the total costs to put on the games foremost in scope as we discuss: I have laid out the case that OCOG budget will likely not overrun but I’m not prepared to argue the case that therefore this means the total “cost of the games”‘ will not overruns. It is possible that they will. I think I’ve been clear on that.
There is an argument to be made, I think, that costs overruns are a danger to any large scale public project. Some might turn this around and say, “so why pick on the Olympics? Why not oppose all large scale public projects ” But the Olympics are a large scale public project so I think that’s fair game. I’d much rather say, “why can’t we do any and all large scale public projects better? Let’s start with the highest of high-profile ones like the Olympics.”
Thirdly, the knowledge of where the costs overruns help us to test the motivations and intentions of the bid committee. There is an undercurrent of assumed skullduggery (not from you, but from others) which says the bid committee low-balled the estimates to get the bid out the door and are busily winking to their buddies as they wait to shovel vast amounts of public money out the back door. If the OCOG is complete private entity and NON-OCOG budget, which is where I think the overruns will occur, operates at the interstices of pubic and private… Well, as a citizen of the CommonWealth I, and you, have the right to expect and demand better oversight. I don’t think the OCOG will be completely private either… so there’s that.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly (at least for me), identifying costs helps to quantify the overruns. Specifying costs overruns of, say for example, 5% is a lot scarier when you apply that 5% to the overall costs: 5% of $10B is $500M where 5% of $3.4B is $170M. Both 500M and 170M are big numbers but one may be within a threshold for acceptable overruns and the other may not… I’m just using the 5% figure by way of example, I have little idea what order of magnitude the overruns might end up becoming…
recoup all of its cost of running the games and maybe turn a profit. Who gives a shit? They sometimes return a profit to their owners. They are not the taxpayers.
Petr keeps on this track of denying that the taxpayers of the Commonwealth and the City are on the hook for the capital costs. He is wrong and incapable of seeing that.
Boston2024 made no representation that it will cover any cost of the capital expenditures of the project. They state specifically that they want a public-private partnership, whose bond authority is solely based on the large public entity this parasite attaches itself to.
also a form of sales pitch to the IOC. Hardly expected to be reliable when 2024 has so much invested.
…That you keep repeating this in the face of all I’ve written to the contrary and with nothing whatsoever in the way of support.
I’m going to call a time out. Maybe it’s my fault for being really aggressive, I don’t know. Whatever. For the next week, I will not engage with you on any topic whatsoever. You may choose to infer whatever you wish from this decision. I will not reply or respond in any way to what you, “TheBestDefense,” has to say on this, or any topic at BMG.
It is my sincere wish that, come a week from now, we can resume debating, on whatever topic with a true respect for this ‘reality based community’
prejudice, which is philosophical pragmatism. I don’t mean to say you’re not being practical and I am. What I’m saying is, what does it matter how the Commonwealth get’s screwed?
(What you’re doing, by the way, makes more sense to me now that you’ve said it twice to me).
Articulating the precise mechanisms of exploitation is key to blunting or thwarting them.
… actually determining if “exploitation” is the precise term…
but it works for me.
I appreciate your tone in the OP and your tone in this thread. I think there are substantial questions that have yet to be answered. I appreciate you are willing to concede that this is the limited information we have, more information will be provided as this process continues, and hopefully, the public can have full input and hopefully a final say via a vote (that last point is where we disagree, and that’s alright).
Figuring out if the city or the state is on the hook for overruns is essential. Also determining who has the authority over determining using land set aside for public use for what is essentially a private entity hosting a for profit event (open to the public) seems to be another question. I know Friends of the Common are against beach volleyball there, I am not sure who controls Franklin Park or the other Emerald Necklace venues, or who has jurisdiction over the events proposed for collegiate and other public spaces on the Cambridge and Somerville sides of the river.
It definitely seems Walsh shouldn’t have the sole say, Curtatone and Cambridge have a stake in determining the scope of the venues on their side, and regionalizing the planning seems like the best way forward to share costs and also to ensure the rewards are increased sustainability, increased transit, and increased affordability.
Two key essential questions we all need to grapple with:
Can we get those developments without the Olympics?
Are the Olympics are worth it without those developments?
It’s a crossroads the bid boosters will have to be decisive when they cross. I would respect them more if they were honest about the former and latter questions, presuming a ‘yes’ to both.
It seems Curtatone is of the opinion that the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second, and that is a very unique place to be in this debate.
What does the Olympics preclude? What financial, credit, or political oxygen does it suck up that could be used to accomplish other things?
As noted in my reply to jconway, I think the financial and credit portions of this might be less deleterious than is thought given the present estimate of CommonWealth GDP in the $420 Billion, per annum, range: the CommonWealth will generate several trillions in domestic product in the years between now and 2024. And they could structure any debt over a much longer time period than that. Doesn’t mean we have to do it that way… It just means that $5 or even $10 Billion of public spending seems less daunting, and maybe more like a rounding error, in the face of that. Economists might want to drill down into the actual percentage of Massachusetts GDP an Olympics would cost and maybe make projections on acceptable levels of public spending based upon that.
I certainly don’t buy the zero-sum argument. I don’t think that’s at all at play here.
Political oxygen is, however, an entirely different kettle of fish…
I’ve made the case that, as a means of either lighting a fire for the Olympics or definitively saying no, a referendum will have knock on affects: a “yes” vote will embolden politicos to spend more public money and spend it more freely; a “no” vote would embolden opponents of the present transportation and infrastructure spending that is associated with the Olympics… I really don’t see an upside to the process.
But that’s not to say, absent a referendum, that politicians will figure out a backbone and/or a sane plan without prodding… so there’s that also. If lack of political will is a problem with any political endeavor in the CommonWealth then it’s a problem with any political endeavor and isn’t a reason to oppose or support the Olympics.
Would a vote against the Olympics be spun or viewed by the establishment as a vote against public spending?
I know one of the stronger liberal voices in favor of casinos was the late striker57, and in our civil sparring over that he basically argued that his members put food on the table when there were projects to build and any project was better than no project, and that public spending now would eventually lead to the more savory public spending I wanted (infrastructure, transit, modernized schools and hospitals) down the road.
I think now that the bid has advanced to the USOC, it is incumbent on opponents to add as many progressive spending carrots and riders to the final bid as possible. In my view, it makes it less likely the IOC will choose Boston so that’s a win for opponents. It also makes it likely that in the event the IOC says yes, everyone comes out a winner and we can really have a new paradigm. It’s really the best argument boosters have, and one they seem to go out of their way to avoid tackling with.
bond issuances over one billion dollars each by the Commonwealth, and a lot more in other countries, and it is clear you are just making up your shit. I don’t know where to unpack that load of crap.
The ability of any entity (a government, business or something that is ostensibly an NGO) to issue bonds is based on its ability to PROMISE AND GUARANTEE repayment at a specific return. Investors don’t put cash down for bonds that are issued by bidders that are not backed by an entity with assets that can not be attached. And clearly, the local bidding committee has ZERO in assets it can offer as collateral.
Your misinterpretation about the capacity of the Commonwealth to claim a borrowing capacity based on the wealth of the state is stupendously stupid. Unbelievably stupid.
Since you often throw out the challenge to prove facts, try to get into this to understand how the state’s capital spending plan meshes with the Olympians.
If, as you suggested in another post, borrowing is authorized through an independent authority, that might not fall under the bond cap, but it will still have effects on the creditworthiness of the Commonwealth.
So it may not be zero-sum in the sense of a one-to-one correspondence (losing one dollar of borrowing capacity for every dollar borrowed), but debt on that scale will increase the Commonwealth’s borrowing costs and/or reduce its capacity to borrow for other projects.
Consider also the political appetite for debt if it comes to pass that people are paying special fees or taxes to repay bondholders following cost overruns. Try to build high-speed rail or rebuild bridges in a political climate freighted with the legacy of taxpayer bailout for perceived mismanagement.
That’s pretty far in the future, so maybe we don’t care. But maybe we should. It might mean another generation of deferred progress on many fronts.
… the answers to each might be “yes and no”.
On the question of whether or no we can get these developments without the Olympics: The CommonWealth of Massachusetts has an annual GDP estimated to be over 420 Billion dollars (2013 numbers). Given these numbers one might expect both a robust infrastructure already in place and stated commitment to maintain existing and creating new in order to keep that GDP rising at a healthy clip. That would seem to indicate a clear ‘yes’ to the question.
However, we do not, obviously, have that sort of infrastructure in place nor do we have the civic commitment to maintain existing and build new. Which would indicate a clear ‘no’ to the question.
On the question of “are the Olympics worth it without these developments”: one has to question the term ‘worth it’ in a CommonWealth with, re-iterated, an annual GDP estimated to be over 420 Billion dollars. Suppose, just for the sake of argumentation only (that is to say I’m not endorsing this idea) we up and spend $20 Billion without worrying about getting it back. Over the course of the next nine years, the cumulative domestic product, assuming neither growth nor recession, will be about $4 Trillion. I’m not saying we wouldn’t feel it, just that it may not be the ragnarok, wrapped in a cataclysm, inside an apocalypse that the question assumes. So that might lead us to a clear “yes”.
On the other hand, it’s a large, worldwide sporting event that, at least here on BMG, has generated little other than acrimony. So that might be a clear “no”.
I think Curtatone occupies the most interest place in this debate, and his vision is about the only one that could get me from a hard no to a maybe on these Olympics. I think if those of you who are hard or soft yes’ could also put pressure on the Boston 2024 Bid to at least consider his proposal, we might end up getting something worthwhile out of this.
What I fear is that the second question already has an answer, Boston 2024 would answer ‘yes’, and I, and probably many opponents would answer ‘no’. Yet, I disagree with many opponents who would dismiss the catalyst argument. Sure, it hasn’t been done before in any other city that hosted the games, but now that the USOC selected Boston, I see no reason not to push for it.
The time to actually prevent wasting money on seeking the games has passed, we are now stuck with at least bidding for the games and might as well make this bid worthy of our city, our region, and it’s values.
I currently do not see Boston 2024, Walsh, or any other boosters trying for that bid. We are already going down the path of letting the IOC dictate the terms, which makes Curtatone’s proposal look like a road less traveled.
Which is unfortunate, since I actually am a lot more pessimistic than you and most of the opponents who would answer my first question with a ‘Yes’. I honestly think the Olympic Bid might be the only way to force regionalization, cudgel the Republican Congress into giving us transit funds, and force Beacon Hill to raise revenue.
The two likely outcomes as I see it are both bad. DeLeo, Baker, Republicans and and other fiscal conservatives join forces with progressives grassroots activists to kill the Games as too expensive. We are then left where we are, with a state afraid to raise revenues and afraid to move forward. This is definitely the least bad option, and the clear lesser of two evils to the second outcome. The outcome where we end up barreling forward with a bid that fails to deliver for Boston, where we are stuck footing the IOCs bills, and arrive at an even worse position to raise revenue for the projects we do need. I hope I am proven wrong.
This is not volume three of five.
This diary is neither pro- nor anti-Olympics but attempts to lay out the terms of the cost as read through the bid committee document dump. A great deal of effort went into making it neutral in tone and it’s purpose is to clarify the debate and not to bolster or blast one or any side of the ‘debate’.
Maybe corporate media won’t take blogs all that seriously if an editor doesn’t even take the time to discern if a blog post/diary does what he thinks it does…