Skip to footer

What does Boston need to do win over Olympic naysayers?

The revised Boston 2024 Olympic Games bid is out now. Opponents say it lacks details.

|
Elkus Manfredi Architects for Boston 2024/AP
The architect's rendering released Monday, June 29, 2015, by the Boston 2024 planning committee showing an athletes' village proposal.

Boston Olympic organizing planners on Monday unveiled their $4.6 billion plan to bring the 2024 Summer Olympic Games to Boston, arguing that the Olympics would create thousands of jobs and housing units and generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue.

The revised bid, called "Bid 2.0," estimates the Olympics would generate about $4.8 billion in private revenue through broadcasting fees, ticket sales, corporate sponsorship, and other profit streams, which would leave about $210 million in contingency and surplus.

Boston 2014 Olympic bid chairman Steve Pagliuca told The Boston Globe Monday that he believes the estimated revenue is “a conservative number.”

Part of the plan includes building two new Boston neighborhoods at Widett Circle and Columbia Point.

Bid 2.0 offers more details than the first bid included in January, but opponents still say planners are not revealing enough.

“We were hoping for a lot more detail,” Chris Dempsey, a co-chairman of No Boston Olympics, the chief opposition group, told The New York Times. He specifically talked about the lack of detail in the bid committee’s insurance plan after attending the Boston 2024 presentation.

The bid committee has set aside $128 million for insurance, which it says would protect taxpayers from risk, but there are no specifics on the insurance policy and the possible companies willing to insure the city.

Mr. Dempsey argues that the bid committee does not explain how they got to this number and they do not demonstrate that it is sufficient for insuring the city against overruns.

Opponents argue that the cost of hosting the 2024 Olympics will burden the taxpayers, who they say will not benefit from the event in return.

On Monday, the committee announced that taxpayers will only be responsible for $775 million needed for transportation projects, which the committee maintains should be done with or without the Olympics.

But those who are against the plan are not going to be convinced easily. They are demanding more explanation.

"They still have not explained why city of Boston taxpayers need to take the risk and sign a blank check," Dempsey told the Associated Press. "Boston 2024's only real insurer is the taxpayers of Massachusetts."

He adds that the plan still holds a “substantial risk” to the public.

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) picked Boston's bid for the 2024 Games over bids from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington in January.

According to monthly polls taken by Boston radio station WBUR, the support for the 2024 Olympics among Boston residents has fallen from 51 percent in January to 44 percent in February and to 36 percent in March.

The American competitor for the 2024 games must enter the international competition by Sept. 15.

If Bid 2.0 fails to get the green light, the USOC could either reconsider the bid from Los Angeles or just drop out of the 2024 Games.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to What does Boston need to do win over Olympic naysayers?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0630/What-does-Boston-need-to-do-win-over-Olympic-naysayers
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe