Click here for a quick WCVB video, or here for all the sordid details at the Boston Business Journal.
In case anyone’s bad at math, 66% of an Opening Day stadium would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, London spent nearly $800 million on its opening day stadium. Anyone think Massachusetts has a spare $528 million lying around?
Of course, this was all a part of Boston 2024’s winning USOC bid. They just didn’t make any of this public. Instead, they lied straight to our faces, again and again, saying taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for any venue costs.
Don’t worry, though — they say they weren’t trying to be dishonest. Boston’s Pantheon of Elites sitting on top Boston 2024’s board didn’t tell us we’d have to pay for 66% of their stadium because it was “proprietary information.”
That’s like a thief stealing a credit card and going out on a shopping binge, then saying they didn’t steal — they just didn’t let us know they would be using our credit card because it was “proprietary information.”
Let’s also not forget that Beacon Hill just rejected an amendment that would have prevented the Commonwealth from putting taxpayers on the hook for any Olympic funding.
How many of the legislators made that vote knowing Boston 2024 was already planning for us to be on the hook for hundreds of millions on the big stadium alone? Probably not many and hopefully none.
Funny that Boston 2024 makes this reveal just days after that vote.
Given light of Boston 2024’s new admission, and its giant whopper of a lie, it’s time for Beacon Hill to reconsider that Olympic amendment and protect taxpayers. If people were rightfully outraged that Alaska would take public funds to build a Bridge to No Where, Beacon Hill should ensure taxpayers aren’t fleeced into paying for a Stadium Without a Team.
The Bizjournal article makes lots of references to funding infrastructure improvements, which in my understanding was the plan all along.
– the “infrastructure improvements” that had been discussed previously are things like upgrading the MBTA, which need to happen regardless of the Olympics. The revelation that “infrastructure improvements” surrounding an Olympics-only venue were also expected to be publicly financed is a major one, and pretty clearly contradicts what Boston 2024 has been saying for months.
– Also, they were counting on the (taxpayer-funded) BCEC expansion, which they hadn’t previously revealed, and which now looks like it may well not happen.
…and expect that any of it would serve the city beyond the Olympics.
Available here.
There are things that you emphatically have not seen. For example:
…and the IOC and Boston2024 have, shall we say, a limited concern for infrastructure improvements
From Massterlist.com:
Other things the bid was relying on, at least as of five months ago? An expanded Boston Exhibition Center (womp), a willing partner in that Widett Circle food market (womp womp), and since they didn’t even mention the MBTA, a fully functioning transit system (wompity womp.)
This is little more than vanity politics run amok.
And Olympics-only infrastructure might, or very well might not, be worth it to the city in the long run. It’s an entirely different kettle of fish from things like MBTA improvements.
A: The official’s lips are moving.
We can’t afford a public transportation system that actually works in the winter. We can’t afford local aid (without plundering our most desperate). We can’t afford an online system allowing our unemployed to apply for benefits that actually works. We can’t afford a health care website and system that actually works. We can’t afford the government resources needed to regulate in-state pharmaceutical compounders so that they don’t kill people. We can’t afford to regulate state-run crime labs so that they don’t manufacture fraudulent evidence.
FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS for yet another stadium that will be used for two weeks and then turned into a white elephant? No problem. I guess we’ll use the money we’re saving by refusing to fund the MBTA to build the new Olympics digs.
But hey, we NEED a new soccer stadium. No doubt some of the spotlessly pure and honest IOC officials so wrongly smeared by groundless corruption charges are eager to introduce us to their similarly pure and honest counterparts at FIFA.
Corruption in international sports? Nah, it’s just a nefarious plot by the US to persecute Russians. If Vladimir Putin trusts FIFA, why shouldn’t the rest of us?
If these lies and deceptions weren’t causing so much pain and suffering right here and right now (especially to our working-class men and women who are still paying the price for this winter’s transportation catastrophe), the whole B2024 thing would be a funny Keystone Cops short.
Given the urgent priorities that go undiscussed — never mind addressed — it’s no longer funny.
The statement that “Taxpayers on the hook…” is wrong. Taxpayers are not on the hook. The 67% percent of the stadium in question has proposed funding by Tax increment Financing (TIF) bonds which are issued by the state against expected tax increases SOLELY attached to the increased (developed) value of the land they specify. If I lend you $100 dollars to improve a $200 dollar piece of land into a $300 (or greater) piece of land, the difference in taxes will recoup the $100 I lent. TIF bonds are attractive to public entities exactly and precisely because they require nothing from taxpayers.
Comparisons with Londons 800 Million dollar stadium are irrelevant because A) London 2012 was wholly publicly funded from the get go and 2) the UK does not use TIF bonds (though debate is underway last I looked, for Edinburgh to adopt their use)
This is, by the way, also NOT different from what Boston2024 said in general with their public disclosure.
It’s rather sordid to jump on the appearance of “poop[ing] its pants” when nothing of the sort occurred. What is this, high school?
The taxpayers still have to float the bonds and will be 100% on the hook if the tax revenues don’t turn out the way we expect. This also assumes that the land would not be otherwise improved by someone else without the Olympics. Given the massive amount of development going on throughout downtown Boston and the Seaport district, that would be a very bad assumption. The simple fact is that that all of the land in question is only going to get more valuable over time with or without the Olympics.
I also fail to see how building a stadium and tearing it down is going to improve anything. That is just money down the toilet. The real improvement will come with the development that comes *after* the Olympics, but that won’t be until more than ten years from now. If developing that land is such a good idea, we can do it now and start reaping the tax benefits much sooner.
Wrong. The bonds are written, and purchased, with the understanding that funds will come from increased revenue from the property and only from that property. The taxpayer is not on the hook in any way. If revenues come in lower than expected the bondholder gets a haircut. That’s the risk. To date the use (and abuse) of Tax Increment Financing has been one of growth so there’s not reason to expect a haircut here.
Nothing about a TIF bond excludes improvements elsewhere… just that the increased revenue from the development goes to the TIF. Otherwise it goes to the general refundds.
Which has nothing to do with anything. You’re arguing against improving in one way by saying another way is just as good. So what? TIF captures the improvements revenue into repayment. That’s all. In the course of doing that, it protects existing taxpayers from rate increases for improvements.
There are still costs. The development of the land could result in extra costs to the city in terms of extra public services that it does not currently need to provide (e.g. street maintenance, trash collection, etc.) which will not be covered by the extra taxes because they will go to service the bonds.
If the land were developed independently then all of the additional taxes would go to the City and would not go to finance the construction. So if a similarly sized development were to occur without TIF, the City loses revenue it would otherwise have gained.
So it is still not true that the taxpayers don’t lose anything.
The proposed site of the land is in use today for, among other things, a food market and other industrial services. There will be no extra services. Services are already in place. This is not going from frozen tundra wasteland to sprawling city. This is going from one use to another use.
Let us be clear: suppose you pay $10 dollars a year in tax on your $200 property. Over 20 years you’ll pay $200 in taxes. If the property is improved to the tune of $100 dollars, making it now a $300 property, the tax rate staying the same, the new tax will be $15/year and over twenty years you’ll pay $300 total in taxes. The difference, in improvements, is $100 dollars. In a TIF bond, that’s what gets paid back… just the overage. The non-overage is treated no differently than prior. The city loses no revenue. If the site proves to be wildly popular and the value increases greater than the initial $100 outlay the city gains much much more and so much the better. If the property value, against all logic, falls to say $14 per year, then the bond is devalued and returns less.
Yeah, it is true. The taxpayer won’t lose anything. The taxpayer is not on the hook.
I don’t understand why it is so difficult. Why are people so emotionally invested in Boston2024 being nothing but a rapacious pack of blood thirsty elites and ne’er-do-wells who are just waiting to rape the city…?
If we believe that the food market will eventually leave, then the land will surely be developed right? At some point, even without the Olympics, there is going to be a strong economic incentive for the co-op to sell or redevelop their land to take advantage of that value.
I don’t understand why you can’t admit that the city *does* indeed lose revenue. If the improvement were to be funded privately without TIF, then the taxes would go up and there would be no bond to pay back.
It is also clearly not true that there will not be additional services required. The plan calls for new streets, which currently do not exist. That will require additional city-maintained infrastructure. Perhaps it won’t amount to all that much compared to the rest of the City, but it won’t be zero.
In any case, I still don’t see how this applies to a temporary stadium, which will not create any long term value whatsoever. If we think that it is going to be such great idea to redevelop that area and that it won’t happen without the Cities intervention, then let’s do that without the Olympics. That way we won’t waste extra money building and tearing down temporary structures and we won’t have to wait ten years before we actually get usable development.
Because in fact, most TIF arrangements do require the city to pay the money out of general revenues if the new tax revenues from the property aren’t enough. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/28/walsh-says-public-money-can-used-for-olympic-infrastructure/aIjtE75n1JDlVe2nCqsz2N/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline
How can that possibly raise sufficient funds? You can pay for 67% of a billion-dollar stadium, based solely on the taxes off the increase in value of the stadium? Only if the bondholder is Ameriquest.
I am pretty sure that this mechanism requires putting quite a bit of land around the project into the “pool” so that the increase on everything in the pool is taxed. So, say, if this mechanism were used to rebuild Fenway Park, then all of near and close-by Fenway, Back Bay, and Brookline would be in the “pool,” and all of that property would appreciate, producing a sizable increase in tax revenue across a broad area, which is then dedicated to the bond.
I would think that if you are a homeowner whose property is subject to the pool, and you pay increased taxes on account of the appreciation occasioned by the new Fenway, then you would likely contend that taxpayer money is indeed being used.
This kind of financing is usually used for extremely blighted areas– like 1 15,000 acre property with environmental problems and a derelict manufacturing plant, where the present tax revenue is near nil, and the appreciation caused by redevelopment can be dramatic. The theory is that the development of something in the middle can cause redevelopment of nearby properties, thus causing the broad increase in values across an area.
I am not sure where they propose to build– because if it is in an area in which the real estate is ALREADY high-priced, then there is unlikely to be sufficient appreciation to viably fund 67% of the cost of a stadium. There aren’t many such candidates near Boston.
the communities that receive the development, but there is impact to the tax rate.
One risk–and I don’t know how great it is in this case–is that development drives up property values, thus increases the tax bills, and prices people out of the neighborhood.This can lead to gentrification. Based on Wikipedia, this has been a problem in some locales, such as Chicago, but that may have to do with the nature of local politics as well as the nature of the projects funded.
California has discontinued the practice of TIFs. I don’t know the details, but this opinionated source may be a place to start:
None of this is to say TIF necessarily won’t work for the Olympics, just that it’s not without risks.
… TIF’s in California have been a victim of their own success: originally conceived and limited to combat ‘blight’ over many years they allowed various redevelopment authorities to build up massive bank accounts that actually had the affect of impacting property tax collection statewide. CA Govs periodically raided these funds to balance budgets. (Schwarzennegger was a particular fan). Redevelopers (who often viewed with great elasticity the definition of ‘blight’) fought back and got amendments to pass outlawing this practice. Now Jerry Brown (who was a fan of them as Mayor of Oakland) wants to abolish them to prevent further billions being ‘captured’.
So yeah, TIFs have been abused. And there’s nothing saying that won’t happen here. But there’s also nothing say it has to happen here… But I’m not arguing that they are always the right answer or should be as wide spread (and completely lacking in checks and balances) as they are in CA. I am arguing that
they are a way to keep the ‘taxpayers off the hook’… which is what this diary is about.
Hmm. So the property owner who pays these increased taxes is not a “taxpayer”. Funny, I thought “taxpayer” meant “somebody who pays taxes”.
If there is new government revenue available from improvements to this property (funded through TIF bonds, for example), then there is a lengthy list of non-Olympics needs where that new government revenue could be invested. Every dollar that is spent on B2024 (such as for the contemplated temporary stadium) is a dollar NOT spent on those other needs.
If the non-B2024 projects proceed anyway, then every dollar spent on B2024 is an EXTRA dollar that taxpayers have to spend in comparison to a no-B2024 scenario. If the non-B2024 projects are scuttled because the government invested in B2024 instead, then the taxpayers have spent imputed dollars by not having needed government projects.
There is no way to simply materialize things like temporary stadia. The money comes from somewhere, and it’s clear from these documents that that “somewhere” is Massachusetts taxpayers.
… There are no “increased taxes.”
There is increased tax revenue because the value of the property increased: Same dentatation; more pie to bite into…
Donald Trump does not get a tax increase when he gives himself a raise.
Homeowners who use last years IRS refund check to put a new roof on their house don’t increase their own taxes: they increased the value of their home and may end up with a bigger tax bill down the road because of it.
Namely, that the same land would not be developed by someone else without TIF funding or that the proposed use under TIF is likely to generate more tax revenue than other likely development.
In this particular case, I don’t see how TIF funding for a temporary stadium makes any sense at all. The stadium is going not going to generate any tax revenue at all nor is the empty lot that replaces it when it is torn down. So that is a net minus over the current situation. You only get revenue when you then develop that same land for some commercial or mixed use. That won’t happen until at the very least ten years from now. I have no idea how many decades after that Boston would actually see any revenue benefit.
And who would actually benefit from the TIF deal anyway? It is going to be whatever private developers are responsible for developing the land after the Olympics are gone. So in return for using future tax revenue to build and destroy a stadium we don’t need for any other purpose, we get to subsidize some already ultra-rich developers to build private buildings that most Bostonians will never visit.
Even without the Olympics we have seen pretty aggressive development of both commercial and high-end residential buildings in the downtown areas of Boston. I see no reason why that would not eventually reach every underutilized piece of land in that neighborhood in the next decade or so even without the Olympics.
So perhaps TIF doesn’t force taxpayers to pay the costs upfront (except perhaps that it may hamper the ability to sell other bonds or debt for projects that we actually want), but it is simply not true that it will not cost them anything in the future.
See CMD’s comment above.
If the TIF is to generate new money, then more tax dollars are being collected than before. Massachusetts can’t print money, and so the money comes from someplace.
The someplace is property owners who pay more in property taxes — taxpayers.
On the planet I live on, if Donald Trump gives himself a raise, then he pays more in income taxes. When the government spends that increased revenue from Donald Trump, the government most certainly IS spending “taxpayer funds”.
The B2024 claim (and lie) was that there would be no taxpayer funding. Not “no tax increases”, and certainly no mention of tax rates.
The nearby property owner, whose circumstances change not at all, but whose property appreciates on account of some new nearby development, pays more in taxes on account of the scheme.
That’s assuming that there is, in fact, some large appreciation in property values as a result of the construction of a temporary Olympic stadium. What happens if there is no appreciation, and therefore no increase in tax revenues sufficient to pay the bond? I can guess.
I guess I should’ve said “shit the bed,” as I was originally thinking. Sorry – my bad. 😉
Based on a very dubious plan.
It makes the Rhode Island Curt Schilling deal look smart, if you ask me. There’s plenty of better ways we can use 500 million in TIF than to build a stadium that would only be used once and then be knocked down again, all the while displacing 1000 good working class jobs currently at the site and holding up future development of the land by ten years.
Just in, from the Herald:
dead in the water.
Even if Petr’s and Christopher’s defenses of Boston 2024 were valid, even if Boston 2024 has done nothing wrong, the appearance of not having done enough right is enough to sink the whole project. Maybe it’s the process itself–rather than Boston 2024’s competence–that resulted in what has proven to be a public relations fiasco, but the apparent lack of transparency, honesty, and forethought has doomed their credibility. Every defense on their part will now be seen as defensiveness. This thing is done.
I’m trying hard to separate the actual badness from the hyperventilating commentary (it’s akin to trying to figure out the impact of illegal immigration by talking to a Republican), but this stinks. Many of the opponents here and elsewhere (Hester Prynne definitely expected) are as ridiculous as the bid proponents.
Nonetheless…I said long ago that the biggest question for Boston 2024 was the stadium for athletics and the ceremonies. This is entirely the wrong way to do it. The wrong place and the wrong way. The problem is that no need exists for such a stadium, so nobody wants to pay for one. I don’t know how to square that circle.
Hester Prynne “definitely excepted.”
(I’m getting in on the ground floor of predictions. What the hell? Predictions are cheap enough). But seriously, I think Boston 2024 is done. This kind of publicity added to what seems at best to be ambivalence across the political spectrum–BBJ, Boston Herald, Governor, Elizabeth Warren–is killer. Who wants to assume the fiscal risk for what appears to be a 1 percenter clusterfk? It’s not like something of great value will be missed without an Olympics in Boston. I just don’t see how anyone short of Jesus promotes this bid to success.
I don’t see how it’s “hyperventilating” to observe that the proponents said one thing to the public and even to other officials (like Elizabeth Warren) while submitting formal written documents that say something else. The B2024 proponents are on record as saying that no public funds would be spent. We know, now, that WHILE THEY WERE SAYING THAT, they were promising to spend public funds.
Is it “hyperventilating” to object to these outright lies?
I have yet to see any workable numbers, transparent promises of benefits delivered, or realistic timetables from bid backers. Certainly you and Christopher haven’t provided any, and you are the two advocates I respect the most in this debate. I have seen, read, written, and linked to troves of commentary on the other side showing why the bid as currently constructed is a boondoggle waiting to happen.
Are there some people ideologically opposed to the Games due to anti-1% sentiments? Sure, I would argue that is a reasonable ideological principle to have seeing how bad international sporting actors have shown themselves to be in the realm of human rights and financial transparency.
There is no reasonable ideological objection to illegal immigration from Mexico that doesn’t eventually smack of racist nativism. There are perhaps arguments about crime, strain on the social safety net, wage depression, deunionization, and employer explotation, but those are issues immigration reform is designed to solve. Opposing that reform shows a reluctance to confront the real problem. I don’t think anyone on our side is reluctant to confront the real problems inherent in the current Olympic bidding process, short of substantial global reform that cleans up the IOC, any kind of bid Boston would present will inevitably lead us down the rabbit hole of cost overruns, corruption, and white elephants.
I disagree with folks turning what should be a relatively technocratic debate into an ideological litmus test, and perhaps the opponents have done that. I see centrists like Falchuk and UIP, conservatives like Keller and Carr, liberals like Warren and Rosenberg, and power brokers like Baker and De Leo aligning against a progressive Mayor and the Boston business community. There is ideological diversity on both sides, the question always boils down to ways and means and ends, and I think your side hasn’t done any homework on convincing us that the means justify the ends.
We’re nothing more than sideline cheerleaders, but end up being the targets of everyone’s anti-Games vitriol, because no official backers have shown their proverbial face on BMG, which I continue to say they should.
You have to back up your opinion. You can’t just throw out generalities and blaming Boston 2024 for not backing your play.
My opinion is simply I want the Olympics to come. I have on several occasions pointed to their documents. Like cheerleaders in the regular context they cheer on the team, but it’s not their fault if they have a bad game.
F- the costs and financial obligations for a generation. Let’s have a party in Boston and Lowell. To all of the rest of the state’s taxpayers who are forced to pay for these new toys, like the bridge in Lowell, ehh, get over it.
“I have yet to see any workable numbers, transparent promises of benefits delivered, or realistic timetables from bid backers. Certainly you and Christopher haven’t provided any…” Neither have the anti-2024 snarkmeisters. So if I can’t write a complete budget for the Olympics, I can’t avoid closing my mind to them completely? Come on. I did provide sources that state that the bids broke even at least in 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, and 12 (every Games in the modern era save for Greece and China). Ignored. Pointed out the actual bylaws on bids pointing out the need for public support. Ignored and ridiculed for actually linking to the rules.
“There is no reasonable ideological objection to illegal immigration from Mexico that doesn’t eventually smack of racist nativism.” Opinion masquerading as fact. I don’t mean to sideline into immigration, but the attitude of “if you disagree with me you’re racist!” is a great summation of why our policymaking process is frozen. We’re seeing that extremism here, too.
The argument is simple…every modern summer games not held in a free-money dictatorship or economic basket case has made money. Either the people of Massachusetts are significantly dumber than those of Spain, Australia, South Korea, California, and the United Kingdom, or this would benefit Boston in the long run. Given the weight of history is on 2024’s side, the “case” built of rumors, supposition, and snark doesn’t seem to be as strong as it should.
Has made money for whom? The “sources” you linked to says this:
For the only three “profitable” Olympics in that story, this is what it says:
Also from your link:
That bag-holding is what we’re trying to avoid, and those benefits are showing no signs of becoming tangible.
I only care to the extent that the City of Boston or the state will have to cover any losses. I care whether the City itself makes a profit by this. And it is not at all clear that even in so-called profitable Olympics that host cities really earn back their increased investment.
In my view, the real cost of Boston2024 is the long list of things that DO NOT get done by government and society while making this happen. “Success” of the Boston2024 bid will, in my view, be a disaster.
Carl Sagan observed that his taxi driver was conversant with microscopic details of astrology, “ancient astronauts”, and similar pseudo-scientific hokum. He made the excellent point that the real thing is no more difficult to comprehend than the popularized rubbish that our culture fills its collective brain with instead. He wonders what it is about our media and culture that causes it to select pseudo-scientific rubbish instead of real science. Each has real mysteries, moments of grand inspiration, and human interest stories about lifetimes of hard work.
In my view, the same is true for this kind of “amateur” sports rubbish. It appears to me that we’ll be looking forward to ten more years of blow-by-blow arguments about this multi-billion dollar monstrosity. Our government officials, news media, and the public will remain ignorant of what those same billions could do if used on actual problems requiring actual solutions — except for a few weeks when a critical element like the MBTA fails completely. Then we’ll point the finger at a convenient scapegoat, issue a bullshit report or two, and then go back to our regular B2024/RedSox/Patriots/Celtics/Bruins programming.
I definitely think that lost opportunity cost should be included in our computation of what this is going to cost us.
I can easily imagine scenarios under which they are if anything complementary.
The are mutually exclusive because the government is already underfunded.
There is no public need for a stadium that will be used for two weeks. None. That need is exclusive to the B2024 proposal. If it happens, it will spend money that is, therefore, unavailable to anything else.
…that if Boston2024 makes a profit then they can cover the costs, whereas if they run in the red the public might be on the hook? I thought that was the whole point of this concern.
That’s the point. None of those profit claims from past Olympics actually include the cost of public subsidization.
… Dig a HUGE, oversized, gigundish hole, stepped widely — widely enough to accommodate even trucking — each ‘step’ only inches above the previous ‘step’, gently sloping up and around to above ground ramping and structure. A series of wide and flat (or gently sloping) platforms and ramps. I mean OVERSIZED and ENORMOUS with driveways and wide walkways and even biking pathways. This could easily be conceived and built by 2017.
Don’t put any seats in. None. No luxury boxes. Nothing. Just the platforms, oversized stepping and the underlying infrastructure.
Give it back to the food market and the others for the remainder of 2017 until late 2023. Let them make use of the floor of the stadia and each step/platform/ramp and beyond for what they are doing now. Open the other spaces for bike paths and walking paths also. Let the public have at it. Sell square footage or whole sections of platforms for vendors. Make food truck sections. Make concert spaces and parks, whatever. 80+ acres pretty much in the geographic center of the city is begging for better use and if we build an underlying series of platforms, ramps, steps and spaces — without predefining their intended purpose any more than generally — we can let something real flourish.
In late 2023 tenants move out for a year of so and the OCOG does refurb on the wear and tear of the place, put in the stadium flooring/ground that will be used and, here’s the beauty part, nothing else. Build no seats. build no luxury boxes. Mark out sections and sell temporary chairs AS THE TICKETS. People will order ‘tickets’ and get a chair with a number or bar code. They must bring the chair to the stadium. No chair. No entry. With the chair comes a number that tells them where they sit.
Each chair will come with a menu of available sporting events. If you buy a chair for the opening ceremony only that’s all you get. If you buy a chair for the opening and closing ceremonies plus, say, archery and sculling, at the conclusion of the opening ceremony you pick up the chair and take it with you to the archery grounds where a similar spot to place the chair awaits. Do this for every event. The platforms will be wide enough that temporary, and very basic wooden decking can be put in place to raise the seats behind. Smaller venues won’t have to build extra seating also, but make temp platforms, very basic and fundamental spaces, for the chairs people will bring. With money that this will save, the OCOG can afford to contract with some camping chair manufacturer for a really sturdy temporary chair maybe in a nice fabric with Olympic colors. And, when all is said and done, you have a nice souvenir of the Olympics.
In place of the luxury boxes, sell pre-defined square footage as luxury boxes and organize delivery or even private manufacture of whatever (within reason) furniture and or chairs for luxury the big spenders want to put there.. This can be allocated and planning start as soon as the final design is lit upon.
Similarly, sell space in square footage for vendors and merchandisers.
After the Olympics and Para-Olympics are through, the tenants come back in and use the space as before.
That’s it. Build an interesting space that is large and general let people use it. Then clean it up, issue chairs and let the stadium be truly temporary.
No need to dig a big hole. The West Roxbury quarry already provides such exactly what you are asking for. Furthermore, no one really wants the quarry anyway.
and provide vital services to the region, employing around 1000 people… with a giant hole?
A giant hole is a marvelously apt symbol for B2024.
You mean the things they are doing now, that require buildings, which they have? They should do those things without buildings, in the bottom of a big hole in the ground? I don’t think a single one of those businesses would accept those conditions. Would you accept it if I bulldozed your house and scooped out a hole in your yard, telling you you could move all your furniture into the hole and go on doing what you’re doing now? I don’t think so.
… an outcome distinctly in breach with reality. Maybe that’s the outcome you want but will you accept the breach with reality to have that outcome? Is that the world you want to live in?
Or, put another way, doesn’t that make you even a little bit sad? It sure does me…
I’ve read the bids and I don’t see dishonesty, or lack of transparency, at all. I see a great deal of forethought. I see nuance and sticky details tangling up those who want it to be cut and dried in a manner no different than a hundred other political arguments. What the public bid documents say in general is no different than what the newly released documents say in particular.
What I do see, to be frank, is misunderstanding on the part of the opposition, toeing the line right up to the border of mendacity… but that’s kinda the nature of a breach with reality.
I think the only thing that Boston2024 can fairly be accused of is naivete: they did not forsee the ferocity of the opposition. Neither did I. It surprises me yet. I still don’t understand it. So call me naive, also, but I expected a greater amount of buzz about the possibility of hosting the Olympics. I wasn’t expecting genuflection, but I was surprised at the venom and the ferocity. More surprising was that it all came well ahead of the details and did not, in fact, waver when news of those details broke. Actually doubled down.
Come on petr, I know you are a smart guy. Are you telling me that you did not notice that they have not in any way justified any of their budget or revenue numbers. Surely they didn’t pull those out of their ass? Their refusal to show us the actual details and assumptions that have gone into their model is exactly what lack of transparency means.
Perhaps it means something different for you than for the rest of us.
In any case, I have no problem with you seeing nothing wrong with the bid, but that doesn’t make much of an argument for convincing the rest of us, and indeed I don’t think you have convinced a single person to take your side that wasn’t already on it.
I think the Big Dig is too fresh in everyone’s mind for Boston to embark on that big a project. Most of the people I have talked with have mentioned that screw up.
…I for one am glad the Big Dig happened with all its faults. The landscape and traffic in Boston is much better for it.
I agree that the Big Dig was needed and, with all its faults, was a success. It solved a very real problem, and even with its cost overruns was FAR less expensive than every alternative. I agree that the landscape and LOCAL traffic in Boston is much improved.
Sadly, the effect on regional traffic is, as predicted, not so rosy. Traffic jams on I93 north and south of Boston are worse, because more people are now attempting to use their cars because of the Big Dig. More people are driving through, rather than around (on 128 and 495), Boston itself.
A number of required public transit improvements were identified during the Big Dig planning process and were committed to by the state. We have collectively breached those commitments. There is no rail link between North and South stations. Work on the Green Line extension (one of those commitments) is just now underway. The MBTA itself is in disarray after years of chronic disinvestment, deferred maintenance, and oversight failures. In short, we have effectively destroyed, rather than improved, the MBTA in violation of the spirit and letter of the Big Dig commitments.
My most fundamental objection to the entire concept of B2024 is that it distracts us from and squanders public funds needed for a very long list of projects just as necessary as the Big Dig. At or near the top of that list is restoring a sustainable public rail transportation system for the state.
More people are driving on 128, period. Or, more accurately, sitting in traffic. There is probably a business opportunity selling drinks or offering a relief station to those sitting in their cars. 😉
Indeed. The Big Dig, combined with continuously deteriorating commuter rail and MBTA service, is causing more people to drive in and around Boston. We saw the same phenomena when Route 3 was rebuilt from Burlington to the NH line. We now have three lanes of stalled traffic each drivetime, rather than just two. Still, those three lanes of stalled traffic add an extra lane of cars to 128 and 495 each and every drive time.
Increasing road capacity encourages more traffic:
You seem to be conflating our opposition here with the lack of support from Elizabeth Warren, Charlie Baker, the senate president and speaker of the house, the Boston Herald, Jon Keller, Howie Carr… In the scheme of things, BMG commenters really have little influence on the debate. Our vitriol has little, if anything, to do with public perception of events.
Boston 2024 certainly didn’t anticipate the breadth of the opposition. I was talking to a state rep last night. His take on things wasn’t any different than ours, though he would have supported the bid if it resulted in adding to the BCEC.
What was that you weresaying…??
This is where your trolliness comes in, being a smart ass is not the same as saying something smart.
I wrote:
This, in addition to public polling all over the state, that BMG influence the public polling that was state-wide. You are being fundamentally dishonest.
Unnamed sources have confirmed that Boston 2024 will soon announce their new head of Public Relations, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, aka “Bagdad Bob”, the former Iraqi Information Minister under Saddam Hussein. Al-Sahhaf will be handling all future media relations related to the Olympics effort.
here.
Money quote: