Boston’s "improbable bid" to host the '24 Games yesterday "collapsed ... after seven months and millions of dollars spent, ending a tumultuous effort racked by acrimonious debate, public relations blunders, and limited public support," according to a front-page piece by Arsenault & Levenson of the BOSTON GLOBE. Anticipation that the bid could unravel "had been building steadily for months, because of low public support." Hours before the Boston effort crumbled, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker told the USOC that he would "remain neutral on the bid until a state consultant, the Brattle Group, finished an analysis of the proposal from the bid committee." That came as Boston Mayor Martin Walsh "declared at a hastily scheduled news conference that he was not yet ready to put city taxpayers on the hook for any costs related to the Games if local Olympic organizers ran out of money." The standoff between Walsh and the USOC over signing the host city guarantee -- a promise that Boston "would cover any cost overruns -- appeared to be the final blow that ended the bid." Supporters of a Boston Games yesterday "were left to hunt ... for silver linings in the bid’s demise" (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/28). In Boston, Kevin Cullen writes Baker in the end "realized he was being asked to take an enormous political risk in backing something that could leave taxpayers holding the tab while the Olympic juggernaut jetted off to its next destination." Taxpayer liability, "not small-mindedness, was always the elephant" in the room (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/28).
CORRELATION, NOT CAUSATION? In N.Y., Katharine Seelye writes Walsh "had become the cheerleader in chief for bringing the Games" to the city. He was "constantly having to prod Boston 2024, the seemingly tone-deaf private local organizing group, to be more transparent, release documents, scale back salaries and make other adjustments as the bid foundered." But Walsh yesterday morning "distanced himself from the bid completely." It was "not clear whether the mayor knew that the USOC was preparing to pull the plug on Boston before he made his defiant announcement." But after the USOC's decision, Walsh told reporters he thought “they might have made up their mind before my press conference." Seelye: "Either way, the mayor was positioning himself as the voice of fiscal sanity" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/28). Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist, an opponent of a Boston Games, said "probably the writing was on the wall" that the USOC wanted to drop the city. He believed the USOC was "simply carrying forward a message from the IOC." Zimbalist: "The IOC said that Boston doesn’t have support from the population and doesn’t have political leaders who are willing to give a financial guarantee, and that doesn’t work for us. The IOC says that to the USOC, the USOC doesn’t want to have a black eye" (BOSTON HERALD, 7/28).
GOV'T OFFICIAL CRITIQUES: 3 WIRE SPORTS' Alan Abrahamson wrote, "Thanks for being such a great 'partner,' mayor!" There was no USOC vote yesterday "because the mayor made this super-easy" for all involved. The only "real wonder" is why it "took so long to wave bye-bye to all this." Abrahamson: "But at long last, it’s done" (3WIRESPORTS.com, 7/27). Rikk Larsen, who headed a committee that pitched a Boston Olympic bid in the mid-'90s, said, "For Mayor Walsh, this was becoming an albatross. He has enough to do without worrying about the financial implications of this. The same thing goes for Gov. Baker. They were behind the scenes looking for a way to graciously end it -- that’s my sense. I think that came very quickly in the last week" (BOSTON HERALD, 7/28). In Boston, Joe Battenfeld writes Baker "lucked out with Boston’s Olympic bid crashing, but his indecision doesn’t bode well for the rest of his term." Meanwhile, Walsh "could face ramifications from unions and deep-pocketed developers for his move to put the final stake in the Boston 2024’s nearly lifeless body" (BOSTON HERALD, 7/28).
A WIN FOR THE LITTLE GUY: No Boston Olympics co-Chair Chris Dempsey said, "We’d like to think we made some sort of contribution to this debate. Our opposition was based on facts and analysis of the bid, and Bostonians took it from there ... it truly was a grassroots effort" (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/28). In Boston, Joan Vennochi writes people can call anti-Olympic activists "cynics, spoilers, or naysayers for the role they played in killing Boston’s bid for the 2024 summer Olympics." Vennochi: "I call them heroes." Dempsey and fellow co-Chairs Liam Kerr and Kelley Gossett" continued growing the movement so grossly underestimated by Boston 2024" (BOSTON GLOBE, 7/28). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Jason Gay writes Boston’s resistance "may have been loud, but wasn't isolated to them." Repeated stories of host cities "grappling with exorbitant costs and decaying facilities have built a strong undercurrent of public skepticism." The vibe "seems to be: nice, but not worth it" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 7/28). Dempsey said, "The IOC really makes it difficult for cities. This requirement for a taxpayer guarantee is something that they’re going to have to look at long and hard." He added, "It’s hard for us to see why cities should be able to take on all the risks for Olympic Games" (USA TODAY, 7/28). ESPN.com's Mina Kimes writes under the header, "Don't Blame Boston: Americans Are Smart To Shun The Olympics." While Boston's crusade "was uniquely inept, there's reason to believe that despite this country's professed adoration for all things Olympics, other U.S. cities would've pushed back too." Americans are "more skeptical of the Olympics than ever." This country "still loves the Games," but that love "is no longer blind" (ESPN.com, 7/28).
A SMART CALL: The Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy said Boston is "ahead of the curve and smart" in saying no to the Olympics. Shaughnessy: "This is a badge of honor. ... This is being smarter than everybody else. These places that do it they regret it later on" (“Sports Tonight,” CSN New England, 7/27). The GLOBE & MAIL's Cathal Kelly writes cities in other countries "have convinced themselves it’s money well wasted." They "continue to do so," and eventually, "most of them deeply regret it." All of the "loudest cheerleaders for the project will have two things in common -- a very large stake in claiming credit for acquiring the Olympics, and a very small one in providing the cash to pay for them once they’re secured" (GLOBE & MAIL, 7/28).
