Well, looky looky. Boston 2024, and Mayor Walsh, have now completed their slow-motion about-face on putting something about the Olympics on the ballot. Having previously indicated that they opposed that course of action, they’ve now gone all-in and are saying they will actually sponsor a ballot question (exactly what it will say remains to be seen, and, as the Globe accurately points out, this is quite important.)
It would be churlish to point out that this is the exact advice BMG generously offered the Mayor and Boston 2024 a few months ago. But we are nothing if not churlish around here, so we’ll point it out.
I frankly can’t imagine what the case against a public referendum would be. So come on, Boston 2024 and Mayor Walsh, just back a referendum. Then everyone will know that you mean it when you say that you only want to have the Olympics in Boston if the people are behind it.
Imagine the money they could have saved on high-priced PR consultants and the like! We remain pleased to offer BMG as a free service to the Massachusetts political community.
Snark aside, this is good news. Yes, ballot questions can be “bought,” and we should anticipate a lot of spending directed toward getting people to vote Boston 2024’s way – just as we saw with the casino question. And there’s virtually no doubt that the anti-Olympics side will be badly outspent by the pro-Olympics side. So it’s not a perfect solution. But it is the best one available, and therefore it is the right one.
baublehead says
Expanding the bottle bill had wide support….then it got stepped on.
Stopping the Olympic fiasco has wide support…
HR's Kevin says
The bottle bill lost because it’s opponents could pretty easily suggest that it would cost consumer’s money.
That argument doesn’t apply for supporting the Olympics, since you will have to be pretty gullible to believe that the Olympics is going to put money in your pocket unless you are personally involved in the construction industry.
Not to say that the Olympic committee won’t throw lots of money at this, but at least it won’t be quite so easy for them.
ryepower12 says
a referendum with the right question.
And the right question is about indemnifying the Commonwealth, its municipalities and public institutions from any unforeseen or spiraling costs.
If Boston 2024 wants to have an Olympics… they can go for it… but they can’t be allowed to write a blank check that Boston, the state government or our public colleges, police forces and public transportation systems will have to pay for.
hesterprynne says
…now that they have come around on the referendum idea.
Evan Falchuk already has a draft of the question he’d like to put on the ballot.
Any objections to that — if so, what are they? (And remember, the ballot question needs to propose a law, not merely a sentiment about how neat it would be to host the Olympics.)
jcohn88 says
At the Boston 2024 event at Northeastern last night, I asked Doug Rubin and Erin Murphy if they would support a “yes” on Josh Zakim’s proposed “no public funds” ballot measure and on Evan Falchuk’s “no public funds” statewide ballot measure. I did not get an answer. (They just talked about their own proposal.)
I also asked about the definition of “public funds.” Low-cost/free/below-market-rate sales/leases of municipal/state land, tax breaks, tax abatements, tax credits, etc., all count as “public funds” to me. “Public funds” should not just mean appropriations.
merrimackguy says
So no “come to Massachusetts to see the Olympics” ads?
David says
this is a good example of why Falchuk’s wording is IMHO too broad. This needs to be thought through carefully.
David says
the ballot question folks need to think very carefully about whether they want their preferred answer to be “yes” or “no.” We saw a lot of confusion over the casino question, where a “yes” meant “no casinos,” and vice versa. If a “yes” means “no Olympics,” as is the case with Falchuk’s question, that will be a PR nightmare. It would be nice if someone could figure out how “yes” could mean “yay Olympics” and “no” meant “boo Olympics.”
dasox1 says
is that B 2024 would never do anything underhanded, like lie in it’s application or make public statements that are complete BS.
HR's Kevin says
The Olympic committee will do it for us. They are going to want to generate as much ticket revenue as possible, so of course they will advertise if the state does not.
We might want to run ads stating “Come to MA despite the Olympics”, because it does tend to scare tourists away. However, I don’t think such ads would be considered to be furthering the Olympics.
ryepower12 says
spend money to remind people the Olympics would be coming here?
I mean, it’s not like there isn’t an entire cable company and its half a dozen TV stations airing the programming that could do it for us. /sarcasm off
petr says
There are several objections to Falchuks language. In the order they occur to me, they are:
— Bills of Attainder and/or Ex Post Facto law: hosting the Olympics is not a crime and so deliberately limiting the scope of the ballot measure to the Olympics specifies the organizers for conduct deemed worthy of punishment (loss of liberty, revenue loss, specific denial of state services, etc… ) without trial or due process. The United States Constitution and the constitutions of all 50 states recognize this as a clear and basic right. “We don’t think the Olympics are such a good idea and we’re going to punish you for having that idea…” is not a valid ballot question.
–Specific appropriations: the Massachusetts Constitution forbids ballot initiatives that requires specific appropriations. Zero is a specific appropriation.
— Municipal applicability: the Massachusetts Constitution also forbids (statewide) ballot initiatives that would apply only to a single town or a subset of towns. The entire CommonWealth can’t get together and decide for Boston and/or surrounding towns what to do about the Olympics.
I don’t think there is acceptable language that will do what people — on either side of the arguments– think ought to be done. It’s going to have to be very bland and very general to pass constitutional muster: something like “should Massachusetts host the Olympics: Yes or No?’ and that’s it. You really can’t carve out what you want to do with a ballot. The ballot is the furthest possible thing from a scalpel, yet that’s how people want to use it.
That’s why the general plebiscite is about the worst possible way to make the decision here…
David says
– Ex post facto/bill of attainder principles are not even remotely applicable here. No individual is being punished for something that was legal when he did it, or being singled out in the very specific way covered by the bill of attainder clause. Being told the state won’t fund your pet project is not “punishment” within the meaning of those clauses. If the state wants to pass a law saying that it won’t spend money for such-and-such a project, it of course may do so.
– This is not a specific appropriation that would be excluded from the ballot under Article 48. There is a lot of case law on where the “specific appropriation” exclusion does and does not apply. I’ve read a lot of it; I’ve never seen any suggestion that a law prohibiting the expenditure of funds on something would qualify, since such a law by definition does not “make[] a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth.”
– The local affairs exclusion argument has been tried many times, most recently with the casino ballot question, and almost always fails. It would fail again in this case, because the law is not by its terms limited to specific municipalities. It doesn’t say that “Boston may not host the Olympics.” It says that Massachusetts won’t spend money on the 2024 Olympics.
There may be good reasons not to use something like Falchuk’s proposed language, but with all due respect, you haven’t offered any here.
Bob Neer says
Better to remove that para and focus the resolution on what it is supposed to be about: the Games. The first two paras are sufficient. But I agree with David’s suggestion below that No should mean No Games and Yes should mean Yes Games.
jcohn88 says
The way I see it is that Boston shouldn’t need to wait until November 2016 to withdraw its bid if the public is not behind it. The city will continue to be spending money, as bidding alone is somewhat expensive.
Christopher says
We could have withdrawn BEFORE we were chosen as THE US bid city, but now it seems we have a responsibility to make it work. If we should be chosen as the site by the IOC that is when the deck becomes stacked in our favor and we can insist on doing things our way.
David says
“We,” meaning the people of (greater) Boston, have no responsibility whatsoever to the USOC. After all, we had nothing to do with what was submitted to them and persuaded them to go with Boston. If Boston 2024 overstated public support for hosting the Olympics (probably) or failed to do sufficient grassroots work before submitting their bid to the USOC (certainly), that’s on them, not on us.
Christopher says
…but neither the City nor Boston 2024 should withdraw now – it’s just bad faith IMO. The City committed to represent the US and I for one think all this badmouthing one’s own chances makes as much sense as a Bostonian rooting for the Yankees.
David says
It’s much better to withdraw now than later. There will have to be a ballot question at some point; far better for all concerned to deliver the message that the people don’t want the Games before they are awarded than after. True story:
mimolette says
I’m not seeing bad faith here. Bad faith would require that Boston as a whole have made a commitment to do all it could to try to host the games. But it didn’t, and the USOC cannot have reasonably believed otherwise, or relied on such a belief. They know the process and the history, after all, and they’ve seen bids collapse in the past. They were in the difficult position of needing to make a choice of bidding city very early in the process, and probably there was never time for any bid group to get full public buy-in, but all that means is that the selection process has unavoidable risks to it. It is not the job of the bidders or of the would-be host cities to indemnify them against those risks.
Nor should it be. Honor does not, at least in my opinion, require anyone to fulfill commitments made by third parties on their behalf, without their informed consent. It certainly doesn’t require an open-ended commitment to a project the costs of which are still unknown and to an extent unknowable. Honor may, though, suggest that if we’re not going to fulfill those commitments, we make that clear to the people involved sooner rather than later, so that they have time to make back-up plans.
And anyway, if Boston 2024 can make their proposal work in an environment that includes a hard guarantee that public funds won’t be spent on the Games, that’s only what they’ve been proposing from the beginning. So theoretically, it wouldn’t do them any harm for a well-crafted referendum forbidding such spending to pass. If they can’t put together a winning bid in that environment, then by their own metric it ought to fail. If they can, then most objections to the bid will melt away. Which is to say, it would be the right result either way.
jconway says
We’ve been over this already, it’s a non partisan issue that is either a good idea or a bad idea. Many of us have spilled a lot of digital ink debating the merits of the idea, none of us are rooting against it because we hate Boston.
Both sides want Boston to be successful, those of us who oppose do so because we think the Olympics will hurt the city. Sparing the city we love from a costly error is an act of love-not hate. I wore that pin everyday during my high school years to protest the Bush presidency, it may be time to dust it and take it off the shelf.
Christopher says
…but it’s partly because this is a sporting event and party rather than something more serious like war that leads me to feel like just saying come and enjoy yourselves already.
SomervilleTom says
I lived in Coolidge Corner during “sporting events” like the World Series and Super Bowl wins — where innocent people were killed by police, private cars were destroyed, and so on.
An aspect of urban life is that “sporting event and party” has just as much potential impact — or more — as other decision that involves massive spending, massive disruptions, massive police presence, massive “security” measures, and everything else.
Christopher says
Super Bowls have never been local, so that’s just a function of the team rather than physical location. I’m not aware of Olympics producing riots/”celebrations” over results, though it has been a terrorist target. You can’t both complain things might get ugly AND that we could have too much security. Some city would have to live with what you describe for a little while just as they have in past Olympiads. I have yet to hear a reason that Boston is not at least as well equipped as anyone else to handle it.
ryepower12 says
These are not mutually exclusive. Far from it.
Christopher says
…if you are mostly concerned about what might happen you would presumably understand greater security needs, whereas if you are more concerned about the security level you acknowledge things might happen. I for one am confident an appropriate balance can and should be struck.
ryepower12 says
Increasing security does not make us safer.
At the very, very most, increasing security may make certain targets more difficult to attack, but all a terrorist has to do is switch targets.
What you confuse for security is actually security theater. It may make you feel safer, but it doesn’t actually make you safer.
So, with all due respect, you are 100% wrong. We can increase security all you want, but increasing security will have very little impact on whether or not an attack goes off.
And you’re also wrong about “balance.” Arming rooftops with anti-aircraft personell and spending $2-3 billion on security — whereas pre-9/11 games only spent a few hundred million — is not an “appropriate balance” and will not “make us safer.” Why on earth would anyone be confident that the government would have a good ‘balance’ in this day and age of complete and utter Security Theater?
Christopher says
…but SOME city is going to have to do that and I have yet to hear reasons that Boston can’t or shouldn’t be party to it that does not sound like arrogance or NIMBYism.
ryepower12 says
and more to do with the fact that security will be amped up so much that the entire city will basically be shut down for 3 weeks.
Don’t forget, the USOC loved so much how we shut down half of Metro Boston after the Marathon bombings that it was a big reason why they picked us.
Our complete shut down was applauded on their part.
Given the scale and scope and historical threats to the Olympics, and given how security has operated post 9/11, and given what happened at the marathons… the security apparatus default mode will be what amounts to a city wide shut down.
People basically will have to work from home or take vacation or have a 3-5 hour commute through massive roadblocks, security checkpoints and god knows what else.
And that’s just for the event itself; huge swaths of Boston will be shut down for construction or security reasons for months and years because of the Olympics, and it won’t end with the Olympics, either — since there’s the Paralympics, too.
And none of it will actually make us any safer.
That other cities around the globe are willing to take that on is just fine and dandy with me. It’s not “NIMBY” if other people want it. And even with all these security theater issues, it isn’t the reason why I’m opposed to the Olympics. The $10+ billion debt that could be dropped on our backs is.
But you can be sure that I won’t be sorry to miss a city-wide/regional shut down of the scope you are clearly having a difficult time imagining, but if you need clarity, just picture the shut down that happened after the marathon with the Big Dig traffic thrown on top of it.
Maybe these concerns could have been managed if Boston 2024 was community driven and brought everyone into the process from the beginning, such that honest conversations could have been had, people could have truly weighed in and impacted all decisions that were made, and everyone could have been invested in the process — but that’s not what’s happened.
Instead, we’ve had this bizarre aristocratic process where all the decisions are being made for us by powerful elites who aren’t elected — and blank checks are being written in our name.
Christopher says
Unlike at least the latter there will be plenty of time to plan. If you don’t want it for Boston you are by default saying another city can have it if they want it. Every city is going to have these issues, maybe especially American ones. There are probably people in every city who are or are not OK with what it entails. I’m have no doubt Boston can handle it at least as well as anybody else.
stomv says
nopolitician says
I’m having some trouble understanding the anti-Olympics point of view.
I understand that this is basically about money. Is the concept of the Olympics just bad – should they not exist because wherever they are located, they will cause monies to be spent on them in some way, even if it is in traffic control?
Is there a model whereby the Olympics *could* be held somewhere in the US? Is there something that the IOC is doing incorrectly that makes them difficult?
Does this all stem from the Salt Lake City games?
Besides the money angle, is there a problem with Boston – a world class city – hosting the Olympics, a problem that is unique to Boston but not to other cities?
Or are people just done with the Olympics?
kirth says
Instead of asking everyone to explain their reasons yet again, why don’t you go back and read the previous Olympic threads, where all those reasons are spelled out in great detail? Opponents are not beholden to keep you up to speed; that’s your job.
tl/dr: No, it’s not just about money.
Mark L. Bail says
about money. The City of Boston and thus the Commonwealth are on the hook for any unmet costs. That’s money diverted from other needs.
Secondarily, I don’t trust Boston 2024 and the one-percenters driving the process.
Boston may be a world class city, but its transportation infrastructure is approaching 3rd world standards.
dasox1 says
I am just not convinced that Boston’s a good place to hold them. It’s incumbent on B 2024 to accurately present a plan that works logistically and economically, and get the support of the citizens. If they can’t do that, the bid should be withdrawn as soon as possible.
HR's Kevin says
Its about who will pay the bill. It seems unlikely that the City and State will not be on the hook for major expenses.
It is about effectively shutting down the City of Boston for normal tourism and commerce during the games.
It is about a small, self-appointed cabal of business leaders making decisions on the public’s behalf.
It is about allocation of real estate and planning development. Is the best interest of the Olympics also the best interest of Boston? Does reserving desirable downtown sites for Olympic use prevent them from being developed two years from now instead of ten years from now?
It is about distracting public officials from solving the problems we actually need solved.
It is about money spent on the Olympics sucking away funds that might be spent on more useful charitable ventures.
I think the Olympics makes more sense for cities whose economy needs some stimulus and that need major redevelopment. Boston already is experiencing a building boom and doesn’t have major tracts of land ready for Olympic development. The Olympics will just interfere with the ongoing development of Boston.
A better place for the Olympics in the US would be a much larger city that already has sites for all or most of the venues (e.g. LA), or a city that wants to reinvent itself (e.g. Detroit). Boston doesn’t need it.
sabutai says
…as someone decently steeped in Olympic history and politics, and on the fence about Boston 2024:
The Olympics have recently cost a lot of money, far more than cities were told they would cost. Also, promised tourism revenues don’t materialize in the long run. Plus, there is the dislocation and inconvenience, particularly in a city that can’t handle a large influx of visitors like Boston.
So though there is no way to know what would happen in a Boston Olympics, the recent track record is concerning. Some folks are thus against the Olympics at all costs, no matter what no matter when. Others want to ring-fence the city fiscally in case these common cost overruns are repeated, but it’s not clear if that can be done in a way that will truly protect the city without eliminating any real chance for Boston to host the games.
hesterprynne says
notwithstanding that they caved on the referendum issue, the Boston 2024 team was its obfuscatory self in a Tuesday meeting with the Globe editorial board.