Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called Boston 2024's revised 2.0 Olympic bid a "'solid plan,' but held off a full endorsement until he could have further discussions about possible risks to taxpayers," according to a front-page piece by Mark Arsenault of the BOSTON GLOBE. Walsh yesterday said, "I like where we’re going with the plan. I’m confident in where we are going ... But I just want to make (sure) that the taxpayers of Boston ultimately and the people of Boston are comfortable." Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker called the new plan a "worthy attempt to answer many of the questions people have had about this project." But he added that he "needs 'a lot more detail' about the public infrastructure elements Boston 2024 has called for." Arsenault reports one element essential to the plan is $4B in private sector investment, "undertaken in conjunction" with $775M in "taxpayer financed transportation projects, which the committee maintains are needed with or without the Olympics." With the bid’s fate "on the line, the new plan is also a shift in messaging for Boston 2024, repositioning the Olympics less as the ultimate goal of the planning effort and more of a waypoint along a sweeping 18-year economic development project." With polls suggesting public support for hosting the Games is below 50%, the committee’s future "rests on how well its 2.0 plan stands up to public and expert scrutiny" (BOSTON GLOBE, 6/30). In Boston, Chris Villani notes state officials "hired the Brattle Group, an independent consulting firm, earlier this month to help review the bid." Both Baker and Massachusetts state House Speaker Robert DeLeo said that they will "rely on the Brattle Group ... to do some additional digging and help them analyze Boston 2024’s numbers." DeLeo: "I am not comfortable saying I know exactly what they expect from the commonwealth. I am disappointed in the sense that, no matter what they were to say, getting to the truth of the matter requires us to do some investigation” (BOSTON HERALD, 6/30).
RISK-REWARD: Opponents of the Olympic bid, such as the No Boston Olympics group, have used the issue of public risk and lack of bid detail to build opposition. "It has become clear that Boston 2024’s insurance policy is the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," the opposition group tweeted yesterday. But Boston 2024 Chair Steve Pagliuca said the risk issue at its heart is a question of balancing. The bid committee is building a case for substantial benefits of hosting the games while minimizing the risk to taxpayers. "Look, things could always go wrong," Pagliuca said. "I’ve been in business for many years and things do not always go to plan. I'm not saying there’s no risk, but we’ve put together a plan that’s very prudent." The benefits of the Games center heavily on the private sector investment, which would be executed by private master developers chosen by the city. In short, Boston officials believe the profit potential created by the Games are more than enough to create sufficient safeguards to public budgets. That includes both a projected $210M operating budget and the insurance and developer earnings from the concurrent deals. Former IOC VP Dick Pound said, "Dismiss everything from your mind you’ve read about Sochi and $51 billion -- that was essentially to build two entirely new cities. ... In Boston, the question really ought to not be whether it can operate with a surplus, but how big can that surplus be?” No Boston Olympics called into question all of yesterday's proposals unless they are accompanied by a written guarantee protecting government budgets. "Without disavowing the taxpayer guarantee, Boston 2024’s claims, protections and promises could prove as ephemeral as those made by boosters in other bid cities,” the group said in a statement (Ben Fischer, Staff Writer).
CHANGING THE GAMES: In Boston, John Powers writes the city is "in the early stages of the eternal five-ringed back-and-forth between existing and new facilities, between permanent and temporary, between legacies and white elephants." The rejiggering of the venue map in the 2.0 bid is "unavoidable when the buildings and the land belong to someone else, especially when the bidders have taken a blood vow that they won’t need a penny of public money for them." Other than the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, which has "been a revolving door of additions and deletions, the campus sites have had the most rearrangement." Harvard, which had been penciled in for seven sports "now is down to the one (archery) that originally had been slotted for the riverside greensward in front of MIT’s dome." Boston College, which "wasn’t a primary site for anything in the 1.0 version, picked up field hockey." These "were the relatively simple switches." The difficult ones "involve the big-ticket facilities, like the natatorium and velodrome that are expensive to maintain after the Games." The "easy solution" is to do what L.A. did in '84: "build them and give them away" (BOSTON GLOBE, 6/30). Meanwhile, also in Boston, Dungca & Rocheleau wrote Boston 2024 has "promised transportation improvements that would benefit the entire region." Yet "it’s not clear that the state Transportation Department and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority are on board quite yet" for some projects. MDOT interim GM Frank DePaola last Tuesday said that he "had not known" about a privately funded, $96M commuter rail station that "would abut a new Olympic Stadium before Boston 2024 on Monday unveiled its updated bid" (BOSTON GLOBE, 6/30).
 |
Pagliuca feels '24 Games would provide once-
in-a-lifetime economic development opportunity |
ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY: Pagliuca in a BOSTON GLOBE op-ed writes the Games "present a transformative, once-in-a-lifetime economic development opportunity for New England." Bid 2.0 is a "fact-based, forward-looking plan to deliver privately financed, risk-managed Games." It is a "winning plan for Boston," as its "combination of sound fiscal management, contingencies, and insurance provides multiple layers of protection for taxpayers." Bid 2.0 also "avoids the most serious risk we face: letting this opportunity pass us by" (
BOSTON GLOBE, 6/30). But in Boston, Howie Carr asks, "Does Boston 2024 really believe that they can still sell the state this billion-dollar boondoggle?" (
BOSTON HERALD, 6/30).
BAKER'S DOZEN: In N.Y., Katharine Seelye writes Bid 2.0 was "seen as Boston’s major chance to convince the USOC to stick with Boston," but "much will depend" on how Baker reacts. The governor, who "has a knack for data analytics and also has high approval ratings, is widely viewed as having the power to make or break the bid." If he likes it, more residents "may be willing to offer the support necessary to keep Boston afloat." But if Baker "gives it a thumbs down, Boston 2024 will face an uphill climb to get voters to approve it in a statewide referendum next year, if it even gets that far" (N.Y. TIMES, 6/30). In Boston, Joan Vennochi writes it is Baker's turn to "decide if the benefits of hosting the 2024 summer Olympics outweigh the risk to taxpayers." When Baker took office on Jan. 8, he "told Massachusetts that his immediate priorities were to deal with a looming budget deficit, build a job-creating economy, close the achievement gap, confront opiate addiction, and revitalize urban centers." Pagliuca's description of Bid 2.0 as "risk-managed" does not mean "risk-free." This is "the rub for Baker," whose seal of approval is "essential for Boston 2024." But awarding that approval "could put stress on Baker's inaugural vows" (BOSTON GLOBE, 6/30).
