Hey, there! Log in / Register
Lynch: Forget about building an Olympic stadium in Widett Circle
By adamg on Mon, 06/22/2015 - 6:03pm
Steve Lynch (D-South Boston) went on NECN's Broadside tonight and told host Sue O'Connell that condemning the existing businesses at Widett Circle for a temporary 60,000-seat stadium is stupid and something he'll fight. Suffolk Downs might work, he says.
"I don't think you'll build a stadium for three weeks and then take it down," he said. "I really think it's a bad idea."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Has anyone noticed that the Ironworker is one of the few elected out there with the intestinal fortitude to come out and tell B24 to clam up? It is especially enlightening since he is as much a building trades guy as the Mayor.
That being said Suffolk Downs being indicated as a spot for any Stadium is still a hint that he is not totally against the Visa/McDonald's/NIke Fest but at least he has the brains to call out this real estate ploy by FishyFishy and others to destroy the jobs of hundreds in favor of a near dead zone of development.
I'm still against the Olympics, but it would be fun for the ever drooping eyes of Bob Costas with the Madonna Shrine Cross all lit up in the background explain that tenants of the Orient Heights projects were not allowed to sublet their housing to Korean TV to use the stadium as a backdrop?
lynch is pushing for suffolk
lynch is pushing for suffolk because of his casino connection (and some other reasons - nothing to do with olympics, mostly to do with general opposition to investment in the city and his connection to the oil/car industry) - this guy is not exactly on the up and up. i'm really glad he's no longer my rep.
Casino connection? Oil/car industry? Oppostion to investment in the city? Foolishness. The guy helped build the city. He lives in the city. If you have an differing opinion put it out there but don't disparage the guy because you disagree with him. He's my rep and I couldn't be more pleased with his leadership.
what a hero!
Oh wait, this is just NIMBYish BS.
I support local businesses,
I support local businesses, residents and neighborhoods and I think it's a good thing. Sorry to disappoint, lemming!
Congressman Lynch's Opposition to B2024 Stadium
When Marty was running for Mayor, he promised, at many campaign stops I was sure to be at ash his supporter - that with him as our Mayor, a person didn't need to have an MBA to fill many of the jobs he intended to bring to Boston. It was on the basis of that promise that I voted for Marty. It breaks my heart to now watch him chomping at the bit to redevelop Widett Circle in favor of the Olympics and at the expense of those very same jobs he allowed us to think would multiplied. The Olympics, post construction, will bring little more than the same jobs any one of us could apply for tomorrow at Disney World.
On the other hand, despite disagreeing with Steve Lynch several times, my admiration and trust in him has grown. I know that when he takes a stand, as he never fails to do because that's his job, he has studied the matter and is giving his honest opinion. It is a terrible thing when such representation is the exception and not the rule. On that basis, Americans are in a lot of trouble.
I feel I was lied to and not just as a person in the crowd, but while Marty was looking me in the eye. I hope there is somebody out there planning to run against Walsh. He lied to all of us except the elites that he had already made promises to and the trades people who have become fat and greedy.
"...near dead zone of development."
>"...near dead zone of development."
Check out the Minutes of Boston Zoning Board
Bro let it go..
Bro let it go..
Suffolk Downs still be there in 2024?
The more I read and learn about Rep. Lynch the more I like him & wish that he had won the Senate seat instead of Markey. I live in Capuano's district and honestly didn't pay much attention to Lynch one way or the other until recently (specifically his efforts to make the 9-11 files public), but he seems pragmatic and like a stand up guy (rare for a politician), so I hope some day he gives running for the US Senate (or maybe governor) another shot.
HE is as close to a D.I.N.O. as you can be coming from that background and running as a Dem (which is a good thing) and has always been solid for his constituents.
Lynch a D.I.N.O....
Yeah. The guy actually grew up here. Worked for a living. Talks like us. Ran an Iron Workers Local. Comes back to the district regularly. And reads bills in depth, before voting on them.
You're right. There's no room for him in the Deval/Warren Democratic party, as we know it today.
Yes, there is no room for someone whose record on women's reproductive rights is well to the right. Just because Warren still remains to the left in political landscape that has seen the center being moved to borderline extremes on the right, doesn't mean actual Democrats (like Liz and Markey) are in some special club. Guys like Lynch wear the letter to get elected, plain and simple. I get a nice giggle when someone like Hilary, who is actually a bit right of center on the political spectrum, gets labeled "liberal". Conservatives, who are in general much further right than Warren is to the left, have done an excellent job moving the goalposts.
You male or female?
Gay or straight?
That's the problem with Lynch - he's great in some areas, but not when it comes to nullifying my friend's marriages or wanting to control my personal medical decisions.
In short, if a politician does not agree with your views 100% you could not care less how effective he or she is with even the issues you agree with him or her on?
You really don't get it,
You really don't get it, straight male, do you?
I suppose you would vote for someone who wanted to ban Catholicism as a pedophile cult?
Alas, it is you that is Ill informed
At one point, social issues were an afterthought politically, with economic issues being more in the fore. Nowadays, whether someone is "truly" a Democrat or Republican seemed to be more based on sexuality than on fiscal policy.
But hey, if you want me to vote for Rubio because we are both church going rather than for Sanders who wants to do something about income inequality, sure. I assume you also supported those giveaways to the health care industry Lynch voted against, too.
Their "leaders" wear ornate costumes, they worship at alters, they chant, they believe in Spirits and a man who rose from the dead.....why exactly is Catholicism not considered a Cult?
By that definition
Just about every religion is a cult.
HOW DARE THEY HAVE DIVERSE
HOW DARE THEY HAVE DIVERSE NON CONFORMING VIEWS! PURGE THE HERETIC!
Diverse, non-conforming views are okay
Shoving personal religious views into secular law is not. Shoving personal religious views into other people's personal medical care decisions is not.
There is a difference between your point of view and the secular basis of law of this country. If you don't get that, the library is open.
Secular law is the result of democracy
If the will of the people is taxpayer supported abortion on demand up to the 39th week, so be it, but if the will of the people is that all abortion is murder, it is as divorced from religious belief as the blue laws are.
(note before I get too flamed- most Americans do not believe in either extreme posited above. The needle moves based on nuances in the middle.)
Oh, I see
They teach you revisionist nonsense as civics in Catholic School. Just like they teach lies about birth control and science now, too.
Hint: you are wrong. The US isn't about majority imposition of religious values on a few people. Get that through your head, please.
Religious doctrine, no
But if you have studied US history, religious values have been come out in laws. Yes, the Bill of Rights provide some protections, but in the end, the values of a society, which includes religious values, have been imbedded in the law. If you want an example, look into the temperance movement. Yes, it ultimately failed, but only due to the will of the majority. If you want another example, try to visit the Garden State Plaza in Paramus, New Jersey this Sunday and ask yourself why the town bylaws keep it closed.
It's the new Massachusetts Theocracy
Expel them all to Providence....
Cotton and Increase Mather have been replaced by the Boston Globe, WGBH, and the likes of Liz Warren branch of the Democratic party. Non-adherence to any aspect of the PC orthodoxy is grounds for immediate expulsion.
Do you wear hearing protection?
That echo chamber must get mighty loud sometimes. blah Blah Blah BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Yeah? That's why there's primaries.
That's why I'm still a Democrat.
The way "nullifying my friend
The way "nullifying my friend's marriages" reads- I take it Lynch is opposed to polygamy?
Lynch is very much in favor
Lynch is very much in favor of marriage equality. And he has never tried to overturn Roe v Wade. You need to read more than the opponents literature when it's dropped on your door.
Boston 2024's plans are like
Boston 2024's plans are like a game of Jenga. Every week another block is removed.
It will all come crashing down sooner than later.
Suffolk Downs won't work
A) Do you think the IOC/whomever has the TV rights is going to be cool with that airport noise?
B) We already said no to a casino out here. The fastest way to lose the support of the entire neighborhood (assuming there is any) is to try sticking an OLYMPIC STADIUM here.
Suffolk Downs is the ideal place for Olympic facilities
It is right on the Blue Line, it's right on Route 1A, and it is essentially vacant and unused land right now. Putting an Olympic stadium there would displace no industry, no businesses, and no residents. If we have to have the Olympics, this is the right place.
Move Fenway there. You've cited all the reasons.
It would be an ideal place for a stadium, yes, but not the Olympics. This town is too small and too old and decrepit in terms of supportive infrastructure. It's nothing more than a Big Dig with athletes.
Developers would eat their own children to get at the land Fenway is on and it's a hell of a great idea for my old neighborhood of Beachmont.
Except, we don't need a new ballpark
any more than we need the Olympics. Fenway Park is just fine as it is. Look what happened when Atlanta built an Olympic stadium and then downsized it to a ballpark -- the Braves are already leaving it, just 20 years later.
Totally different market reasons for that
The Braves _want_ to move to the suburbs. Georgia State or some other school is already in talks to take over Olympic Stadium/Turner Field to use for a football stadium. It's not going to be torn down, but rather repurposed and take on a 3rd life. I can't imagine anything better.
Also the Braves are getting a HUGE tax break to build a stadium in Marietta! Its actually a better location, near the I-285/I75 interchange in Vinings/Windy Hill. Better for fans (but sucky for transit people, not near transit at all since Cobb County has no real transit except for CCT)
and FYI.. Olympic Stadium is a disaster anyways in Atlanta. Very poor construction, very poorly built. And required much work done by Turner to make it into a ball field after.
Don't for a second try to tell me that they won't pull some eminent domain BS to try to build more hotels or kick small businesses out so official corporate sponsors and merchandisers have prime locations.
Then there's the congestion and noise from years of construction and the games themselves.
And even if residents weren't displaced, Route 1A is a major thoroughfare into the city for the North Shore, and Suffolk isn't exactly out of the way for Eastie or Revere residents. Beachmont is right there on the Bennington side, and the Target and Stop & Shop right next to Suffolk Downs is just a tad busy. We shouldn't have to deal with the increased traffic just to get home or go to the store.
Which is a big part of why we said NO to the casino.
Contrary to popular belief, Suffolk Downs is in the middle of a residential area, and I guarantee a fight from East Boston residents if they try to pull this.
No offense Chris
But your argument is EXACTLY why Suffolk Downs is a good spot. Your argument works against you also, because 'years of construction' could be used in anything done with that property, so what you are saying is you'll fight any development of this land and would rather have it sit empty and rot.
You're also forgetting to mention one the MAIN reasons why Eastie voted down the casino was the crime and riff raff it would bring. Not so much traffic since it's near the T and Airport. A stadium would not bring any of this, unlike a casino.
The other thing you are forgetting is much of the land sits in Revere, and it could be used in the same manner (i.e. putting the whole stadium in Revere, not Eastie) and once that happens, Eastie pretty much has zero say in the matter. None. Because unlike a casino, Eastie won't get a vote.
And besides, with Mahty salivating at the Olympics coming here, you know he's going push this and strong arm residents to get this over there (like he's trying to do at Widdet)
Not trying to knock you, but you can't use the "no casino" argument here because it just does not work in this scenario at all.
(not that I support the Olympic bid but..)
Was actually a very big part of that. And my construction argument goes back to the idea of everything else being built around it-it wouldn't JUST be a stadium. I don't think anything else would have such a huge construction impact, including a casino.
This isn't true. If a vote happens, it'll be a binding statewide referendum, so we will get a say. Boston 2024 has called for one, we'll see if it happens.
The thing you have to keep in mind with Marty is that his term is half over, and he has to start thinking about re-election. If he continues to make the Olympics his top priority while finding new neighborhoods to piss off every time the plans change, do you honestly think he'll even be a factor in a few years? As I see it, if such strong opposition continues and Boston makes it clear that our residents don't want the games, he's going to have to change course and start solving real problems if he wants to stay in office.
We usually see eye to eye, I can gladly agree to disagree with a smile on this one.
No, it is true. You're confusing two very different issues to vote on.
Vote 1 - Statewide Vote for Olympics in general (do we want it?)
Vote 2 - Localized vote like the casino was
It's Vote 2 that I'm talking about. That localized vote that Eastie had for the casino in Revere. That will not happen with the Big O.You won't get your 'local say' whether an event is near you or not, if the statewide vote passes while Eastie says no (in the statewide), you won't have the 'final say' like you did in the casino, you'll just have to grin and bear it (like most of us who are anti-big-O will have to)
And yeah I agree Marty is 'cruising for a bruising' if he keeps up this big O push. You know he will. If he's a one termer, he'll still get a cushy job with the Olympics after his time in office is over. Mahty has no worries about this, his buddies will protect him.
But yeah *smile* agree to disagree.
I think we're actually on the same page regarding the vote
My initial initial statement:
was in regard to the statewide referendum. If you want to lose the support of the neighborhood, and have them actively crusade against the games and influence other voters, try sticking the Olympic stadium here. I know there would be no localized vote, or at least not one that would actually mean anything. But any given neighborhood can still have a profound effect on the vote that does count, especially it ends up being a close one.
Ok! Yeah we are almost on the same page! Good! Hate to have a neighbor on my bad side.
Overall I don't support this boondoggle.. but would like to something put at Suffolk Downs. Maybe not a Casino or a Stadium.. but something. Seems like such a waste of space.
overall the Olympics here is
overall the Olympics here is a terrible idea. it only takes a minute of research to see the every city that hosts financially loses in the end. think about all the traffic and heightened security. We don't need anything that the Olympics entail. Furthermore, we're Boston; we don't need the publicity. We were great before the Olympics and we will remain just as great without it
LA had a profitable Olympics in 1984
and they'd like to do it again. So please, USOC, send it back there.
How do you pronounce "Widett" ?
I've only seen this in print (on paper or online). I've never heard anyone say it. So is it "WIDD-ett" or "WYE-dett" ?
If you're a resident
If you're a resident explaining the location to the Olympic committee the pronunciation is quite simple: N-O