For those still on the fence re Boston 2024:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-08-02/how-the-2004-olympics-triggered-greeces-decline
[Here is the first para of the piece – Ed:
As they watch the London Olympics, many Greeks may wonder how their country went from the international glory of the Athens Games in 2004 to the recriminations of today’s crisis. Hosting the event cost almost €9 billion ($11 billion at today’s exchange rate), making the 2004 Games the most expensive ever at that point. Greek taxpayers were on the hook for €7 billion, which did not include the cost of extra projects such as a new airport and metro system.]
Please share widely!
jcohn88 says
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/2004-athens-olympics-venues-today-2015-7
Trickle up says
.
thebaker says
Seriously though … over this last weekend we had a 9 year old blow his hand off, and a 22 year old dead after he tried to launch a fire work off his head…
With that said we should consider taking out another insurance policy for demolition costs to make sure we don’t have abandoned high dives with dried up pools underneath…
Christopher says
….to not let that happen, but even so one negative shouldn’t end the discussion.
SomervilleTom says
As the link offered by jcohn88 indicates, the plans in anticipation of the Greek Olympics were marvelous. Surely those 30 pictures show the reality is often different from plans. “One negative”? How about yet another piece of evidence.
Boston 2024 is a bad idea.
Christopher says
There are plenty of sites that this didn’t happen to.
There seems to be a lot of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, including the promotion comment which I hope and assume was intended as tongue in cheek.
I don’t like the attitude I’m inferring from the post that this should somehow settle the matter once and for all. Maybe it is good to see Greece as a cautionary tale, but giving up is not my preferred option.
SomervilleTom says
My read of the evidence from other cities as reported here (especially by jconway) is that the experience of Greece is representative.
I don’t know whether this link settles it “once and for all”. It seems, however, that the link provides strong and graphic evidence against relying on promises made during the “planning” process.
It seems to me that the question is whether or not we are going use the evidence from other cities in forming our opinions about this. I do use such evidence, and in my view that evidence (including Greece) is compelling.
Christopher says
….which I’m only somewhat following. There have been roughly 60 modern Olympics, a few with repeat hosts, and I don’t see many of those cities struggling or still suffering.
jconway says
It really seems like a one sided conversation where opponents always link to reports, articles, or data and supporters just shrug and resort to name calling the opponents and wishfully thinking that this one will be different. We’ve had arguments before on this subject Christopher, where I have linked to other cities and other countries, and you continue to blindly ignore the evidence we put in front of you.
I would honestly respect your position more if you just admitted what you think, you like the Olympics, you want them in Boston, and you do not care whether there are cost overruns or it delivers on it’s policy promises. You just think they are cool and you want them here regardless of the cost. There is nothing wrong with admitting this position, it’s really annoying at this point to try and have an argument about budgets and costs and just have you repeat ad nauseam that Boston will be different, without offering any evidence, or that you trust the organizers, despite all evidence that they are not being transparent and are making us out to be a laughingstock.
Just say you are willing to pay whatever it takes to land the Olympics because you want to go to events (good luck affording tickets by the way!) or at least see the Pru in the backdrop on the teevee. If that’s worth billions to you than admit it. But quit arguing you care about the policy, because you obviously don’t.
Christopher says
…but just about everything else you said about my position is accurate and I believe I have said so multiple times. I’ve provided links of my own the past, but have basically given up since nobody seems to believe them anyway.
HR's Kevin says
What links? jconway is correct. You haven’t really justified your trust in Boston 2024 in any way that would convince anyone to take your side.
The fact is that Boston 2024 simply has not provided even remotely sufficient information to verify that they have an adequate plan, and I doubt they ever will. Even their most recent “2.0” bid is largely lacking in details. So it really just comes down to trust. Why do you trust them? You don’t appear to put this level of blind trust in any other group or organization.
Also, I think you have made it pretty clear that you have almost no interest in sports in general and aren’t especially interested in paying money to see any of the Olympic events other than the opening ceremonies, but you can expect that getting tickets to that will be more difficult than scoring game 7 World Series tickets, so I doubt you will go to that either. So why do you care? Is it possible that you really don’t care after all, and simply find it amusing to be contrarian?
Christopher says
…is to use a favorite quote from Prime Minister’s questions: “I refer my honourable friend to the replies I have made previously on this matter.”
I HAVE quoted extensively from documents.
I HAVE linked to sites showing ticket prices in reasonable range, and when someone said Rio was not a good comparison because it’s in the developing world I found London prices that were also reasonable.
I always start with the assumption of trust and this group as far as I know has not organized something before to which we can point and say last time they tried an event it stunk. We CAN say that about the IOC, but again Boston 2024 knows that and is working on it. To me lying is an accusation for which the burden falls on the accuser.
You should “know” (in the BMG sense) me better by now than to think my opinions are anything other than sincere. If I’m still living here I may well try to get tix to something just to say I did.
jconway says
I really do. And I’ve also consistently said that if Boston 2024 was up front that the Olympics would cost public money, would lose money, and would not economically benefit the city but are a really awesome event to hold in the city and expose us to the world-than I would be significantly less inclined to criticize them.
It doesn’t bother you deep down that an event you find intrinsically beneficial to humanity has to be marketed to the voters as a upscale pork barrel project? That the debate has the same tone and same arguments as the casino debate? Projected jobs and revenue vs. social costs? The Olympics should be better than that and any games hosted in the hub of the solar system per Holmes or our fuckin city per Ortiz should be worth more to us than just another construction project for the desperate trades and the downtown realty community. First and foremost, as a fan of the Olympics I am sorely disappointed in the IOC for crassly corrupting an event that brings the world together, and to Boston 2024 for playing by their tired game, last week should remind us that Massachusetts is at it’s best when we rewrite the rules.
Christopher says
The other thing I think we are forgetting is that this is an evolving plan and process. The site is picked in 2017 I think so Boston 2024 has a couple years to improve, then seven more years to actually perfect it if chosen.
HR's Kevin says
No doubt the actual venue plans could be improved, but what magical mechanism is going to make it suddenly cost no public money? What incentive is Boston 2024 going to have to not waste our money? As long as they can claim they made a “profit” and their friends in the real-estate and construction industries are happy, what do they care? The Olympics will be a distant memory but Boston will be losing tax revenue for decades.
The only thing that is going to force improvement on the financial side of this deal is unrelenting public scrutiny and absolute transparency. Transparency here means opening up the books for everyone to see, and revealing all financial models and plans. Frankly, I don’t think they will ever do a tenth of that, and I don’t think they could ever actually come up with a plan that would pay for the Olympics without spending public money that could be spent better elsewhere.
ryepower12 says
is going to be $130 or so.
That’s affordable for the top 1%, but not so affordable for everyone else — at least if they wanted to go see more than one or two events, or who have a large family.
And if people are going to be forced to take 3 week vacations, with the rest of the city and huge swaths of the state (other than Olympic venues) shut down, if regular folks can’t afford to go to a bunch of these events with their families… why on earth would a single Massachusetts resident ever support it?
Christopher says
I found and previously linked to info about ticket prices as low as the lower half of double-digits for previous Games so at least give me credit for making the effort. Plus, if you consider luxury seats may well run into the four figures a $130 average doesn’t look that bad.
HR's Kevin says
As you note, averages don’t really tell you what tickets actually cost. They should at least tell us what the median ticket price is, or even better simply publish the proposed ticket prices they used to estimate ticket revenue.
I think there probably will be tickets less than $50 but probably not for the popular events. The law of supply and demand means that anything that people really want to see will be expensive and/or hard to obtain, especially given that this is supposed to be a “scaled down” Olympics with smaller and cheaper venues.
centralmassdad says
that the entire venture can be funded by the invention of cold fusion, which should be made commercially viable by month’s end.
Peter Porcupine says
.
jconway says
I’ve linked to many other case studies and haven’t heard anyone decisively dispute them. The reason I don’t wade into this debate that much is because there isn’t a worthy opponent to debate. Even sabutai just quips that we are haters and says Montreal, a 70s era event its residents were still paying off well into the 2000s, was some kind of success. Atlanta and LA worked because they were fully privately funded and they are basically low density flatlands you can easily pop stadiums onto without any consequence. I’ve never argued those games were money losers are bad-simply that Boston is a much better city since its dense and mixed and we shouldn’t want to emulate those two sprawling suburbs masquerading as metropolitan areas. As soon as I mention that comparison I get the I must hate Boston reply.
Which I don’t-I love it and miss it daily and want to live there ASAP and can proudly say we aren’t the kind of city that can host the Olympics. That’s a good thing. We want a walkable and livable community not a technocratic template internationalists can just bulldoze and remake in their generic image. Brasilia is a fine choice since it’s an artificial city in the middle of nowhere. Rio has proven to be a terrible choice. Kansas City or Indianaopolis would be great choices and could use the exposure, we just don’t have the room/thank God.
Christopher says
As for “fully privately funded” everything I’ve read indicates that is the goal here. Studies will only tell you so much about a city that has never been tried.
jconway says
Everything any of us has cited in the past has shown repeatedly where cost overruns have occurred, the answer, everywhere and always. We have repeatedly showed how this leaves white elephants and doesn’t deliver on it’s promised economic benefits, ever. I challenge you and any supporter of the Games to link to third party economic analysis that clearly demonstrates where costs have been contained in the past, where promised economic benefits have materialized, and where taxpayers were better off for hosting the Olympics. We have done our homework-it’s time Boston 2024 and it’s supporters do theirs.
Christopher says
…then made excuses for why Boston couldn’t possibly follow suit? Yes, I rely on the makers of the plan to tell me about THEIR plan – that only makes sense. I don’t know, and don’t believe I have ever claimed (with the possible exception being how the state breaks free of its infrastructure inertia), that the Olympics will leave Boston noticeably better, but I have yet to be convinced it will leave the city worse. All the things you say have gone wrong in the past Boston 2024 has acknowledged and tried to address, but you refuse to give them credit for the attempt.
Mark L. Bail says
everyone backed out. The begged LA to take the games. LA already had most of the needed venues, and Peter Uberoth, having the IOC over a barrel, got very favorable terms that guaranteed a profit.
HR's Kevin says
Does anyone really care whether the Olympics organization makes a “profit” if when that is nothing more than an accounting gimmick? Why should I be happy if Boston 2024 makes a profit if my property taxes go up to pay for cost overruns and loss of tax revenue from post-Olympic developments?
Don’t forget: “profit” means *their* profit not ours.
petr says
… that you don’t challenge a very general, blanket assertion comparing Athens to Boston but when LA is mentioned you quickly get into the particulars about this, that and the other… Boston == Greece is all the comparison we get, full stop. Boston == LA isn’t a valid comparison because this particular or that specific or the other special aspect. If the specifics of LA are valid then the specifics of Boston and Athens are valid.
Why, It’s almost as if your ‘NO” is a priori and you’ve got a heaping helping of confirmation bias… Wait, it’s not almost like that, it’s exactly like that…
Mark L. Bail says
but you usually they are less arrogant than they are provocative. You add absolutely nothing to the conversation but contradiction salted with an insufferable sense of superiority.
You’re one the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve encountered in a long time. I don’t really want to talk with you. If you want to address a point I’ve made, that’s your prerogative. If you just want to make ad hominem attacks, let me just say in advance, “FUCK OFF.”
petr says
I’m addressing the fact that, when someone makes a general assertion that confirms your bias you accept it uncritically yet when a more trenchant comment that doesn’t conform to your biases asserts itslef then your critical thinkings suddenly assumes a front and center role heretofore unseen. That’s a form of intellectual dishonesty. As is the cry of ‘troll’ posit’d at those who don’t share your biases.
Worse, for you, than ‘troll’ is a ‘troll’ who’s right. Wa wa wa
HR's Kevin says
Really, this type of criticism is pointless.
Mark L. Bail says
Petr is pointless. His only point is that he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else. When was the last time he wrote something that didn’t put someone down?
And nowhere did I agree with the post. In point of fact, I responded to one of Christopher’s comments/questions. But Petr has decided that we can only respond to the post, and we must declare our (dis)agreeement when he demands it.
jconway says
I argued that those two games were successfully privately funded. Atlanta still had significant cost overruns, Atlanta went 147% over budget.
And unlike the image that we are naysayers who hate the Olympics, Christopher Dempsey actually argued that the 1984 LA games is a good model to follow since by refusing tax payer funding it forced the games to be on budget. This is not in the cards for Boston 2024, which will require taxpayer funding.
Boston is the 7th densest metroplitan area in the country. Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, and Malden are all in the top 50 municipalities in the country. LA and Atlanta come nowhere near that list. Which makes it substantially easier, and cheaper, to build massive sports complexes on the outskirts. I don’t see how you plop IOC grade facilities in the middle of a densely packed city without someone getting their home or business bulldozed. And I would rather tax funds not go towards that radical urban renewal for a temporary event.
ryepower12 says
They’re counting on it. That is not a bug and not even a feature of Boston 2024, but the feature. In many ways that’s the only “lasting legacy” — the theft of private property that the elites want to get their hands on — that will ever and could ever come out of Boston 2024.
Boston 2024 is the worst kind of land grab — the biggest attempt we’ve seen since the 60s and 70s, and while not bigger in scale than what happened then, far more brazen and dishonest about the way it’s going about it.
At least when huge swaths of the city was being destroyed then, there was some level of honesty in what was really happening and it was done by public agencies. Now we have private agencies making plans for land they don’t own, pushing for a private event that will give them the political mojo to seize huge swaths of the city whether or not the city ever even gets the event in the first place.
You couldn’t make this stuff up. The sheer chutzpah of it is almost shocking, and there’s no other way to describe it than evil.
petr says
… since anybody who has done their homework would laugh at comparisons between Greece and Boston. Any attempt to equate what happened in Athens in 2004 is a purely emotionalist appeal to sentiment and fear mongering and is completely, wholly, entirely and without doubt an impossible equation. You simply cannot compare Boston and Athens and say you’ve done your homework. It’s a blistering scab of an untruth…. I bet the dog wouldn’t even eat THAT homework..
jconway says
Lots of other studies, cities, and events have been linked to. I have yet to see a study by one economist arguing that the Olympics make money, cost overruns are contained, or by an urban planner that they are the only vehicle by which Boston gets the world class infrastructure we deserve.
Give Dempsey credit-he conceded that the LA games had cost controls and was under budget precisely since voters prevented taxpayer funding from being used for the games. It helped that they had already built an Olympic class stadium before, had a sports complex portion of the city easily accessible by highway and train, and had ample experience with the high level and high profile security events thanks to Hollywood. But if we want to compare-why are advocates and Boston 2024 opposing the cost controls from the only profit generating Olympics and the only games that was fully privately funded?
petr says
… or, more particularly, what about them we haven’t gone over umpteen times before that you’ve IGNORED
Maybe you just don’t understand the meaning of the term “do your homework”…?
jconway says
Waiting for evidence showing they made money, didn’t have cost overruns, built public transit infrastructure, worked in a high density city, with no public money involved. Pretty hard to ignore evidence that hasn’t been presented.
SomervilleTom says
Evidence?
He SAID SO. Isn’t that enough?
Christopher says
…which is the result some people seem to be implying. Helping the city is a bonus, but not a requirement, and if other cities can handle the side effects certainly so can Boston.
HR's Kevin says
No one is saying that Boston is going to be destroyed by hosting the Olympics. I am sure that we could pull it off, but at the expense of higher taxes, unwanted development, major inconvenience, and unearned money in the pockets of already rich real-estate and construction magnates, and for what? So that a few rich people with inferiority complexes can pat themselves on the back for living near a “world-class” city?
petr says
… What other reason, then, exists for asking the question (right there at the top of the diary) “Will the Olympics do for Boston what it did for Greece???
Surely they’re not asking the question just to take up space? Perhaps half a million years ago a million monkeys started typing away on a million typewriters and, halfway to the entire works of Shakespeare, they randomly landed here for the nonce with a a fully formed, yet entirely pointless, question asking if the Olympics will impact Boston in the same way that Greece was impacted… that is to say, all but destroyed…???
Why should anyone take you seriously if you’re golng to make such a bald-faced statement that is demonstrably at odds with the very diary in which you write it.
HR's Kevin says
except when you use it yourself.
The fact of the matter, and all hyperbole aside, no one is seriously suggesting that Boston is going to crash and burn if we bring in the Olympics. However, it is not crazy to point out that Olympic spending helped push Greece over the edge, and it is not so crazy to suggest that Olympic spending here may not bring any benefit and could cause some economic harm.
petr says
… thinking that you were going to be an honest interlocutor.
We’ve discussed comparisons made between Boston and every other Olympics which you’ve ignored… “Prove to me that they can make money” is neither an adequate nor an honest response to “Boston is not Athens” You say you’ve done your homework? You’ve brought you poli-sci notebook to econ 101 and act like everybody else is an idiot for discussing economics problems rather than poli-sci..
SomervilleTom says
From here, it looks like jconway is presenting compelling arguments backed by evidence. From here, it looks as though you dislike being disagreed with.
Since B2024, and by extension you because you advocate on their behalf, are offering this proposition the burden of proof most certainly IS on you.
More specifically, it is up to the proponents (and therefore you) to show the following (from jconway’s comment upthread that we are responding to):
– Cite reasonably objective third-party economic analysis that shows clear examples where actual costs after the fact have aligned with a priori projections.
– Cite examples where promised economic benefits have materialized
– Cite examples where taxpayers were better off for hosting the Olympics.
Feel free to bring whatever notebook you like — together with rather more courtesy and respect, and rather less vitriol and hostility (” blistering scab of an untruth”??? Really???).
petr says
… for an argument, with evidence,on the topic of this diary: “Will the Olympics do for Boston what it did for Greece.” Feel free to disagree all you want,but if you’re not honest with me or yourself, I’m gonna call you on it. Don’t like that? Then, don’t frequent this blog.
jconway says
Rather than doing the following:
SomervilleTom says
I agree with what markbail said above.
petr says
… already making plans to cry myself to sleep tonight.
jconway says
I am all ears.
HR's Kevin says
n/t
petr says
…Maybe you should read your own ‘evidence’ before making claims you can’t back up…
“With public debt totaling €168 billion in 2004, it’s clear that the Olympics alone did not bring about an economic collapse. Yet the Athens Games epitomized the structural problems that bedeviled the country for decades. It’s not just a question of how much money was spent on the Olympics, it’s also how it was spent and where it came from. After a period of austerity to tighten up its finances and qualify for euro entry in 2001, the Greek government loosened the purse strings once it entered the single currency. The games were just one of several areas where public spending was unchecked and funded by unsustainable borrowing.
So it’s hard to say, with a straight face, what Greece’s plan was regarding fiscal responsibility and even harder to say where it intersects, if at all, with Boston’s plan. But, hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good angst…
thebaker says
“…Maybe you should read your own ‘evidence’ before making claims you can’t back up…” – petr to hrs-kevin
“But, hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good angst…” – petr to hrs-kevin
HR's Kevin says
“LOL – oh man!” – thebaker to himself
HR's Kevin says
Yes, Greece is definitely more messed up economically than we are, but they did indeed assume that these Olympic sites would not turn out the way that they did.
It is also not clear that giving Boston 2024 a free hand with tax payer money (and yes, massive future tax breaks for developers of Olympic land *is* public money) is a wise investment. There isn’t a single thing in their plan that we couldn’t do much cheaper without the Olympics.
The wise course would be to say “no thank you”.
ryepower12 says
seize the land of huge swaths of Boston in which hundreds or thousands work and live (quite likely in great part by Eminent Domain), then occupy that land for a decade, build and then destroy expensive stadiums isn’t any better.
Would we build a new stadium for a super bowl only to knock it over after the game?
Stadiums are freaking expensive, and I don’t care how “temporary” they call them.
Christopher says
…because that is one of the details I specifically thought I had seen mentioned that they were not going to do.
petr says
Ryepower12 has had this pointed out again and again, but he has refused to listen. This is the chief reason I do not think he is honest, either with us or himself, on the issue. He doesn’t seem to realize that when he repeats demonstrable untruths he risks credibility.
HR's Kevin says
It remains to be seen whether they hold to that, although so far they have no deals lined up for most of their venues. What happens if they have no place to put the stadium? Do they just buy some big empty tract of land off of 495 and put it there?
If I was an owner in the food co-op I would be demanding an astronomical payoff in return for moving. Likewise, the cash-strapped T should demand massive payment for use of their land. I just don’t see how the proposed stadium site can possibly work without either eminent domain or the strong threat of it.
TheBestDefense says
is to use eminent domain to seize the land own by the MBTA. Transfer of that land to B2024 will require executive action, depending upon the powers the Gov gets under the new MBTA laws.
petr says
… will Boston 2024 own any land. The bid calls for the City of Boston and the Boston Redevelopment Authority to acquire the land and make the plans. Boston 2024 will have control for a little over a year starting in 2023 to build the stadium and other venues and to manage their operations during the games proper. After the games control will revert to the City and the BRA for post event development. After development by the City/BRA is completed portions will be sold or leased by the City.
HR's Kevin says
Why should I care whether the land passes through the BRA or Boston 2024 before it ends up in developers hands? Both are equally opaque to public inspection.
SomervilleTom says
Certainly THAT is an agency without even a hint of corruption.
centralmassdad says
The more you learn about these proposals, the worse they seem.
TheBestDefense says
that I did not write anything about B2024 owning the land. They will take control of it, transferred by the city and state if they convince the state/Gov to make the land available. In your rush to try to prove yourself smarter than everyone else, you miss the most important point: the Governor has to buy into this scheme for it to go forward, although Mayor Marty makes clear in today’s Globe article he assumes the Governor will make the state owned railroad land available for development, Olympics or no Olympics.
nopolitician says
Because it’s a little hard to tell if this is Blue Mass Group or Red Mass Group.
I haven’t followed the Olympics religiously like some here have, but what strikes me is that reading the arguments against them are like reading conservative blogs.
* The games will be corrupt because government is naturally corrupt.
* Taxpayers will be on the hook because
* There is no possible benefit from public infrastructure surrounding the Olympics – everything should all be done by private parties.
* The Olympics were in Greece, and since everyone knows that Greeks are lazy and corrupt that means if we host the games we will become lazy and corrupt too.
* Get off my damn lawn!
No one is even trying to shape the Olympics, taking away the complaints and potential issues with reality-based suggestions on how to make things better. It’s all about opposition, opposition, opposition.
It’s a little disheartening when the Olympics are something that progressives reflexively oppose.
johnk says
if the legislature prioritized our budget to expanding the T, I don’t think that everyone would be saying that the government is naturally corrupt. I don’t think that is where the commenters are coming from. We have outside parties which have different priorities, so there is a natural skepticism. Plus, being “reality based”, who in their right mind would accept that we’re going to make money as suggested in proposal 2.0. That’s just foolish. To even say that brings the BS Alert to level 5.
jconway says
You are one of my favorite posters here so I don’t want to start a tiff, I will respectfully disagree that these are conservative arguments. As I’ve stated repeatedly on this topic, the case to be made for the Olympics rests in proving we cannot have infrastructure development, affordable housing, or public transit without them. And the answer is we can, easily, if we begin having a real conversation about revenues.
The Olympics is a way to avoid that conversation and promise that somehow a for profit event by a corrupt international corporation repeatedly investigated for corruption on a global scale locally sponsored by Boston realtors and construction companies will be the reincarnation of the New Deal. That’s a pretty tall order. Especially since it’s never happened before.
If anything we are making the more progressive argument that government should be doing these things without a splashy event as a crankshaft because those are the things government is supposed to be doing. The fact that we are even at this point where the Olympics is a life jacket (or strait jacket as I’ve argued) and New Balance needs to build its own train stations is a massive indictment of our political class.
johntmay says
When Red and Blue agree, I listen.
It was the same when a gas company was trying to push a 30″ pipeline through my back yard and I was getting help opposing it from a group of Republicans in New Hampshire.
It’s all about opposition to the Olympics for a few reasons and those are that it failed to deliver as promised, over and over again.
How do you make it better? Make it an amateur event and do not allow any corporate sponsors. That would be much better, in my mind.
Trickle up says
It also happens to be the original vision of the modern games.
If deCoubertin were alive today he would be spinning in his grave.
He was similarly hostile to the idea of national teams.
Mark L. Bail says
a long comment and lost it.
Conservatives and progressives largely agree because of money: conservatives don’t want to spend it, and progressives want to spend it on other things.
All the problems with the Olympics–any Olympics–stem from the fact that it is a megaproject. There are often problems with any projects–from repairing bridges (Willamansett Bridge in Chicopee) to building a house. With a megaproject, the problems are writ large. There are things that need to be done in sequence and problems arise. They always arise. Someone goes bankrupt. There’s a lien on some property. There’s a strike or slow down. The delivered materials don’t meet the right standards. There are tens of thousands of decisions that can affect the scheduling and thus result in costs. The Olympics have a deadline. If work can’t be done in time—this is a persistent problem in Brazil, right now–the costs go up. More workers and hours are needed.
I’m willing to be there is corruption on any megaproject, but I doubt it results in the dramatic overruns of the Olympics. The logistics on any megaproject–the Hoover Dam or the Big Dig–make it next to impossible meet costs. Any infrastructure projects the Commonwealth does for the purpose of the Olympics will face the threat of cost overruns, but the deadline of the Olympic games themselves will put pressure costs. I don’t think Boston 2024 is any great shakes, but I doubt they are any worse than the average LOC.
I’m speaking for myself here. I’ve researched the Olympics most than most. I’ve read one book and several research papers, and browsed the Olympic bid document, though its very nature makes it a sales pitch. Everything I’ve read suggests that hosting the Olympic games is not worth the risk. Some of this is due to the IOC, which has taken a large amount of television rights for itself at the expense of hosting cities.
ryepower12 says
are absolutely, positively never going to happen.
The IOC demands taxpayers are the ones on the hook, among many other demands we’d have to comply with if we were to get the games.
It’s a bit disingenuous for you or anyone to argue for compromise and forward thinking when all of those things that would be meaningful and could make the games work for us are contractually off the table.
jconway says
One that delivers for the people. The TSA is bad government since it is expensive, doesn’t work, and takes away civil liberties without delivering on security. The War on Iraq was bad government since it was premised on a lie, wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars, cost American lives, and caused more problems than it solved.
Now I will be the first to concede that the Olympics in Boston will not cost lives, it’s not the World Cup after all. But it is premised on a lie, that it is the only way we can get transit revenue. Gov. Patrick disagreed, before he was on the Boston 2024 payroll anyway. It will waste billions of dollars in public money. And it will likely cause more problems than it solves,
A true liberal supports good government, big or small, rather than bad government. But yes, liberals and conservatives should always get together to oppose bad big government. It’s the worst and most frequent combination in our crony capitalist era.
rcmauro says
Since you were involved in one of these bids, what is your impression of the claim that the IOC is trying to get away from the mega-extravaganza Beijing style spectacles and do the games with little more restraint? I have always wondered if the choice of Boston was an ascetic gesture on their part, premised on Boston’s record of saying no to publicly-funded stadiums and the like. (And Puritan heritage of course.)
ryepower12 says
they’d create an open bidding process, where the cheapest project to meet their needs wins.
If it were genuine, the USOC would have picked LA, which could do the games much cheaper than Boston since it has most of the venues already (and we don’t), as well as better infrastructure for the games.
Christopher says
…if they are so obviously better prepared than we are? Isn’t the USOC’s motive to pick the city that can give the IOC the best evidence that they can handle it?
Mark L. Bail says
–Circus Maximus, Andrew Zimbalist
Christopher says
What I asked is why they weren’t picked by the USOC for 2024 as America’s candidate if they are so obviously better prepared.
Mark L. Bail says
on it. The LOC’s website is down and the domain is for sale. The bids are somewhat secret. Boston 2024 released its documents, but there’s nothing to compel the other applicants to do so.
The IOC is interested in making money and promoting the games. It is possible that LA’s bid was not favorable enough to the IOC. That’s all speculation, however. The process isn’t open so it’s hard to know.
HR's Kevin says
We all would like to know the answer to that. But given the USOC’s track record, I don’t think that I believe that Boston was the best option just because we got picked. We will probably never know because the selection process is totally opaque and not open to public scrutiny.
ryepower12 says
because LA had it in 1984 and it would have been its third time hosting the Olympics, both of which they thought would hurt LA’s chances.
The USOC was very transparent about that — they wanted to pick the city they thought had the best chance of winning, not the one that made the most economic sense, and the most sense in terms of local support.
And if money and local support wasn’t a factor, sure, they’d have been right. Boston has a marketable story and a rich history and culture, we’re also a beautiful city and have rapidly growing industries. So, yeah, if costs weren’t an issue and if we were in some despotic government where the local population had no say, it’d be a fantastic choice.
But we’re a democracy and — for heaven’s sake — our population isn’t in the business of writing blank checks.
LA has *all* of the infrastructure already. It has a ready and willing populace. It’s done all this before. If costs and local support were true determining factors, LA’s not only just a better city to host, it’s the only city in America where an Olympics makes sense, period.
Given that even USOC board members are publicly talking about shifting the bid to LA, I think even they’ve come to realize that now.
jconway says
According to Peter Uberroth in the Globe, spreading out the venues is the best way to contain costs and the way LA contained costs:
And apparently the IOC agrees, the Vision 2020 plan calls for spreading out venues as a cost reduction strategy. According to Bostinno, the Walkable Olympics was a key selling point for the USOC and a reason we beat out LA and other cities with better infrastructure. Unfortunately, this vision has clashed with the reality that we will have to build a substantial amount of venues in a compressed and densely populated area, driving costs and disruption way up.
Already, Boston 2024 has basically walked away from this commitment, just like it walked away from it’s commitment to privately funding the games. So anyone citing Barcelona where the infrastructure was already planned and paid for, ditto the upcoming games in Korea or Tokyo, or the 84′ games is basically comparing apples to oranges. We will have to substantially recreate the areas of the city where the Games will be held, so while Athens may be extreme since our finances are in better shape than Greece, London is probably the closest to the Boston bid, and it’s transit system was already in top notch shape before the Games.
The USOC has decided to stay the course with Boston, but this bid is looking far more troubled than Chicago did before the IOC vote. LA is no longer in the running as a backup, but it is probably the frontrunner for the next USOC bid if we lose. We really pegged Tokyo has our best competitor since their infrastructure and finance proposals were better, and the financial climate was a lot riskier in Spain and Brazil than the US. The IOC decided to take a gamble on Rio, which it seems less likely to do in the future, but you never know. Public opposition to Chicago, including protests at every IOC tour and event really made a big impact as I suspect it will here.
Christopher says
I was hearing rumors and speculation that Lowell would get a piece of the action even before there was an official bid, and now I have heard that it is indeed part of the plan. I’ve said all along that it makes more sense for Massachusetts to be considered the host rather than Boston. The article you linked to about walking away from private funding commitments is about infrastructure, which has always been a possible use of public money which may benefit the Olympics. Besides, you’ve put them in a catch-22. First you say they don’t have a good plan and critique it, but when they come back and say you know what, we do have more to say, you fault them for going back on their word. Which is it – an ironclad plan that should have had all the questions thoroughly answered from the get-go, or an evolving plan that responds to new circumstances and additional input?
jconway says
I’ve never been on board the walkable Olympics meme, I strongly suggested it was poor planning and would make for a poor bid during my first post on this subject. That post probably focuses the most on the nuts and bolts concerns I have, rather than the financial and political ramifications. Meaning, if utopia happened and we were to get an anonymous donor to front all of the costs and the taxpayer wasn’t on the hook for anything at all, there we no overruns, and the promised jobs and tourist revenue all materialized, I would still question whether a games of that scale and that scope could work in the Boston we have in reality. Just as a matter of fitting the pieces together and finding a way to make traffic flow from venue to venue in a responsible way.
You forget, while folks like Rye and other opponents* were cool towards the Curtatone plan I all but endorsed it. He was the only policymaker with the vision to regionalize the games, go after federal funding, and ensure a real legacy of smart growth and affordable housing followed in it’s wake. The proposal encountered crickets from Walsh and Boston 2024. I like Marty, but this is his baby now, and if it ends up an albatross it’s his neck it’s around. Curtatone was willing to come in for shared credit, shared risks and shared rewards and the parochial Bostonians did nothing.
*and they had good reasons to oppose Curtatone’s plan since you are still working with the IOC at the end of the day
petr says
… you’re suggestions, even having worked on one bid, are at odds with the USOC who, having worked on ALL previous bids, including the one you worked upon, did indeed choose the walkable Boston as the best bid.
(‘Cue accusations of USOC skullduggery and ulterior motives in… 3… 2… 1.. )
You’re making an appeal to authority based upon the notion that the authorities aren’t as in the know as you…
petr says
No.
Greece was in bad shape before the Olympics. The Olympics made it worse, but did not cause or impel the problem any more than low tide causes that fishy smell.
I think it’s fair to say that Greece should not have done the Olympics in 2004. But they did. It’s not OK to suggest Boston is similarly positioned to go down the tubes because of the Olympics (especially when Greece didn’t go down the tubes because of the Olympics… maybe they went with a little more speed than they would have, but they were on that course regardless of the Olympics…).
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a component of what is still the largest economy in the world yet even without being part of the USA, Massachusetts has a GDP almost twice that of Greece, its bond rating is sound and its debt is structured well. In addition, the IOC has restructured their own bid process in response to criticisms and concerns raised by many people across the world. The IOC is different now than it was then and Boston isn’t in the same position.
There really is no comparing Boston 2024 to Athens 2004. None. Can we move on to something serious and reality based now?
jconway says
I wasn’t making this comparison. And can backers move on from Los Angeles and concede it’s not going to be a model for Boston, as it’s architect Peter Uberroth conceded in his Globe piece? If we can cancel out the most extreme example of failure we can cancel out the extreme examples of success, especially since LA was entirely privately funded, utilized existing infrastructure including a main stadium Boston doesn’t have, and was spread out across 3 states and nine counties. Boston is trying to densely pack and jam the events into a very tiny area at higher cost and do so with public funds. Totally different from LA.
What’s a highly dense city without an existing Olympic footprint with a host of infrastructure needs and goals? Maybe London? How’d that turn out?
Following the LA model, I think New England could host a Winter Olympics by 2030 if we get our act together on transit now and really regionalize the bidding, planning, and ensure no public funds are used for the Games. Seems to be a winning formula for LA that Boston 2024 is rejecting entirely.
HR's Kevin says
Even if we don’t sign the host agreement, the best we will ever get is for the expenditure to be hidden using TIF funding, massive tax breaks for developers, and fuzzy definitions of the word “infrastructure”.
Until we actually have all of the venues built and ready to be used before we even bid, and have seriously upgraded our public transportation infrastructure I don’t see how it could work for us. Perhaps if the number of events and number of athletes were to be seriously curtailed it would be more affordable for more cities.
BTW, the 2.0 version of the bid puts a lot more stress on our local highways and commuter rail but there is nothing in the plan that addresses either of those. If regular Boston commuters don’t get off the roads for the Olympics, spectators may find it difficult to get to venues they cannot walk to.
jconway says
LA 84′ was a unique Olympics since it occurred after an American boycott of the Moscow Games when the IOC was desperate for our television revenue and rights and eager to make a deal. Since then, it’s become an orgy of special interest spending and crony capitalism, but for some reason every city wants in.
It’s why Boston 2024 put itself into a catch 22. Had they been up front about requiring public funding, honest with revenue and jobs projections, backed a referendum from day 1, and made the prestige and pride factor the focal point of the bid, I suspect they would’ve gotten a much fairer hearing and would have a better chance. At this point, the referendum will be an up or down vote on the games itself.
Christopher says
…yet some have mocked it. They weren’t “up front” and “honest” about those other things because they seemed to genuinely believe, and I think to some extent still do, that they were setting out to do things differently in these regards.
HR's Kevin says
I do think they tried to play the “we want to be a world class city” card, and even tried to suggest that opposing the bid or asking too many questions was somehow unpatriotic. I think it is simply not a convincing argument for most people.
Boston is already as “world class” as most Bostonians want it to be.
I think Boston 2024 fell in love with their own perceived genius and honestly couldn’t understand why everyone didn’t fall at their feet. This bid was all about greed and narcissism.
petr says
You also didn’t write this diary. But this diary is about that comparison. If you don’t want to make that comparison fine but don’t hijack the discussion and pretend everybody else doesn’t get it. Or if you think the comparison is as invidious and counterproductive as I do, you can say so without fear: I won’t think you’ve joined the darkside or have changed your mind. It’s still possible to reject the comparison and be against the Olympics. Trouble is, Olympics bashers such as yourself seem to feel the need to nurture and protect any information however untrue –even outlandish– that could possible reflect poorly on Boston 2024. That’s actually the worst thing you could do for your argument and suggests, as I may have mentioned before, that you’re casting about for reasons to justify your knee-jerk, a priori, refusals.
Again, you’re bringing in a perspective that’s different from everything discussed. I’ve never once said that LA was the model for Boston or for anything and I don’t know who has.
Actually not so bad. They saw a tourism dip during the Olympics and they’ve broken every record ever since. Ask any restauranteur or hotelier if they’ll take that and 11 out of 10 will say ‘hells, yes.’ But again, the comparisons break down because London2012 was entirely publicly funded from the get-go.
I reject that comparison because LA is a completely different city from Boston. Boston is already walkable. LA is not. I say that making Boston2024 a walking Olympics, using existing facilities from universities, is playing to Boston’s strengths just as making LA84 a spread out Olympics was playing to LA’s strengths. That’s the only, very general comparison, I’ll concede. Pete Ueberoth can lump it, he’s not an expert on Boston. Neither are you.
jconway says
From now on I am going to let Barney Frank speak for me when it comes to your approach on this subject from now on.
petr says
… that you crib from someone else, you don’t seem to do well with original thinking…
SomervilleTom says
That’s a great and entirely appropriate clip.
I miss Barney Frank. I keep hoping that Mike Capuano will step up his game to fill the hole left behind by Mr. Frank’s retirement.
dave-from-hvad says
I understand that certain supporters of Boston 2024 don’t accept that Greece’s experience can be seen as analogous to Boston; and even raising the comparison in the form of a question, as I did, has been condemned by petr, in particular, as “invidious and counterproductive.”
But I think that in planning any major civic undertaking, all potential comparisons and analogies have to be considered. Sure, there are major differences between Boston and Athens that may well make a direct comparison between the two invalid. But I think jconway and others have shown with concrete examples that there are a number of lessons or warnings from the Greek experience that it would be wise to heed before we go marching down this path.
It’s never wise to reject an historical comparison out of hand as counterproductive without considering all the evidence that may support it.
Christopher says
ALL potential comparisons and analogies works the other way too.
Christopher says
There are two ways lessons can be learned from negative experiences.
The pessimistic way is to say there’s no way we can do better so why bother trying.
The optimistic way is to learn from the experience of others and try to avoid the same mistakes and pitfalls.
Lots of BMGers seemed inclined to the former route whereas I am rooting for the latter path, which Boston 2024 seems to be following.
dave-from-hvad says
for any analogies or comparisons that are done. But I’d caution you that being optimistic can lead you just as far astray as being pessimistic.
What I’m saying is that all of these comparisons should be considered. To dismiss a comparison out of hand because the two cities don’t appear to be comparable is just as wrong as clinging to a comparison that isn’t supported by any evidence.
Christopher says
…I feel better about being optimistic, even if ultimately proven wrong, than I do about being pessimistic.
SomervilleTom says
I see nothing “optimistic” about apparently consciously ignoring evidence that we choose not to see. I see nothing “pessimistic” about changing my direction when I am shown evidence that it is likely to lead to disaster.
We are not living in a cartoon where we can clap our hands, wish VERY hard, and magically create a happy ending — all while ignoring mountains of evidence piled in front of us.
dave-from-hvad says
public projects and other issues affecting the public purse. In fact, there is an effort in project management to guard against “optimism bias,” which is the tendency to underestimate the costs and risks of planned projects. There is no comparable level of concern about pessimism bias.
Trickle up says
which I am convinced is, “Don’t go there.”
HR's Kevin says
There aren’t too paths. If you are intentionally biasing your view either negatively or positively then you are simply lying to yourself.
The wise look at both positive and negative experiences and synthesize them.
Now in this case, we know the decision not to host the Olympics has little downside, so the wise thing to do would be to only proceed if the analysis shows that benefits of hosting would *far* outweigh the risks.
jconway says
I think I’ve been quite clear on how I think Boston 2024 hasn’t learned shit from prior bids and has been amateur hour from day 1, so have other critics and so have the editors who all wanted to support the bid btw, but it’s clear the organizers don’t know what they are doing. Support has plummeted from 70% to 39% and it’s not because folks have gotten more confident in the competence of Boston 2024.
middlebororeview says
Not one of these guys takes ‘public transportation’ on a regular basis and most likely don’t drive themselves.
The Wealthy White Dudes have no idea how dysfunctional public transportation is.
Beyond that, they promise a Gazillion $$$ infrastructure upgrades ‘already in the pipeline’….Huh?
“New Boston 2024 Chairman Steve Pagliuca stressed that the documents released should be looked at not just as an Olympic map, but a blueprint for economic development in Boston and beyond for the next decade.
Sounding like a politician on the campaign trail, Pagliuca said the Olympics will bring thousands of new jobs, 8,000 new units of housing and two new neighborhoods developed around the Olympic Village and Widett Circle stadium that will eventually come down.
The state’s actual top politicians, Gov. Charlie Baker, DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg got their own private briefing Monday before Boston 2024 officials jetted off to Redwood City, California to pitch the United States Olympic Committee.
All three seemed pleased with the progress, but still want to know more before forming an opinion, particularly about the $128 million in budgeted insurance expenses that organizers suggest will insulate taxpayers from cover cost overruns.
The other piece that needs a little more meat on the bones, they said, is Boston 2024’s proposal for roughly $2 billion in transportation upgrades that Olympic organizers said are already in the pipeline and funded, and about $775 million in additional infrastructure improvements.”
– See more at: http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2015/07/05/224995-Weekly-round-Democracy-inaction#sthash.INDLhR9w.B0QKSegI.dpuf
PLEASE! Let’s remember the Big Dig and the Bang Up Fiasco that was left behind – the Hell Hole that keeps on giving!
Crunch the numbers and facts all you want – improve public transportation, make the City workable….and then discuss something like the Olympics.
I’ve previously blogged about taking a cab from South Station the week prior to the Marathon and traffic was gridlocked.
Please remember that Senator Petrucelli stated that he had a study commissioned that indicated the infrastructure improvements to accommodate a Slot Barn at Suffolk Downs would cost + $500 MILLION – a study that’s long since outdated and didn’t include all of the costs at the time.
How far does any reasonable person think $2 BILLION will go?
And let’s not improve public transportation on the backs of the poor:
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/30204-stranded-how-americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality