AP:
A person familiar with the bid says the U.S. Olympic Committee has given Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker until the end of the day Friday to declare whether he supports the movement to bring the 2024 Olympics to Boston.
If true (and Baker’s office appears to be denying it), this is perhaps the most boneheaded move yet by the folks interested in having an Olympics in Boston – and that’s saying quite something. Baker, after all, has already commissioned an outside consultant (to the tune of something like $250,000) to do a detailed evaluation of the feasibility of a Boston Olympics. And the USOC knows this. Yet, they expect him to preempt his own consultant and jump on the bandwagon by this afternoon? Absurd. And if he doesn’t, then what? How does the USOC hold any cards in this situation?
Baker, if he has any sense, will politely ignore this nonsense from the USOC, and will await his consultant’s report, just like he said he was going to do. And if the USOC wants to fold their tent, well, that’s their call. At this point, maybe they’d be doing us all a favor.
…but why is an ironclad commitment from the Governor crucial? Seems to me the USOC would have gotten the official OKs it needed before choosing Boston as its candidate.
without the City Council’s approval the Mayor cannot really sign the host city agreement given the financial guarantee that is required.
My guess is that the USOC is hoping that if the Governor signs on that other politicians will follow. Marty Walsh really doesn’t have all that much influence over other politicians with a stake in this other the handful of the City Councilors that are allied with him. As far as I know, Walsh is the only politician fully on board at this point, and that is probably not enough.
there can be no stadium at Widdett Circle, as the state/MBTA, own much of the site. B2024 wants air rights over the tracks for free. Baker says no, as should everyone who is honest in saying no public funds for the games.
The USOC believed that B2024 was presenting the full truth in version 1.0, when it is clear that it is based on inadequate research and a pack of lies.
meet burn.
The presentation is devastating for USOC/Boston relationship. “A person familiar with the bid” is exceedingly vague.
n/t
I did not read the Globe until this evening.
Leung’s column, “Time for Baker to Get Off Sidelines,” is, um, quite a coincidence in light of this story. (The online version sports a different headline.)
To be fair to her, she does say Baker should wait until those consultants finish their work.
made it very easy for No Boston Olympics.
The politics of this “ultimatum” seem to work for pretty much everybody except B2024.
Governor Baker has found a way out of a politically risky situation. He projects steadfast managerial competence by calmly insisting that he will wait for the analysis he ordered. He never has to go on record about whether or not he supports B2024, so neither side is alienated. He can calmly point the finger at the USOC and say “they pulled the plug, not me. I did what I promised to do.”
The USOC, playing the “heavy”, officially terminates the Boston bid because of their own schedule pressure. They can cite Governor Baker’s “lack of support” in killing the Boston bid (probably in favor of LA) without having to publicly acknowledge the plummeting poll numbers that all of us see. That turn-around in public support is bad for the Olympics business, it’s not surprising they don’t want to call attention to it.
It works so well for both parties that I’m left wondering if perhaps it hasn’t been in the works (discussed by senior staff from both organizations) for some time.
Winners: USOC, IOC, Charlie Baker, “No Boston”, Massachusetts residents
Losers: B2024 and it’s proponents
Whatever Baker does, I predict that he will attempt to paint the whole process as an example of Democratic party ineptitude (taking in both the pro and con sides of the issue). He can use this bid as an argument for stuff he wants to do anyhow, like streamlining business permitting and encouraging economic development outside of Boston where his party is stronger.
Similar arguments can be made for Walsh. I would expect that a lot of the proposed South Boston development is going to happen regardless of whether the Olympic bid proceeds.
This largely has not played out among political officials with party IDs.
namely Walsh and Deval Patrick, but I agree that he would be unlikely to make that stick unless more Democrats start signing up, which seems unlikely at this point. BTW, if you go back and read the bid proposal again, you might be left with the impression that Boston 2024 already had wide political support when that clearly was not really the case.
Now Walsh has definitely said he wants the Widett Circle development to happen regardless. That is not surprising because he is so pretty much automatically in favor of any project that creates a lot of construction jobs. However, I don’t think he is going to be able to make it happen with the the unprecedented massive tax giveaway that is the keystone of Boston 2024’s plan.
So I get the idea nobody thinks about growth, infrastructure, planning, the future, and making Boston a better city. That we just muddle through and wait for a developer to propose something. Anything.
But maybe if Olympics. Maybe.
You know, if the city and the region had a plan, two things.
There would be less antipathy towards the Olympics idea, for some complex reasons having to do with wealth inequality.
And Olympics advocates would know exactly what an Olympian effort could contribute to the things the city actually needs to do, instead of all this flailing about.
Whether or not there is a plan, the Olympics does absolutely nothing to help it. All the Olympics will do is to suck away some portion of tax revenue to pay for Olympic costs. The Olympics will not add a dime of its own revenue to pay for any of this because it will need every dime for its own expenses.
So whether or not a given proposal for Widett or some other location makes sense, the Olympics will just make it cost more than it would otherwise cost.
I think a regional plan for infrastructure is vital and a more compelling policy initiative than an Olympics or Walsh throwing projects at a dartboard and seeing what sticks.
People here are writing like it’s gospel, and there isn’t a source on the article. So is this actual news, or just Gawker Local in action?
Each of the articles I’ve seen, like the 24-Jul-2015 ESPN report, use the same language as the thread-starter (emphasis mine):
To me, this language suggests a leak from a staffer for Governor Baker. Is is “gospel”? Is it “actual news”? Who knows, we all have the same information for now. While the Watergate scandal was unfolding, the Washington Post used the phrase “anonymous sources” in print, and privately demanded that Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein confirm the information from at least two other independent sources. In spite of the contemporary protestations to the contrary, nearly every such report turned out to be true.
I don’t know how rigorous the AP was in confirming the sources of this report. I tend to give the AP more credibility than “Gawker Local”, but that’s mostly my bias. It appears to me that everybody else is repeating the AP story.
I described my take on the political benefits to both Governor Baker and the USOC upthread. Does that make it gospel? Of course not. It just says that the story has the ring of truth to me, given its political implications and the players.
My guess is that we’ll all know more in about a week.
Can’t hunt it down right now but what I believe I heard on WBZ radio this morning was Baker saying that he was asked to join in a call on Monday. He said he would tell them the same thing he was telling the reporters at that moment.