“We need to move forward as a city, and today’s decision allows us to do that on our own terms, not the terms of the USOC or the IOC,” No Boston Olympics said in a statement. “We’re better off for having passed on Boston 2024.”
Boston never fails to declare their autonomy. The palpable cries from the North End streets, ‘no outside organization will control us; we will build this city the way we see fit.’ In some respect, you do win, Boston, because now Massachusetts taxpayers won’t have to suffer the potential and very likely cost overruns. Boston’s bid was fickle at best, with the final version unable to hide the cost burden of two enormous projects: the Olympic stadium and athlete village. Boston’s drop could be a warning sign to other cities willing to take on the risk associated with hosting the Olympic Games.
No one wanted the 2024 Summer Olympic Games in Boston, not the governor, mayor or its residents. The story hadn’t changed since the early days of January when Mayor Walsh mistakenly described the opposition group as having “10 people on Twitter,” and the response triggered a trending backlash. The United States Olympic Committee’s selection came as a surprise, given the faltering public support surrounding Boston’s bid.
“We were all excited when [Boston] was announced, but it seems to have stumbled since,” said John Coates, vice president of the International Olympic Committee.
In an effort to revive support, the planners of Boston 2024 pursued writing a more detailed proposal, dubbed Boston 2.0. The report’s extensive nature prompted Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to enlist a consulting group to revise the financials. Notwithstanding the paper’s length, 2.0 still lacked some vital information that, in turn, left people with much doubt. That doubt ultimately carried itself to Monday, when it was officially declared that the USOC cut ties with Boston.
It was the right thing to do. Approval ratings never even escaped the 30’s and the bid had zero support from its politicians. Gov. Baker was still waiting on the numbers and Mayor Walsh went on to announce his disapproval during a Monday morning press conference.
“I will not sign a document that puts one dollar of taxpayers’ money on the line for one penny of overruns on the Olympics,” he said.
You can be sure that the No Boston Olympics organization was the first one to celebrate the news. Now, there is an open contender for the USOC’s selection, and it’s looking like Los Angeles will probably edge out San Francisco and Washington. The city would appear to be the obvious best choice. LA hosted twice, and is home to the essential sports facilities, although it’s hard to say whether a return to a congested urban sprawl will pique enough interest at the IOC.
“I continue to believe that Los Angeles is the ideal Olympic city, and we have always supported the USOC in their effort to return the Games to the United States,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said in a statement. “I would be happy to engage in discussions with the USOC about how to present the strongest and most fiscally responsible bid on behalf of our city and nation.”
The USOC has until September to turn in a bid strong enough to outdo world class cities such as Rome, Paris, Hamburg and Germany. Hosting the Summer Olympic Games, after 28 absent years, would be a huge win for the US, considering the attraction of the seasonal competition and its favorable, long-term outcomes. Most Americans might think the contrary if public funds will be a necessary procurement in paying for the exorbitant costs. When you hear of host cities paying more than $50 billion, the debate of whether it’s worth it certainly comes into play.
Image: Via Flickr/Shawn Carpenter
