The Globe reports on upcoming changes at Boston 2024.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Don't fall for the shuffling of spokespersons, purposes - like "using the Olympics to clean up the Mystic River - or any other diversions.
INSIST that NO Massachusetts or Boston taxpayer money be used to support this boondoggle for the 1%.
INSIST that no environmental, zoning, or eminent domain laws/standards/guidelines be circumvented to make way for the Olympics.
i insist that we dont have the olympics period. i dont care what laws they do or dont break i just do not want them here.
looking more and more likely that they will be though since LA's bid to be a backup city just got declined i read
"as poll numbers faded with the rising winter snow totals and consequent transit delays."
The Globe is still trying to convince people that it was *only* the winter and the collapse of public transit that caused B'24's poll numbers to plummet.
The leave out the blunder on the Common; the arrogance in Franklin Park; the naked land grab in Widett Circle and the rights to private developers to own it after the games; the lack of transparency; the onslaught of politically connected hacks & PR guys; the refusal to respect the Fort Point 100 Acre plan; the closing of Long Island to the homeless & those in recovery; Fish's performance with the Globe Editorial Board; the refusal of the City Council to allow a referendum this year; claiming that the problem is 'us'; calling us 'unpatriotic'; charging NIBYISM; and on and on.
and on and on.
The IOC is a really dreadful organization. Beyond all of the problems with Boston 2024 (which you summarize nicely) the IOC just seems to be full of corruption and unreasonable demands. If this was an organization that seemed like we could support it, that would go a long way towards making up for Boston 2024. Instead, we have two secretive groups that are scheming about our city. I'd love to see serious investment in Boston, but these ideas all just seem shortsighted and grabby.
Even before the snows, I think the first WBUR poll only had 51% in favor. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong).
Shirley Leung has lost all credibility as a journalist in my view.
But for clarity's sake, isn't Shirley Leung a columnist? That is a breed of journalist that is SUPPOSED to share her or his opinion. And if I'm wrong — if Leung is an actual news reporter — please correct me.
Leung is indeed a columnist and perhaps the most vocal (and pedantic) public booster out there.
If you look at the byline on the "news" article that was front page on the Sunday Globe, you'll see she is one of the "reporters" for this story. And her disdain for anyone and any argument against the bid as assembled by the Mensa Roundtable at Boston2024 practically oozes out of this nominally unbiased "news" story.
Reporters AND columnists. However one categorizes Ms. Leung, however, she is simply dreadful. One of the Globe's many substandard columnists, to be sure -- but she may take the cake.
the story a columnist tells about a debate should reasonably present the details of the debate. I don't think anybody would argue Shirley Leung does that.
A thumbs up wasn't enough, you nailed it.
The US doesn't have a sole shot at it.
The wealthy hacks have been profoundly stupid at trying to jam the 10 pound olympic shitload into the 5 pound Boston bag.
Here's an easy experiment.
Walk from Castle Island to Columbia/JFK T stop as the island is a prospective site in addition to Columbia Point. And the zone where Columbia Point and Southie meet is easily one of the great hell traffic chokes around here. The disruption for those two locations and the Distressway would probably be horrific.
Every facet of their location choices is dumb and weird. A velo ring at Assembly Square was already rejected. They make claims about a 'walkable' olympics and yet the main venue nodes, Southie and Harvard are an easy 10 miles apart.
The whole thing looks like come rich imbeciles got the deluxe Olympics Sims and mindlessly plugged stuff in with heaping helpings of Can Do.
If we have the Olympics then it won't be possible to not do any of the things you listed. In for a penny in for a pound. The political will won't exist to let anything impede the games. Private funds coming up short? The taxpayers will make up the difference. Zoning law getting in the way? Not for long. The games must go on!
The whole Olympics in Boston is a money grab. Everyone in the leadership is a multi-millionaire or just a figure-head including former professional athletes Larry Bird. He lives in Indiana. None of the events will be held there.
You know who's not on the committee? An economist who studies the economics of the olympics and world cup soccer. One of them lives in our state. He is not on the committee.
Who else is not on the committee? Any of the people we identify as leaders in our city and state.
This is about profit. Who makes it not easily identified. What we didn't know until today is that partners at Bain were major funders of the first phase.
Evicting businesses to build a $300 million Olympic stadium then tear it down after a month or two is totally insane.
Think about the economics of making profits by spending $300 million to build a stadium then destroying the assets you built.
Organizers want the city and state to take responsibility for their cost overruns but taxpayers are not cut-in on profit. In any good investment, the higher the risk, the higher the reward. We taxpayers have only risk.
In any good investment, the higher the risk, the higher the reward. We taxpayers have only risk.
The reward is that we at long last become a world class city. You want to put a price on that?
Some of the other people needed on the committee (moreso than celebrity pro athletes):
- informed party/parties who can speak freely from the last couple of cities to host the Olympics
- informed party/parties who can speak freely from the last couple of cities selected by the IOC to host the Olympics
- informed party/parties who can speak freely from the last couple of cities selected by the USOC to host upcoming Olympics
- informed parties who can speak freely from the last few cities rejected by IOC or USOC.
- actual athlete(s) from recent Olympics who can speak from experience about some of the logistical needs (athletes' village, transportation between there and the venues, etc...)
Evicting businesses to build a $300 million Olympic stadium then tear it down after a month or two is totally insane.
No, not the "region’s bid for the Olympic Games."
It was a bid made a by a small elite with no input from "the region" at all--in fact, with significant effort to tell the region that the plans were none of their business.
Pull. The. Bid.
Shirley Leung and Mark Arsenault at the Globe write:
Organizers pledged to be transparent, but in March the group refused to release the salary of former governor Deval Patrick, who was hired to promote the bid.
While this is true, it is hardly the biggest failure of Boston 2024 to share information about the bid and the budget, never mind include the community which has already spent thousands of hours planning Ft Point Channel and other areas. Basic details of the budget and the plan for Widett Circle was never shared by Boston 2024, it was obtained via Freedom of Information Act from UMass Donahue Institute by a resident of Boston.
Though Walsh early on opposed a public referendum, Boston 2024 subsequently yielded, and now says it would sponsor one in November 2016. It pledged not to move forward unless the referendum passes.
This is also true but once again missing context. Will the referendum decide whether taxpayers would be legally liable for cost overruns? In addition, Mayor Walsh appears to be standing in the way of a non-binding referendum on four important Olympics-related questions proposed by Josh Zakim.
The Globe is capable of Olympics boosterism and incapable of giving voice to the facts about dissent, whether it's consent with considerations or opposition.
The bid has been greeted by some with skepticism because of concerns that taxpayers may foot the bill if there are cost overruns.
Ya think? Why is the Globe soft peddling this question?
follow the money
The rich imbeciles and academic poohbahs are in a bind.
In a way it is hilarious and they do deserve it.
The support trend has been reliably tanking since they first floated the thing.
It is very unlikely that all these people who oppose it are going to change their minds and support further erodes when you examine the strange crap sandwich which is the plan.
They have buried the tab for it at their site but a search pulls it up.
That in itself is pretty funny.They are hiding the bid documents, kind of, or ineptly.
They are in a situation where trying to do the usual sorts of PR blitzing results in immediate backlash and the poll numbers tank.
But they kind of have to sell this thing so they have typical shallow surrogates at the Globe and WCVB at it.I'm betting the stealth approach for shiling a planetary scale event won't work
It's also unusual because you have the Herald right wing and the faux progressive left more or less opposing it in unison in addition to every day Massholes who lack confidence in our Poohbah and Rich Asshole classes.
At this point I'm pretty convinced that it's all about face saving and 'exiting the position'. I read the details of the bid and it should be in that link and it is on a par with 'Let Them Eat Cake' in the realm of rich asshole over reach. It makes you wonder if they are in the same Massachusetts.
Really, the trend is toward sites in upwardly aspiring autocrat nations who will grab their ankles for all the hare brained IOC demands. The trend among the more prosperous states is along the lines of.. Fuck That...
Krakow is chuckling to have unloaded it. The London Glitz mess has made a lot of places think twice so it doesn't make us world class, it makes us hicks that are behind the curve.Hamburg is up for it for whatever reason and is better situated than little cobbled together Boston.
Most adults learn the lesson that just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we should. I I I realize that one needs a thick skin to work in the public eye, but this lesson seems to have evaded so many of our leaders.
I find it interesting that they seem to think that public opposition is a mixture of public misunderstanding and misplaced crankiness.
It's also interesting to see the addition of so many pro athletes to the cause. Are we to think that someone's mind is going to be changed by by a smiling wink from David Ortiz?
With all of the discussion of no public funds, I am concerned about the loss of heavily used public spaces for the preceding year and months after the event for construction. What is the eco mix value of these spaces?
What is the cost to the public in longer commutes?
I think that Boston 2024 underestimates how well the public understands the effects that this boondoggle will have on it's day to day life.
I'm someone who is still on the fence about the Olympics, but the local characters who have come out of the woodwork to oppose this thing makes me think that it's a lot of misplaced crankiness and misinformation. I don't think the pro-side is being completely honest either, but the conspiracy theories from the opposition are becoming very off-putting. I really just want to know what my neighborhood is going to get out of it, and if we're having crazies like the people from BFH showing up to neighborhood meetings, we're going to end up with the short end of the stick.
What your neighborhood gets out of Boston 2024 is a good follow-up question. What Boston 2024 needs from your neighborhood is a more productive place to start.
experience, the need to compare the arrival of Whole Foods in Jamaica Plain to the imposition of I95 on the middle of the city is very frustrating and not constructive.
I'll give you my thoughts on the Olympic bid, and hope you won't think I am crazy. Basically, I think it would be a wonderful way to showcase Boston to the world and to potentially get some development in places that have been ignored.
The problem is that based on past Olympics, especially the recent ones, it is not clear to me that one of these events can be thrown for any kind of reasonable money. Boston has huge problems, mostly with our schools and infrastructure. I don't see how the Olympics addresses these problems in this city.
The presentations from Boston 2024 have done nothing to show how this huge event will help the city long term. Some of the initial decisions, like a stadium in Boston Common or taking over Franklin Park are just very concerning. A green space on a map is not empty space that is not in use. And Boston Common is one of the most important historic places in our country (It's a National Historic Landmark so no hyperbole).
I would like to think that Boston, with our amazing talent pool and geography could overcome the past and throw an amazing event. The lack of transparency from Boston 2024 and the ongoing problems at the IOC are problems that I am not at all sure even we can overcome.
TLDR: The deck is stacked against anyone who wants to hold the Olympics. There are solid non-crazy reasons to oppose this idea.
As a property owner near Franklin Park, I'm really having a hard time grasping some of the arguments from both sides - let's start with the opposition:
gentrification: quite frankly, I'm happy that property values are going up in my neighborhood. While I do feel sorry for people who can no longer afford to live here - I've noticed that the slum lords in my neighborhood have either started selling off their properties or have started attracting a higher quality tenant and are actually fixing things. I'm fine living near lower income people, but some of these landlords never bother doing background checks or won't kick out bad tenants - and if the neighborhood has no clout in the city (lower tax base, less whiny yuppies) - the city has historically not done much about problem properties. I don't know how to fix this problem other than seeing property values go up. Also, if the olympics means blue hill ave finally gets fixed up, then I cannot see how this is a bad thing. Housing costs seem to have more to do with the fact that we live in a dense place and there aren't enough of the kinds of places people want to live (i.e. access to public transit, places where you can bike and walk safely, good schools, etc...) - seems like less a problem with development and more to do with bigger policy issues. gentrification is a wedge issue - it doesn't help anyone to tie it into the olympic debate.
traffic: the opposition side is claiming that tourism will decrease and people will stay away from the city and yet somehow traffic will increase. I have no idea how this is even possible - which is it?
taxpayer arguments: this stuff sounds a lot like it's aimed at suburbanites and central/western mass because they are the "true taxpayers" and the city - full of renters and people on public assistance - aren't paying their fair share. When I hear this stuff it makes me think that it's more the same old anti-city nonsense we've heard for years from beacon hill. Yeah, there are a lot of questions about where the money is coming from, but don't use the "taxpayer" language.
And from the Pro:
Why all the secrecy? is it because of the bid process? I'm sure all of us would like a little more outreach - although I'm getting really annoyed with how the director of the franklin park coalition is handling this...
I'm bothered about transportation comments - yeah - these projects are bonded, but they aren't actually funded - and if events get spread out, I'm sure that money that would be spent on fixing the T will be spent somewhere out in the suburbs on wasteful road-widening projects or the stupid south coast rail. Plus there are big issues with transit in the southern end of the city which I'm sure a lot of us would like to see addressed. The olympics seems to be a big distraction from the transportation issues that face the southern end of Boston. I don't expect them to spend money on public transit (although, it would be nice), but they could easily spend money on improving bike infrastructure - at least around the venues.
I'd really like the organizers to be far more critical of the IOC. Boston clearly has some strengths among the contenders, but I think coming at it by saying "we won't negotiate on these particular issues" would be better - it puts us and all the other cities bidding in a better position with the IOC - plus I think more people would be on board locally. I understand there's a lot of push and pull, but we really need to be more assertive.
i'm really worried about what happens to the Shattuck - it's one of the few treatment facilities in the city, and it's an important resource - sweeping this place under the rug would be a travesty.
anyway - I don't care if the leader of Boston Olympic bid is replaced by mickey mouse - but I'm getting really fed up with the dog-whistle stuff from the opposition - you guys need to get a lot smarter otherwise you'll lose people like me who are still on the fence. Anyway - I said my piece... I'll go away now.
you're willing to ignore facts if it means you dont have to listen to people that annoy you, to your own detriment. k.
USOC liked Boston because we were so compliant during the Boston Marathon bombing. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. Why do you think they find that to be an appealing characteristic?
Also fact is that they want taxpayers to pick up cost overruns. They want the right to take property from property owners who do not consent to selling it. They want a law passed that exempts them from land use planning law and environmental review. None of these things are conspiracy theories. They are facts.
What false conspiracy theories annoy you so much that you'd vote against your own interests?
NBC doesn't want to pay for an Olympics that can't run neatly in prime time and score big ratings.
Blow-in uber-connected grifter boosting the 2024 monorail! What more do you need to know?X
All rich guys suck.
It has to be true, I read it on UHub.
We have to hold a big chunk of time surrounding the games open for events at the BCEC and can't let it go until the decision is made in 2017. Conventions, especially the big ones that have a sizeable impact on the local economy, can book 10+ years in advance. So the governor just froze the BCEC expansion and we are potentially losing actual contracts for future events at the same time. I work in event production so I stand to see some benefit from the games if they happen here, but I could also take a hit if we lose the bid and have fewer quality events for a season. There are also numerous other reasons I'm opposed (mostly regarding the commandeering of our green space, and an icky feeling about seeing all this energy and these resources going into the olympics bid as opposed to going into trying to make the city better just because).
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy