By Audrey Cooney, news correspondent
The US Olympic Committee (USOC) announced on Jan. 8 that it has selected Boston as its candidate for hosting the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, making Boston beat out Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The International Olympics Committee (IOC) will spend the next two and a half years weighing Boston against other global cities, including Rome, Paris, Nairobi and Berlin. The decision will be made in 2017 at ameeting of the IOC in Lima, Peru.
According to the Boston Globe, the USOC was impressed by the partnership between city leaders and those spearheading Boston’s case. According to Scott Blackman, the USOC’s chief executive, the committee also noted Boston’s prominent sports culture and the prospect of bringing the Games to a city that has yet to host them.
Now that the city has been selected to represent the United States, Boston 2024, the committee that worked to secure the City of Boston the Olympic bid and prepare for the proposed Games, must add more details to their current plans for updatedtransportation and the construction of Olympic venues. The organization has vowed to host public hearings throughout the process, addressing concerns that theprocess so far has had a lack of transparency.The opposition fears that the public will be left with the task of paying for anything that goes over budget.
Mayor Martin J. Walsh said that he sees the city’s selection as an honor and an opportunity to make Boston a global leader.
“The whole world will soon know what we have always known: Boston is exceptional,” Walsh said in his Jan. 13 State of the City address.
The newly inaugurated Governor Charlie Baker also hailed the decision and said he would willingly collaborate with Walsh and organizers of the games to figure out various logistical issues, including how to keep the games within the funding limits of the private sector.
Some argue, however, that this cannot be done. No Boston Olympics, a grassroots organization leading the opposition, has made its position very clear.
“Every Games since 1960 has gone over budget, and taxpayers are left on the hook for cost overruns,” Aaron Leibowitz, a representative of No Boston Olympics, said in an email to the News. “Mayor Walsh and Boston 2024 can say all they want that public funds won’t be spent and that this Olympics won’t be like all the others. But how can we trust them when there’s been no transparency and no public process? We haven’t even seen the bid they presented to the USOC. We have no idea how they plan to pull this off.”
Boston 2024 has a budget for the games that stands at around $4.5 billion, which the organization says would be mostly covered by broadcast fees, sponsors and the price of tickets.
However, a Boston Globe article indicated that as much as $1 billion of federal taxes might go toward executing the games. While organizers claim that funding will be entirely private, this promise covers only the operating cost of the Games, not security measures. There is no official estimate of what the Olympics would cost the federal government and taxpayers. Security for the most recent summer Olympics in London in 2012 cost $1.6 billion. Congress may also have to grant funding for infrastructure, as the extensive modifications needed could potentially run over-budget.
Advocates of bringing the Games to Boston have insisted that budget concerns should not pose a significant worry.
“The issue of over spending on Olympics is complex,” Thomas Vicino, a Northeastern professor of political science, said. “Many of the countries whose costs have overrun was the result of the national government managing and spending money, not private organizations. When national governments fund Olympics, they have the potential to fall victim to patronage, corruption and inefficiency. In the US, the federal government does not pay for the cost of the Olympics – only security, which… does all major international sporting events in the US. The private organization in the host city coordinates the costs and raising private funds. This is an important distinction.”
Many supporters of Boston as a host city have also pointed to the Games as a catalyst for urban improvement, arguing that the event would ultimately provide an improved infrastructure system and more affordable housing for Boston residents.
Still, the opposition continues to present a Boston Olympics as a waste of money that will only distract officials from issues such as the city’s education system, infrastructure and the need for affordable housing, making these causes an afterthought rather than the focus of official attention.
“Lawmakers are going to be preoccupied with where to put an Olympic stadium and a velodrome, focused on impressing the IOC for the chance to host a three-week party that costs billions,” Leibowitz said. “The Boston 2024 boosters tell us that hosting the Games will push Boston to address critical issues like fixing the T. But we should fix the T because the T needs fixing, not because Boston wants to accommodate the IOC and tourists.”
By contrast, supporters of the Games welcome this chance for Boston to display its status as a truly world-class city.
“Local residents view Boston as a global city; however, many around the world do not view Boston on the same global level as Paris, London or New York,” Leibowitz said. “I think the Olympics have the potential to reshape Boston’s image as a real global city. The Olympics helped usher in democracy to South Korea, they transformed Barcelona into a renaissance city and they gave Los Angeles the public infrastructure that it still uses today.”
Boston residents have had a hard time deciding whether or not this move is a positive one for the city. Abraham McCarthy, a freshman computer science major at Northeastern and Boston local, has mixed reactions.
“My first emotion is excitement,” McCarthy said. “As someone who grew up in Boston watching the Olympics occur in exotic places, it’s incredible to me that we could have that large a spectacle in our town. Once I start to think on details, though, I worry. Boston lacks the transportation infrastructure and has a history of budget overruns on large projects. The Olympics also tend to leave behind specialty buildings that are never used. As someone ‘born and bred’ in Boston, the event sounds amazing, but I don’t know if the consequences are worth it.”
While public opinion is divided, it’s likely that the IOC will see Boston as a strong candidate for hosting in 2024.
“Boston’s bid is unique in that we have strong support from local institutions, namely our universities,” Vicino said.
One advantage Boston has over some other bidding cities, and a factor in its selection by the USOC, was its wealth of already existing sports facilities, which would lower the amount of funding needed for the games by eliminating some construction. These include TD Garden along with college venues. Harvard Stadium, Boston College’s Conte Forum and Boston University’s Agganis Arena are all included in the bid as venues that would be used.
However, some facilities would still need to be constructed. According to the Boston Globe, Boston 2024’s existing plans would have an Olympic Stadium, designed to be dismantled after the Games ended, built at Widett Circle along Interstate 93 just south of the city. The Olympic Village, meant to house the thousands of participating athletes, would be constructed on the former location of Bayside Expo Center. After the games, the facilities could be used as low-budget housing or as dormitories for the University of Massachusetts’ Boston campus.
“This is a real asset for our bid,” Vicino said. “The Boston 2024 Committee will now need to engage on a public relations campaign to convince Bostonians about the value in hosting. The IOC values local support in making its final decision.”
Of course, that local support is lacking in some places for various reasons.
“In theory and on TV, the Olympics are wonderful,” Leibowitz said. “In practice, time after time, they’ve proven to be disastrous for host cities… Our goal remains to keep the Olympics out of Boston. We believe there are better ways to spend billions of dollars than on an Olympic Games, and bigger priorities like education and affordable housing that should be consuming the attention of public officials.”
There is also a possibility that the Olympics could negatively impact disadvantaged members of the community.
“The Olympics always come with displacement of people and militarization of public space,” Leibowitz said. “Boston would need to build the four most expensive structures needed to host an Olympics from scratch. Where would they go? Who would be pushed aside to make room? History tells us that the poor and people of color would be most heavily affected. Same goes for militarization: Boston would beef up security, and people of color would be even more strictly policed than they already are. Leading up to the ’96 Games in Atlanta, ‘street sweeps’ led to the arrest of over 9,000 people, disproportionately black. That’s the last thing Boston needs.”
Vicino believes that the Olympics will provide an opportunity for different members of the community to come together in support of their city.
“Boston’s been divided over this bid, but it’s time to unite,” Vicino said. “There’s no denying that Olympics transform cities and the urban landscape. I think it’s time for Bostonians to mobilize and organize to influence this process to shape where urban development is built. This will only work if we have complete transparency, open lines of communications and all key stakeholders need to be involved and have a voice at the table from here on out.”
Photo courtesy Kristin W., Creative Commons
