A fascinating back and forth about the Olympics yesterday. The unelected rich guy running the bid John Fish tells a group “What bothers me — a lot — is the decline of pride, of patriotism, and love for our country.” WCVB, and perhaps others, characterize this soundbite (link to the video: embedding seems impossible) as questioning “the patriotism of people who don’t want the games in the city.” A NOlympics representative then defends the patriotism of two-thirds of area residents. Score another one for the 64 percent. (The Fundamental Principles of Olympism contained in the Olympic Charter are explicitly supra-national and thus arguably anti-patriotic — “The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind” — but I digress).
Whatever Fish meant by his comment the coverage shows the speed with which influencers like WCVB news producers pounce on “trouble with the Olympics” stories these days. The PR stream is in flood.
Governor Baker voiced a key issue in related WCVB coverage: “I think the big issue that the people in Boston and Massachusetts face is that they don’t have a concrete proposal to chew on.” This was a core objection raised by Games opponents on this recent BMG thread: what practical benefits will the Games deliver, discounting to zero amorphous and unquantifiable gains to our reputation and international prestige, such as it may be. Another key question, featured on earlier threads, is what financial risks will hosting the Games impose on us.
Boston 2024 needs to provide a timetable for offering specific, verifiable answers to these twin questions — what are the practical benefits, and what are the risks — or it has little hope of prevailing in the coming vote on the Games.
I was at a lecture at MIT a few weeks ago by Eva Kassens-Noor, an academic who specializes in sports mega-events. And she noted that Olympic Organizing Committees, as a routine, overpromise and underdeliver. So I wouldn’t expect concrete answers any time soon. Moreover, the IOC will be able to demand changes post-2017.
Beyond that, I think the lack of exact details is a problem, but I don’t think people need to wait until we hear them (not for a long, long time) to make a decision. The lack of respect that Mayor Walsh and Boston 2024 has shown the public, particularly in outsourcing public decision-making to an unelected group run by CEOs and lobbyists, is grounds enough to reject the bid. Biding without the consent of the public is a fundamental “mistake” that cannot be rectified
This group has lost all trust.
I’m generally neutral on the games and could be convinced with a good plan that makes real investments in our infrastructure, but I cannot trust a single thing from Boston 2024 based on everything they’ve come out with to date.
Even little stuff like their website FAQs, which are quite misleading.
“The Olympic and Paralympic Games have been held in many smaller and less-populated US cities, including Atlanta, St. Louis, Lake Placid and Salt Lake City.”
St. Louis held the games in 1904, so of course the comparison is valid.
Here is a link to the 2024 FAQs, and here is the Wikipedia entry on the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. As just one point to the comparison, 651 athletes (645 men, 6 women) participated in the 1904 Games; 10,700 athletes (5,992 men, 4,776 women) competed at London in 2012.
Drunk marathon winners, it lasted three extra months, and mobs interrupted athletic competitions. Another fail from the PR folks at Boston 2024.
in 1904 had twice the population it has today (talking about city only), and was the 4th-largest city in the United States. In the 1900 census LA had a smaller population than Lizzie Borden’s Fall River.
They have been mocked multiple times over this. Why is that still there?
Given that the only thing that Boston 2024 spokespeople will admit to doing wrong is their PR, you would have thought they would done something about this.
BTW, I really find this “FAQ” insulting and patronizing. It is way past time to kill it and replace it with a FAQ that actually answers the real questions people are asking.
which would truly benefit a majority of Bostonians and the region? A deal that would be 100% binding on the IOOC the USOCC and whomever else? Say, rebuilding the T to the tune of 20 Billion or whatever, without any taxpayer funds, with another $20 Billion for bridge and road repair, investments in the Boston schools for sports, etc, plus park upgrades, on and on. Is there a deal that would be irrational to reject?
I am stating today that I think it is likely Walsh makes a ton of binding commitments to win the referendum and the IOC rejects us in the first round. A graceful exit for all involved I might add.
If the polls continue on their current trend, I really wonder if Walsh is going to continue doubling down on this support for this loser. Does he really want to tie his reelection to public acceptance of the Olympic bid?
Walsh would probably be better off if the USOC gave it to someone else in the next couple of months.
Even if the Boston2024 puts $20B into rebuilding the T (good luck with that!), the result is likely to be tightly focused on meeting the narrow needs and priorities of the Olympics, to the exclusion of all else.
The odds are that we would end up with a paper-clip monstrosity instead of functioning regional transportation system.
Questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with you is so… trite? Cliché? Fauxnews? Or, right, I questioned Boehner’s patriotism for inviting Bibi to the Senate to stick his thumb in the President’s eye. Oh well, John Fish should focus on an economic and logistical rationale for why we should host, and stop name calling. At this point, it should be clear to Fish that his outsized ego alone is not going to get the bid across the proverbial finish line. Mayor Walsh is leading a parade of politicians running for the hills on this thing.
Quite the contrary, while he has back pedaled on a number of issues, he has been repeatedly restating his support for the Olympics. If he were more politically savvy, he would have used the first sign of trouble as an excuse to start expressing doubts as to whether this was a good idea. Unfortunately, I think Walsh is one of those people who finds it very difficult to change his mind once he has made a decision. You still won’t find him admitting that there was anything wrong in his decision to evacuate Long Island with almost no notice.
Not so much anti-American as rooting for the Yankees from inside 128, though Boston IS the AMERICAN bid now. I also found the response from the opposition a bit disingenuous. He said something like calling for transparency is patriotic. Problem is this has gone beyond calls for transparency into HELL NO! territory.
We are talking about other people spending our tax money on stuff it is not at all clear that we want. Hey, if Boston 2024 wants to host the Olympics without spending public money or taking over our roads and parks, I have no problem with it, but that is not the case.
The problem here is that Boston 2024 has UTTERLY FAILED to deliver on their transparency promise. So far there has been none. They refuse to back up their budget and revenue numbers with actual documentation. If it had been up to them, we wouldn’t even know what was in their low information content glossy brochure they gave to the USOC.
Fish’s suggestion that his opponents are “unpatriotic” is truly repulsive and scary and exactly what we do not want in a Democratic society. There is absolutely no excuse for using that language.
…that there might have been a scenario in which you would have “no problem” with the Olympics. As I recall, you very early proclaimed that you would never vote for a candidate who supported any bid. There are not groups called “Olympians for Transparency”, but there are groups like NO Boston Olympics, which sounds pretty absolute to me.
Indeed I will never vote for any politician who supports spending significant public money on stuff we don’t need for the Olympics. In what way is that inconsistent with what I just said? If they can come up with a plan that doesn’t require the City and State to spend lots of money and doesn’t require the City and State to back up the debts of the Olympic committee in any way, I would indeed be much more open to the idea.
I don’t hate the Olympics. I do hate having to pay for it, having to have my parks and roads disrupted. I hate being patronized by self-appointed rich businessmen and told to trust them without any grounds being given for that trust. I hate being lied to. I hate being told that even though I was lied to, that I simply don’t understand who great everything will be.
In any case, if you want to wait for Boston 2024 to ever come up with a plan that would not in fact require public spending and would not take over public roads and parks, then you will be waiting a long time.
And the way that this committee has been continuing to hide details from us and continuing to insist that we are just too stupid to understand how great they are, leads me to feel that I can never trust this group of people to deal with us openly and honestly. Perhaps they can work on their plan and come back with a fully realized plan BEFORE they sign us up.
but I really do not recall your qualifying your comments with issues of paying for it in the past – sorry.
A group of Senators sending an inflammatory letter appealing to the most extreme elements of a hostile government is “unpatriotic”. Saying “no” — even “party-pooping” — in response to an ill-considered, arrogant, and premature Olympic bid has ZILCH to do with “patriotism”. It’s the kind of thing that gives patriotism a bad name and motivates middle-schoolers to refuse to say the pledge.
The fact that a tiny group of wealthy elites, together with politicians who pander to them, wraps a flag around their rubbish does NOT make it “American”. What’s next, get some religious figures to bless it and then accuse those who disagree of being “anti-religious”?
I agree with dasox1 that the ruse of appealing to God and country is a trite and cliche canard trotted out by the intellectually and politically bankrupt when the public rightly rejects whatever misguided nonsense has been offered.
This is precisely the arena where it should be OK to yell USA! USA! as opposed more serious things like war or other detrimental foreign policies, or for that matter pretend we’re number one in various achievements when facts show otherwise. We have been chosen to carry the torch on our country’s behalf for this friendly competition that unites humanity, so yes, it would be nice if we acted like it.
The modern Olympic games were conceived in part as an antidote to nationalism, a celebration not of countries but of individual athletes.
If de Coubertin were alive today, he’d be rolling in his grave.
I’m only aware of Games that do medal counts by country and play the national anthems of the gold medalists – sounds like a national aspect to me.
It has been a very long time since the games have not revolved around national pride.
What do you mean WE, kemosabe?
I think you’ve honed in on the problem. This isn’t a “we” bid. “We” weren’t a part of it until Boston2024 already had the bid done. They’ve given “us” something we didn’t ask for. Now that they need “our” buy-in – to use our land, to take over our transportation infrastructure, and, yes, to reach into our pockets – now it becomes “we” all of a sudden.
If anyone is really serious about bringing an Olympics here, let’s reset and start the process over for 2028. And the first step, not one to take after the USOC has already picked a bid, is to ask the question whether, conceptually, the majority of the population thinks it is a good idea.
No less so than to say “we” won the World Series or the Super Bowl, for example, even though it would be technically more correct to say the Red Sox or the Patriots won those titles, the vast majority of us doing nothing more than cheering them on, which is what I wish we were doing in this case.
and with the possible exception for post-blizzard superbowl victory parades, you probably won’t see it reflected in your tax bill either.
When people start trying to use the word “we” to suggest that someone “we” are responsible for this bid, that is another matter entirely. Boston 2024 is not “we”. This bid is not “our” bid.
I’m pretty sure it was at least discussed.
Yes, it was discussed. The Patriots actually threatened to move to Hartford if we didn’t build them a stadium. We said “no” and they came up with private funding and everything worked out anyway. The state only paid for some road improvements around the stadium.
There was also similarly negative sentiment about publicly funding a new Fenway Park when the Red Sox where up for sale. Likewise, the Boston Garden was paid for privately.
Boston has a pretty strong history for not paying for sports venues out of the public purse. Not sure why Boston 2024 would ignore that reality in their planning.
It is a massive real estate deal with Sports as window dressing. Do you honestly believe that John Fish is pushing the Olympic bid just for the sports?
And if he is so patriotic why is he still hiding the details from us citizens? Why does the USOC refuse to release the results of the polls they took in the candidate cities? Sorry by the USOC and Boston 2024 are private agencies beholden only to themselves.
I just like the idea of an international event close to home.
but does it have to be the Olympics?
When you get married you might want to have the reception at the Ritz and invite 500 guests, but when you consider the costs, you end up with 100 guests at a local inn. What’s wrong with that?
We don’t need to blow the bank on the Olympics in order to get a little international sports action. (BTW, isn’t the World Skating championship coming here ? Perhaps that will satisfy your international sports craving.)
I didn’t know it was coming and still pales in comparison to the Olympics.
Did you forget about when that came to Boston?
Yes, we all know that the Olympics is the biggest international sports even there is. If you are not satisfied by other international sports events coming here then I think you are not being entirely honest when you state you “just like the idea of an international event”. Or perhaps you could give an example of something else that fits your description?
…but the Olympics is in a class by itself IMO. I don’t know if there is another example, but if you think I’m not being honest I’ll turn the question back. What do you think I’m trying to say? Abstract emotional concepts like this one are admittedly difficult to articulate.
and are trying to turn it into a more general interest in “international events”, whatever that means. Is there some particular event you are dying to see in person?
Hey, there is nothing wrong with finding it exciting that the Olympics could come here. But your betting my property taxes against that vicarious pleasure. For better or worse, the City of Boston is going to bear the brunt of the burden on this. If you want me to get behind it, you have to offer me more than that.
It really sounds like you’re reacting to the TV fantasy version of what the Olympic Games is. I agree that the Olympics is unique. The good things about it are ephemeral, as are some of the bad things, but the damage it can do to a host locale can linger for decades. I don’t think you’ve been willing to acknowledge that at all.
Maybe the ceremonies, since that’s actually all I watch on TV for the most part, but I suspect those are among the most expensive tickets. I might try to get to a Lowell event if I’m still here just so I can say I did. I’m not trying particularly hard to get others behind it. I’ve done nothing to organize around this. It is simply my opinion which I would also express by vote if I get that chance.
Or does that not count because it’s home-grown?
…except for the part where the historian in me cringes that we seem to have all but forgotten the real reason that day is significant.
Patriot’s Day is a glorious opportunity to walk Minuteman National Historical Park, enjoy Lexington’s Battle Green (and perhaps a leisurely brunch in town), or enjoy the weather at the North Bridge park in Concord.
Alternatively, the Isaac Davis Trailmarch from Acton to the Old North Bridge is a marvelous Patriot’s Day celebration.
A lower-key walk is from Hosmer Street and Route 2 in Acton, turning right onto Concord Road and walking towards Ice House Pond (at today’s Route 2A). On the left is a tiny cellar-hole, I think of Abner Hosmer (but I’m not sure). Standing there, in a warm April sun, one can contemplate just how remote that area was in 1775 — and just how much courage it took to confront the world’s strongest military colossus at the time.
I much prefer this way of celebrating Patriot’s Day.
to follow the path from Concord that the British took to retreat back to Boston.
Or perhaps we could sponsor a charity running group to run the marathon wearing 18th century British infantry uniforms!
Running the Marathon on the Dawes / Revere route would really screw up the Patriot’s Day events. Not just the horse-riders, but the parades and battle reenactments would be severely restricted, if not eliminated, by the needs of the Marathon.
n/m
I should have added smiley
😉
I thought it was interesting way of combining them.
We certainly agree that this is “SPORTS” — note the capitalization.
Fans who like baseball can watch any home game at LeLacheur Park. Excellent premium box seats for the June 25 game cost $10 each.
The Boston area, because it has a rich variety of colleges and universities, offers an equally rich variety opportunities to watch most Olympic sports.
Yelling “USA! USA!” is the antithesis of “uniting humanity”. It appeals to our instincts of pure tribal lust, and we live in a culture that already does far too much of that. Perhaps if fewer Boston-area residents spent so much time yelling “Yankees suck” they might be more tolerant of, for example, the (legal) immigrants that are the backbone of so many of our thriving neighborhoods.
…and we can watch the Olympics on TV, but neither beats the thrill of having the Olympics within walking distance. The Olympics is both a unity event and a competition. I see nothing wrong or contradictory about that, and it’s a way to cheer the home team without resorting to xenophobia on, again, more serious matters of policy.
Exactly how thrilling is it to be able to walk to venues that you cannot afford to enter?
How many people who live near Franklin Park, one of the least affluent sections of Boston, do you think will be able to buy tickets to see equestrian events? How many of those people are going to be excluded from using large sections of the park nearest their home?
Yes, there will be some excitement about something big happening. But I really don’t know if the thrill is worth it.
…using examples from other Games, that ticket prices can be reasonable, but nobody seems to believe me, discount the illegality of scalping and make it out to be the Olympics fault. Even if I don’t get to an event just knowing they are on home turf is satisfying.
They could post their proposed ticket prices publicly. Surely they must have already made estimates of attendance and ticket revenue? Or did they simply make up their revenue projects out of whole cloth?
be interested in seeing equestrian events? This is not the big four of US sports we’re talking about. Why aren’t the equestrian events planned for Myopia? They already have a history of it up there, and also have the infrastructure, outside of viewing stands, and it’s not far away from Boston.
You’ve made it very clear over the past few years that you do NOT live in Boston and you will NOT be “within walking distance” of the proposed events. The proposal is NOT a local event for you.
Yet you discount and dismiss the objections from those of us who DO live within walking distance.
There has been a fair amount of discussion about river events in Lowell. For other reasons a great part of me hopes I’m not still living in this particular spot nine years from now, but such events may take place within two miles of where I currently live. Given likely traffic and parking issues I may literally walk to get there. Others are entitled to their opinion, but you can’t object based on how close you are then howl when others call you out for NIMBYism.
One would assume you would be equally excited if the World Rowing championships were held in Lowell, right? Perhaps you could organize to get that done.
World Rowing is not the Olympics.
You raised the question of “how close you are”, not me. You don’t get to sit in the Merrimack Valley and then preach to me about how wonderful it will be to be within walking distance of these disasters for two weeks.
When we talk about using Olympic money to “expand” public transportation, where do you think commuter rail connections between Lowell and Worcester (or anywhere else except Boston) fit on the committee’s priority list? You’re more likely to see the trolleys replaced — permanently — by “more modern” vehicles.
Current reports are that Lowell may host two events, boxing (in the Lowell Memorial Auditorium) and rowing (on the Merrimack River). Neither of those is going to shut down the entire city, destroy large swaths of real estate, or flood the city with millions of people for two weeks.
Looking dispassionately at the impact these events will have is not “NIMBYism”. I certainly can and will object based on both the short-term and long-term damage this will cause to the entire region — including my town.
…and while increased rail to Lowell to accommodate it might be nice I’m not holding my breath. However, if you are suggesting that someone from outside 128 isn’t allowed an opinion I cannot more strongly disagree. It is still my state and my capital city too. I’ve never been much for parochialism (and no, that’s not the same as local pride – one’s negative and the other is positive, which makes all the difference).
My wife and daughter were in Beijing for the entire 2008 Olympics, visiting my mother-in-law. The MIL lives a fairly short walk from the Olympic Stadium. My daughter is a gymnast, and of course had an intense interest in those events. So how many events did they walk over and see? Zero. The main reason is because the government-owned TV system broadcast every event live, for free. They do that for every Olympics, BTW.
Why would you scrabble to buy a nosebleed seat (because all the good seats go to either Party members or corporate suits, depending on the hosting country) and be crushed by the crowd, then squint at the action through binoculars, when you could sit at home and watch any event you like in high-def on TV? That’s what you should be agitating for — universal public access to TV coverage of all the Games, not a jingoistic celebration filtered by a corporation to make big bucks.
As for your being able to walk over and see the rowing on the Merrimack, you can count on access to Olympic events being limited-access, unlike other championship events that have been held there. Have you been to any of those, or is it only the Olympics you are a fan of?
…that being their once is cool despite the hassles. I attended Clinton’s second inaugural in person, several blocks back in the freezing cold. Yes, I quickly concluded I’d get a better seat in front of the TV, but I’m still glad I did it once. Other examples include the July 4th Pops concert on the Esplanade and the Tournament of Roses Parade – again better view from the TV, but attending once in person is on the bucket list. I have not been to other events as I’m not that interested, but I would go as a ticket-holder. I do realize I can’t just go down to the river to see what there is to see on a whim.
If that really is your motivation, maybe you could stop accusing opponents of knee-jerk party-pooping and seek out some of the World Class events we already have. You know — ones that don’t involve such inconvenience, expense, and damage to our public parks.
..which represent something greater than the examples I offered. If we assume the complaints from your last line will come to pass many cities have and will handle it and I remain confident Boston could do the same.
And while I am sure that Boston could “handle” the expense and damage to our public roads and parks, I am afraid that “handling” will entail large public expense just as it has come about in other cities that have hosted.
Is 2012 host London a ghost town or something now? What about American hosts Atlanta, SLC, and LA?
We also lived through this past winter, but I don’t care to repeat the experience!
Yes, I am sure that no one actually died directly as a result of Olympic cost overruns. I don’t think that is a very strong argument. We definitely do NOT want the extra debt that London had to assume.
Now you do have a point in that Olympics several decades ago were not so bloated. It is a good question to ask whether we can go back to that. Perhaps we might have to cut some events or cut back on amenities. I suppose the high cost of fancy athletic technology, drug testing, etc. also has something to do with it.
Regardless no one has begun to show why this is a good idea for Boston.
The Olympics is a great, big, giant party — the world’s biggest and most expensive. It’s nothing more and nothing less.
Parties are great, but you don’t go dropping $5k on an open bar at a wedding so your uncle can booze it up unless you have it. Boston doesn’t “have it.”
We don’t have the hundreds of millions to build velodromes and indoor volleyball centers that will play to empty stands and be torn down — at great expense — after the Olympics.
We don’t have a billion dollars for a track stadium that would have no use beyond the paralympic games, a few short weeks/months after the Olympic’s closing ceremonies.
We could throw a party — and a pretty great one — if our stingy rich uncle wasn’t demanding an open bar — one he isn’t willing to pay for himself — as his ‘price’ for his attendance at our ‘wedding.’
There’s a stadium in Foxboro that the IOC could use for the opening and closing ceremony, which would spare Boston from spending roughly a billion to build a 60,000 seat track stadium that would never be used again.
The IOC’s demands for that brand new, redundant stadium would be like the NFL demanding cities build a new football stadium every year if they want to have the Superbowl, a stadium that would only be used once.
What’s so patriotic about that? Would any city that rejected that also be “party poopers?”
If the IOC allowed Foxboro to hold the opening and closing ceremony, we could build a considerably smaller track stadium — which would not only mean it would cost a small fraction of the price, but would open up a great deal more areas of the city as places that could hold the event, instead of having to destroy a business with 900 good, working class jobs at Whidett Circle through eminent domain.
A 20,000 seat track stadium would also have many more potential uses, too — whether that’s the Revs, one of our colleges, the city, etc. With a little planning, it wouldn’t have to be destroyed after the games — and could have many uses.
Additionally, our stingy, rich uncle — who won’t pay for anything he demands — wants us to build a bridge that’s tens of millions more expensive than it needs to be so it won’t interfere with his rowing event.
Couldn’t the IOC allow an exemption on whatever it is that it doesn’t like about the Charles or Merrimack River so we could host these events at a fraction of the cost of the bridge they want? The Charles River hosts one of the premier rowing events in the entire world — surely, the IOC could make it work, so the only major costs for the event would be security.
Similarly, while there isn’t a velodrome in Boston, there is one in NYC. Why is the IOC making us build one? Couldn’t bicyclists put their bikes on the Acela and trek down to Queens for a few days, to play at a place where a velodrome actually exists?
Beijing held equestrian events in Hong Kong, couldn’t we farm out the velodrome like Beijing did equestrian?
And speaking of equestrian events, instead of having to tear up a quarter of Franklin Park so we could host equestrian events there, couldn’t we use an equestrian facility somewhere in New England or NY that already exists? Or build one in the Boston suburbs, where there’s space and it could be built at a fraction of the cost?
If the IOC was reasonable and flexible and designed its policies around saving cities as much money as humanly possible, then maybe, MAYBE, we could have an Olympic proposal that could make sense.
Maybe we could have a proposal people could get behind.
Maybe we could have an Olympics that cost $5 billion, instead of $25.
It would probably still be a money loser no matter what, but Boston isn’t a stingy city, just a smart city.
It’ll throw a party — we throw many every year — but not a party that requires mortgaging its entire future.
So you can accuse Boston of being a “party pooper” as soon as the IOC either ponies up the money for its own events, or gets reasonable, and allows Boston the flexibility it needs to put on the games at a cost that approaches sanity.
But you can’t accuse us of that a moment before.
…and Boston 2024 has made a point of addressing them. I was fairly certain, for example, that I read in the plan the concept of using pre-existing facilities.
What exact part of what I wrote have they addressed?
-They haven’t demanded that the IOC let them have the opening and closing ceremonies at Foxboro.
-They haven’t demanded that the IOC give them exemptions so they have rowing on the Charles using the same Head of the Charles route.
-They haven’t demanded that the IOC let them have equestrian and velodrome events in facilities that already exist in the Northeast.
At no point have they done anything that suggests they’re looking to have a low-cost games.
NOT ONE THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess I didn’t see anything about facilities except one point about, yes, building temporary, but the infamous FAQ page, which you long ago decided you would just dismiss out of hand, does address other points you have raised about costs, impact, etc. Really, Ryan, the sky is not going to fall on Boston if we get the Games and your hyperbole (billions and billions – really?) isn’t helping your argument.
That is not the same lame FAQ we have been complaining about. It has been greatly improved.
No, the sky will not fall. People like me who live in Boston will pay higher property taxes. You will probably not pay anything more.
I should also point that the sky will not fall if Boston never hosts the Olympics. The economy will continue to grow, tourism will continue to grow, the same neighborhoods that Boston 2024 wants to develop will be developed by someone else.
Billions and billions is what the Olympics costs. Sochi was $50 billion.
And no, they haven’t addressed these issues, any more than a failing student has addressed his study habits by promising to do his homework next time, after 3 months of promising “next time” and not doing it.
They say they want to do this right but there’s no action behind that.
Your level of trust for people who have been caught lying on numerous points, including to the USOC in their bid, is astounding.
This is an organization that has not earned any trust.
And, yes, billions and billions. That is not hyperbole. Boston 2024 is saying it’ll cost $5 billion, just like London said it would cost thereabouts when they gave their initial bid. It cost London around $15 billion and pretty much every outside expert is saying it’ll cost Boston considerably more, with a price tag at $20-30 billion.
Billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and more billions could end up saddling the city of Boston and our Commonwealth for generations to come, with interest. That is not hyperbole. That is as real as it gets.
That is what happens when costs balloons and the city, state and our state agencies aren’t indemnified against against cover overruns.
It’s critical for our state and region to get out in front of the cost issue and get guarantees that the IOC will be on the hook for any overruns or unforeseen costs, not our state and local governments.
At several points on the page there are references to insurance, indemnity, raising money from private sources. Yes, the budget is in the billions, but NOT in public dollars, to wit:
Venues –
Tax dollars –
Further bid costs –
Eminent domain –
Financial guarantees –
You have based almost all of what you said and what could happen, and assuming the worst, despite the bid committee’s efforts and commitment to do things differently.
The City\Commonwealth will backstop costs. The Olympics doesn’t happen otherwise. That’s how it works.
With the exception of the L.A. games, which had a unique situation, the Olympics have a long record of cost overruns. Some have argued for Massachusetts’ exceptionalism, but Boston 2024 has done little to demonstrate that we should have confidence in that.
All Ryan or anyone else can do is talk about what could happen. Few predictions are definite. The issue is risk. The question is, Weighing the potential costs and benefits, material or otherwise, are the Olympics worth the risk of our hosting?
However, but Boston 2024 isn’t saying there won’t be overruns, but that THEY will pay them.
They are saying they will TRY to pay them. If they were going to absolutely guarantee to pay for all overruns, they would not need the City to sign an agreement to cover them.
They have said they will try to get insurance, but I find it highly unlikely that any such insurance will not have either large deductibles or limits for how much of an overruns they will cover, if not both.
City/Commonwealth has to guarantee the costs. Andrew Zimbalist wrote the book on the subject:
from the Herald:
“specifically designated” is a loop-hole the size of the Big Dig.
if he keeps making inflammatory comments, he will eventually have to resign from the committee and can then un-recuse his company. Even if his company doesn’t work on Olympics related projects, the extra construction work in an already overheated market will mean more work and more profits for anyone in the construction industry.
Unfortunately for Boston 2024 Fish may turn out to be a permanent liability because they simply aren’t going to be able to honestly say that Fish is not going to profit from this.