BREAKING: AP Source: US Olympic Committee ends effort to bring 2024 Olympics to Boston.
— The Associated Press (@AP) July 27, 2015
At a press conference at which he confirmed the decision, Gov. Baker said the state had a review schedule set in March and USOC knew that in March, so, meh. "I've never planned an Olympics before" and wanted to know how to do it right, he said. We can still use some of the Olympics proposals - like fixing "K Circle" in Dorchester, he said. Also, the Brattle Group report will have helpful hints.
Baker wouldn't strongly criticize the USOC but suggested they just don't understand how we do things here. He said he's lived here all his life, and one of the things he likes about Massachusetts is that "we do have loud and robust policy and political debates on stuff like this."
Walsh statement:
I strongly believe that bringing the Olympic Games back to the United States would be good for our country and would have brought long-term benefits to Boston. However, no benefit is so great that it is worth handing over the financial future of our City and our citizens were rightly hesitant to be supportive as a result. We always anticipated having the time to do our due diligence on the guarantees required and a full review of the risk and mitigation package proposed last week. This is a monumental decision that cannot be rushed, even if it means not moving forward with our bid for the 2024 Summer Games.
Excerpt from Boston 2024 statement:
Notwithstanding the promise of the original vision for the bid, and the soundness of the plan developed under Steve Pagliuca, we have not been able to get a majority of the citizens of Boston to support hosting the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Therefore, the USOC does not think that the level of support enjoyed by Boston’s bid would allow it to prevail over great bids from Paris, Rome, Hamburg, Budapest or Toronto.
Boston 2024 has expressed confidence that, with more time, they could generate the public support necessary to win the bid and deliver a great Games. They also recognize, however, that we are out of time if the USOC is going to be able to consider a bid from another city. As a result, we have reached a mutual agreement to withdraw Boston’s bid to host the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Whoa
By Lanny Budd
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 6:50pm
"we would once again be seen as a city where things can't get done"
How soon we forget that we undertook the largest highway project in US history and completely reconstructed our downtown not too long ago.
Yeah, but
By Waquiot
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 10:18pm
Ask anyone about the Big Dig. Sure, thinking folk can easily see how things got better, but both in Boston and outside, they still gripe. To be fair, the cost overruns were horrible.
As far as downtown development goes, most of us still call in the Filenes Hole.
Of course, the moral of the story of sports development projects in Boston is that we will not front public money. Too bad the rest of the country can't figure that out, but the Krafts learned.
Yes, yes...
By Horseface forme...
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 10:57pm
and at only over budget by a factor of what? Oh, never mind, it was a bargain!
It had to happen...
By PharmaGuy
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 3:54pm
I didn't like the idea from the first moment I heard it. I didn't support it. I still don't. There is a small part of me though that was a little excited at the though that Boston could fix the Olympic mess that has been the case of late. Part of me wanted to be proven wrong, that Boston could provide a plan that made sense for the community and economically. The IOC is just not a reasonable organization. The mayor is 100% right to need to read something before signing it. That's just business 101.
I wonder if Deval Patrick would have made the difference at $7,500 a day?
Don't go cheering Marty so quickly...
By Cutriss
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:15pm
Yeah, I just wish he'd have taken that position, oh...months ago?
Marty's just trying to come out looking like a good guy after months and months of sleaziness.
I agree but...
By PharmaGuy
Fri, 07/31/2015 - 1:13pm
I agree that he should have been firmer sooner but what I always tell my children is true here as well, "Now is always the best time to do the right thing." Even past mistakes don't preclude you from doing the right thing right now. Maybe it's all a political calculation or maybe he learned something these past few months. Bash him for what he did before but give him some credit for making a valid point. It's all reasonable.
Well done, adamg!
By makeshift_vicinity
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:03pm
UHub was my main source of news about Boston2024's nefarious deeds. It's a big reason (apart from learning how awful the IOC is in general) that I opposed bringing the Olympics to Boston, and the whole affair has gotten me more into local politics.
This feels like a win for the little people! Keep up the good work!
support for universl hub
By briannefitz@gma...
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 7:59pm
So let's put our money where our mouth is and support Universal Hub as the only legitimate source of unbiased news in this city. DONATE today!
Great idea
By Bob Leponge
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 9:58pm
Just ponied up again.
A major win for the left.
By anon
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:14pm
A major win for the left. Adam and Co. will rest well tonight.
The "left"?
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:54pm
You don't think plenty of politically conservative Bostonians were also troubled by the alleged Olympics plans.
Don't forget about the moderates
By Nancy
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:02pm
I sometimes joke about how I'm the rarest of rare birds in Massachusetts - an unenrolled, moderate issues voter.
I vote for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Unenrolleds. It doesn't matter what letter they have next to their names.
I think sensible people...
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:04pm
... across the entire political spectrum were massively "unenethused" by the would-be-Boston Olympics.
I have never seen anything
By RhoninFire
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:12pm
I have never seen anything before on UHub that have raised such a collective. A topic that generated 100+ comments, but people from all range from Markkk to Swirrly express dissent. All types of views.
I might be closest to "support" here - comparatively, as in I recognizes that I would have like to been proven wrong and we get tons of things fixed with Boston getting oodles of money. I'm okay if we were "defeated" like that.
Regardless, this was from all spectrum.
Yes
By chaosjake
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 7:01pm
All the fiscal conservatives on the "left" won. *massive eye roll* ...this may be the least partisan issue in Boston history.
Almost
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:26pm
> least partisan issue in Boston history.
Celebrating the Red Sox winning the World Series in 2004 might edge this out...
I think he said blessed are
By h00ks
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 11:42pm
I think he said blessed are the big noses
All righty then
By lbb
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:17pm
Over, done, the world is improved by one less irrelevant distraction for people to foam at the mouth about.
Interesting Logic
By Stevil
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:18pm
Basically the primary argument was - don't saddle us with a bill and many of us would actually consider the Olympics. So instead of the USOC coming out and saying "We are so confident you won't get hit with a big overrun, we'll (somehow) guarantee it - safe in the knowledge that such an occurrence would never have come to pass".
So the mayor calls their bluff and says - we won't sign anything that commits us to overruns and mortgage our future - a few hours later they kick Boston to the curb because they know how this really works.
That should be a warning to you LA - Coliseum and facilities notwithstanding.
LA didn't sign such a commitment in 1984
By Ron Newman
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:24pm
In fact, they passed a referendum prohibiting such a commitment.
Hope the remember that
By Stevil
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:41pm
And do it again.
Very different era
By tachometer
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 7:58am
It was still the cold war and after the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics over the invasion of Afghanistan (which pretty much led to the Soviet and eastern bloc nations boycotting the games in LA). Leading up to the 1984 games the losses in Montreal and the low interest from other cities gave LA some leverage. They used mostly existing facilities, didn't have to guarantee to cover the losses and were given a much bigger cut of the television revenue.
The political winds are shifting again and the USOC & IOC seem to be acknowledging that a bit in what they are looking for in bids but they are not ready to put their money where their mouth is just yet.
Yay, because the Big Dig went so well
By Markk02474
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:22pm
staying on promised budget and didn't leak that we would need to do it again with more big projects!
Yeah, and we need T unions to have us over a barrel demanding more workers, pay, benefits, and retirement with the Olympics as leverage because people getting to work every day isn't leverage enough.
Remember Rio. IOC is rightly nervous about it. How things go or fail will impact future bids.
Nervous about Tokyo, too
By Ron Newman
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 4:35pm
as they just scrubbed their entire plan for a new stadium -- after already demolishing the previous stadium that they could have renovated for the purpose.
Hooray hooray hooray!!!
By Ami
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:17pm
I've just returned from 10 days completely off the grid and this was the first news alert on my phone. Best news I could wish to turn on phone for! Special thanks to all who kept asking questions and especially to Adam and others for ensuring coverage wasn't all Shirley's voice. We are a world class city - today more than ever!
WOOOOOO!!!!!!!
By Marco
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:24pm
Praise be to Jebus! Admiral Ackbar! Happy Quanza!
Whatever! No cluster-bang 2024! This is a huge victory for public opinion!
It must be some kind of milestone that a people's government did NOT sell out their future for personal monetary gain! I am still proud to live in Massachusetts!!
Boycott
By Anon
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 5:38pm
I'm still not going to patronize all the restaurants, bars and businesses who were foolish enough to post the Boston 2024 Olympic signs in their windows.
Now that is just silly.
By nm_not signed in
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:26pm
n/t
Not A Witch Hunt, but
By John Costello
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 9:34pm
I only saw Amrehin's and Mul's with signs for B24. Where else? I like those places but I was a wee jaded when I saw the signs.
reminds me if another failed campaign...or two
By anon
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:06pm
I was thinking about it and realized the whole Boston 2024 campaign had an air similar to both of Coakley's failed campaigns - a perceived attitude of entitlement, that they could tell the public what to think/believe and we would just accept it because of the clout of those who were telling us these things. It's certainly not the same but I can see parallels, for sure.
Bloated meat pie with hair chimes in, if only briefly
By adamg
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:07pm
Before deleting the tweet (but not before the savvy saved it):
Waisted...
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:28pm
... for real?
WAISTED A LOT OF TIME!!!!!!!
By Malcolm Tucker
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:30pm
Oh my god, Trump. Oh my GOD. On the one hand: literally the funniest thing ever to happen to the Republican party. On the other hand: if he ever shows up in Boston, I will personally re-enact a variation on the tea party, and dump (lukewarm) tea on his awful, awful hair.
Except it isn't funny
By Brian Riccio
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 9:38pm
The mere fact that this egotistical blowhard is taken seriously by a great many of the American people is not only sad and pathetic, but it's a sign the idiocracy is now.
The GOP has literally become the clown car of the political process.
As opposed to...
By Stevil
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 10:54pm
The paddywagon of the political process where Hillary may end up?
(don't get me wrong - Trump is a blowhard and he will disappear from the scene after he gets embarrassed in a debate or two).
Just saying - The dems have a (potential) felon and a communist leading their pack (and sadly nobody has even heard about the two moderate mid-Atlantic Dems that many would like to learn more about).
A wha??
By Sally
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 12:28am
Communist? Socialist, please. I mean, if you're going to grease the slope like that why not just Stalinofascist-crypto-Nazi?
Stevil had to change the subject
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 4:35am
Stevil had to change the subject because Trump is the most popular candidate in the Republican primary in a field of 16? candidates including Governors, Senators, neurosurgeons and CEOS. So Stevil called Democratic candidates-- Hillary and Bernie-- names.
What does Donald Trump's popularity among the Republican base say about the Republican base?
What does Stevil's deflection says about Stevil?
Says I'm a moderate that hates partisans
By Stevil
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 7:32am
Listen - Trump is a laughing stock - but don't get carried away - the "most popular candidate" is polling at 18% last I read. That means 82% don't support him. And that's less than half the population - so he has the "support" of about 7-9% of the people (and the analysis points to it being more of a protest vote than actual support - at a time when it is still irrelevant). There are an equal number of numnutzes on the left - for example the Bernie supporters. It takes two sides to have a lunatic fringe on each end of a bell curve. Neither Trump nor Bernie will be more than a footnote come next November.
As for me - you don't have to speculate - I hate it when one party controls everything. We need a Democrat in the White House to keep the partisans in check. I won't vote for Bernie. I was planning to vote for Hillary (reluctantly because I don't want a Bush or a Clinton). She's VERY competent - but this email thing seems to indicate she's above the law - and while I doubt it because the Clintons are Teflon, the paddywagon may still come for her - and she may deserve it - we'll see. I like what I see from Jim Webb. And Martin O'Malley deserves a look. If you are a true Democrat - I'd look too - because both of them seem to be quite electable - without the baggage.
The comment wasn't pro-anything - the point was that there's a circus to be had on both sides. (and Sally - sorry - left my snark button on off). Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Hold on...
By Brian Riccio
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 7:50am
You really think they'll be able to nail Hillary over a few e-mails? Benghazi has been a non starter for the GOP, yet they keep hanging on to it like abortion and gay marriage. Why? They like to fund raise off of the hate and fear.
I'm not 100% thrilled with Hillary either, but she's the best of a very bad lot. I like Sanders' populist message, but he'll never get the nom.
Could be more than a few
By Stevil
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 8:28am
Without question she broke policy. We'll have to wait and see if she broke the law.
Best of a bad lot? Perhaps - my concern is O'Malley and Webb have excellent resumes - but I never hear their names mentioned so I don't know anything about them. I'll have to go to their websites and do some reading.
I'll probably have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary too because I don't want the Republicans to run amok unchecked. They do a good enough job of that with a Democrat in the White House.
There are checks and balances in the Constitution for a reason. They work. Voters would do well to remember that no matter what office you are voting for.
Trump is a laughing stock as is the GOP
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 2:40pm
In a field of 16, polling at 18% is most-favored candidate status.
We'll check again after the first debate in August.
Your initial response to the criticism about what the GOP has become is to call Clinton and Sanders names. Your second response is to call Sanders supporters 'numnutzes,' more names.
Sanders argues the middle class and poor should reap the fruit of their labor. He got 5,000 in Louisiana Sunday, 3x more than any other candidate.
If you think a valid case has been made that Clinton violated the law, you're not following the news closely enough. If you fail to recognize this is how Republicans campaign-- manufacturing dirt-- you're the numnutz.
The "both sides" false equivalency analysis isn't always a reasonable analysis. There is no one on the left running for president like Trump. Your critique of the left is that Hillary is dirty and Sanders is a loon followed by numnutzs. That is not an equivalency, it's a smear.
Side show
By Stevil
Wed, 07/29/2015 - 9:17am
Bernie and Trump are pre-game side shows - kind of like the sausage race at minor league games. They will be irrelevant a year from now. Both push the dialogue - Bernie for worker rights and Trump for getting politicians to be less scripted (and Bernie's appeal is probably similar-but don't bet on that horse unless you care to make a donation to the track).
Other than some snark - no firm evidence Hillary did anything more than break policy of the organization she ran (if I did that - the state would either shut me down or fine me out of existence). This does not appear to be Benghazi where there was lots of smoke and no fire (I never understood exactly what the Republicans were looking for other than air time on that one). However, there is pretty clear evidence she risked national security with her careless actions. I am very troubled that she did this as Secretary of State - and she's a brilliant woman - she knew EXACTLY what she was doing. This isn't dirt - this is sewage. I brushed it under the carpet when I first heard about this from my Fox watching friends. But then I read a few more articles on news sites and it is very troubling. Granted, Clintons are Teflon - so she'll probably skate.
If she considered herself above the law as Secretary of State - what happens when she's head of state? Does she become God?
I still may vote for her - because she's probably the most qualified of the whole bunch and I am desperate to have a check on the R's in congress, but my opinion of her has gone down significantly. I'll likely vote here in the Democratic primary. Bernie won't get that vote, Hillary might - but I'll be looking closely at Webb and O'Malley and any others that might come out of the woodwork.
Not even really a "socialist"...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 10:16am
... but a "democratic socialist" -- akin to (but perhaps a bit more conservative) than lots of mainstream politicians in much of Europe.
oh, definitely
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 11:14am
It's a clown car full of Pennywises, and the car is driving off a cliff, and they're trying to drag us all with them. Trump's supporters, mystifying in their large numbers, are a sad group of crazies - as McCain correctly noted. Trump himself remains a laugh riot, though. He's a perfect storm of ego and id, and while I'm shipping back off to Australia if he actually makes it beyond his current state as a curiosity, I'm having a hell of lot of fun mocking him on the internet in the meantime.
From what I read...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 11:22am
... politics in Australia is/are pretty sucky right now too....
they are.
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 12:03pm
But there's a glimmer of hope: federal election in 2016. Labor may still be too much of a mess to win, but I bet you anything the Coalition will finally kick Abbott to the curb. He's an idiot, and an unpopular idiot at that.
Trump ➤ Bernie 2016
By Elmer
Tue, 07/28/2015 - 12:24pm
[img]https://elmercatdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/07...
Thanks for posting that...
By boo_urns
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:33pm
Thanks for posting that....Saw it was retweeted but he deleted it.
...waisted?
By anon
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:35pm
...waisted?
Congrats, UHub regulars
By rsybuchanan
Mon, 07/27/2015 - 8:53pm
No, not for the Olympic thing. For having a centi-thread that doesn't directly involve bikes, cars, students, yuppies, snow or guns. Well done.
Pages