YouSpeak: Should Boston Host the 2024 Summer Olympics?

Recent poll shows slim majority in favor, with plenty of critics

January 26, 2015
18
Twitter Facebook

When the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) announced earlier this month that Boston had beat out Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, as its entry to host the 2024 Summer Olympics, the decision was met by cheers from local business leaders and politicians who had worked for months (and at great personal expense) to persuade the Committee that Beantown had the chops to pull off one of the world’s biggest sporting events.

There’s no sure bet that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will pick Boston: Rome has already submitted a bid, and other cities, including Johannesburg, Berlin, and Paris, are said to be interested. But that hasn’t kept fans—and critics—of a Boston Olympics from voicing their opinions. The operating budget is expected to cost roughly $4.5 billion, with security expected to cost billions more.

And while Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has vowed not to use any public money for the construction of Olympic venues, opponents argue that hosting the Olympics will nonetheless divert attention—and money—away from such pressing issues as affordable housing, education, infrastructure, and health care; lead to huge traffic jams; and expose the city to potential security threats. And it’s no secret that the Olympic Games have a history of serious cost overruns.

An independent poll of Boston residents conducted earlier this month by The Sage Group showed that 55 percent supported hosting the games, with 39.6 percent opposed. But when asked whether taxpayer dollars should be used to help fund a Boston Olympics, only 32.9 percent said yes, with 60.8 percent saying no thanks.

Critics have called for some kind of public referendum that would allow the public to decide whether or not the city should host the 2024 Olympics. A poll released last week by WBUR found that an overwhelming number of Boston-area residents polled (75 percent) support the idea of putting the issue to a public vote.

Why does public opinion matter? Because local support for hosting the games is one of the critical factors the IOC will use in deciding which city ultimately gets to play host. Too little support could leave Boston’s bid dead in the water. The IOC isn’t expected to make a decision until 2017.

This week’s “YouSpeak” asks: Should Boston host the 2024 Summer Olympics?

“YouSpeak” typically appears on Mondays. If you have a suggestion for a topic, leave it in the Comment section below.

Explore Related Topics:

  • Share this story
  • 18 Comments Add

Share

YouSpeak: Should Boston Host the 2024 Summer Olympics?

Share

  • Alan Wong

    Executive Producer

    Alan Wong oversees a team of video producers who create video content for BU's online editorial publications and social media channels. He has produced more than 300 videos for Boston University, shuffling through a number of countries in the process: Australia, Argentina, Peru, Ireland, China, and Cambodia. He has also bored audiences in Atlanta and Boston giving talks on video for higher ed. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 18 comments on YouSpeak: Should Boston Host the 2024 Summer Olympics?

  2. Money from the Olympics goes in the pockets of big investors.

    The olympics will negatively affects low income communities, bring traffic, and in the end, only those politicians and large companies will see the benefits.

    They already closed down one homeless shelter, likely to make way for new olympic developments. Where do the homeless go?

    Yes, affordable housing and transport, health care, and education are MUCH MORE PRESSING.

    It’s 2015 and American cities are still lagging behind. A big stadium isn’t going to fix that.

    Reply
    Link

  3. A bit misleading to call it a “slim majority in favor” when that majority is entirely contingent upon the fantasy that somehow Massachusetts taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook. The games always boast economic boosts and no public funds except for public infrastructure, and these promises are never kept.

    The city claims that deadlines imposed by the IOC will make necessary public infrastructure improvements happen. If anything, this is an assertion to political dysfunction that should preclude anything like the Olympics coming to Boston, but of course political health isn’t any kind of priority for the IOC. They’re interested in cities that can subvert political process for the sake of a multinational corporation and its affiliates, relocate people at whim, reconfigure the roads, and have the police presence to ensure all this can happen without public interference.

    Reply
    Link

  4. I would like to support the idea of hosting the 2024 Olympics in Boston.
    Because 1, it can make Boston get more and modern buildings and constructions.
    2, Boston is great with its historical and cultural things but still needs some new and modern things to get more energy.
    3, it will be very exciting to see new things around the city.
    Best Wishes!

    Reply
    Link

    2. Part of Boston’s bid is that there will be minimal construction associated with the games; that is, they want to use pre-existing structures (e.g. TD Garden, Agganis Arena, Harvard Stadium), not build anything new.

      Reply
      Link

  5. There’s homeless people in Boston freezing to death on the street every winter, some will probably die in these next few days.

    And here we are debating whether or not to host an event that, at the very best, helps no one but Marty Walsh and John Fish of Suffolk construction. I guess using our tax money to improve the city instead of absconding with it to build overpriced temples of corruption is a bit too much to ask.

    Reply
    Link

  6. Absolutely not. This is going to cost Boston tax payers a lot of money with no real benefits. Plus, there is no space here for the games! We’ll have to build new stadiums, which will likely not be useful in the future beyond the games. I can’t even imagine how the traffic could be handled – there is enough traffic as it is.

    Reply
    Link

  7. A Boston Olympics would be a long-term disaster for the city. And we have no need of a PR boost – Boston is already a beacon in literature, sports, science, education, revolt, resilience, self-reliance, museums, theater – famous around the world. If we want to wow the planet and ensure a vibrant future, we should pour those tax dollars into revamping our public transit infrastructure and revitalizing forgotten neighborhoods. We’d once again be known for our vision – there’s already plenty of pomp.

    Reply
    Link

  8. Yes. It is a great opportunity for Boston. It is can bring more Business to Boston in the future. It will make Boston more reach in the future especial we have international Fly now. Go for it 100% .
    Margaret Tung.

    Reply
    Link

  9. There have been announcements from Boston 2024 that the use of (and dedication of) the Agganis Arena to the Olympics was part of the City’s bid to the IOC: Did anyone at BU know that? Was anyone at BU consulted and give its permission? Boston University is private property: If the Trustees wisely decline to give free use of these University facilities— built for our students and University-contracted events– to the Summer Olympics, does the City plan on taking BU property by eminent domain? Don’t laugh; it was one of the first City responses to owners of developed property in the North End and in Roxbury who had no idea their property was part of the plan submitted to the OIC and had no lans to sell and lose their businesses.

    This is one of the least appropriate cities in the United States for an Olympic Games. Mayor Walsh and the City have gotten a lot of “bang” out of winning the US bid for Boston, and it won’t disappear if the City pulls out. Voters must support a public referendum on the City’s candidacy.

    So,BU. what did you know and what are you planning to do? Students and their families won’t appreciate the increases in tuition (and the loss of use of Agganis and FitRec) to support our “participation.” And faculty and staff certainly won’t appreciate the rationale that salaries and benefits will suffer because of the inevitable expenses the University will have by surrendering our campus to the OIC.

    This won’t be a few weeks; it will disrupt the campus and the University’s primary mission of education for several years.

    We would all appreciate a statement from President Brown and the Trustees.

    Reply
    Link

  10. No, Boston should not host the Olympics because risk to taxpayers is too high. The International Olympic Committee requires host cities to financially back Games if/when private financing falls through. Essentially, the mayor will sign a blank check.

    As for area universities building venues for Games, I think this is out of line with academic values. Particularly in light of rising tuition costs and increasing student debt. That is what universities should be focused on, not playing host to two week party.

    Reply
    Link

  12. No. No, No, No, Definitely, Absolutely NOT!

    Hosting the Olympics will not be worth the expense & trouble for Boston or for Massachusetts. Don’t believe the fat cats who will benefit personally while saying it benefits all; it will not. Note that here & elsewhere (e.g. Boston Globe articles, letters & comments) supporters offer only vague generalities. Opponents, & even just skeptics, raise quite precise & detailed concerns. for voluminous supporting data, please refer to Andrew Zimbalist, “Circus Maximus,” a new book on the unwarranted costs (social as well as financial) of hosting Olympics & the World Cup in soccer.

    The whole process so far stinks badly. There is a thorough lack of transparency; no democratic input; disinformation about financial & other costs, funding sources, & the myriad disruptions & security concerns. Mayor Walsh has already signed a contract forcing Boston city employees to never criticize the Olympic-hosting process. That’s a terrible sign in itself, & will never stand up in court. But which city workers will actually dare to test Hizzonner’s assurance that critics will not face retaliation? A referendum on this is essential, as is legislation restricting use & abuse of eminent domain powers.

    The Olympics is a major international institution. Let’s compare it to another one: the United Nations. Does anyone think the UN should be relocated every couple of years? No. Does anyone believe that would help the UN conduct its affairs more effectively or affordably? No. Who would benefit from moving the UN at regular intervals? Probably only construction firms & various financial-services giants, whose interests should be a very low priority at best. Sounds similar to our situation, right?

    It’s past time for the Olympics to settle down in one or two places, for the Summer & Winter games. Any entrepreneurs who want their personal “legacy” to include supporting the Olympics can donate to games held in a fixed location — which should not be in Massachusetts.

    Significant opposition to hosting is already emerging, & will grow as people learn more about the real costs that are being deliberately hidden from the public. But it’s crucial to remember that No Boston Olympics & other opponents are NOT just nay-sayers. They (we) are IN FAVOR of many positive things (good schools, reliable transit, overdue infrastructure improvements, living wages for city workers & residents, etc). These public benefits are far more likely to be compromised, not advanced, by getting tangled up in an Olympic bid.

    Finally, consider this: what do the following have in common?

    The Stamp Act riots, Boston Tea Party, Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, the Siege of Boston, the abolitionist movement, the ant-Vietnam war movement, marriage
    equality.

    The lesson: when the people of Massachusetts protest & resist fiercely enough, we win. Keeping the Olympics out of Boston will actually strengthen the democratic process & popular participation in it for Massachusetts citizens.

    I relish the contest that looms ahead of us.

    Reply
    Link

  13. I think rather than proposing the events be in Boston proper, it could be better if the proposal to hold the Boston Olympics was a regional approach. By doing so, it could be a tool for the economic revitalization of cities throughout the state such as Worcester and Brockton, both of which are on the commuter rail.

    I think Boston is too small and the dynamic nature of the city would be changed if such a large-scale event were to come here. I read recently about the proposal for nine month leases for students during 2024 – that would be an interesting question to pose to the BU community.

    The property values (and rents)in Boston are rapidly increasing already. The Olympics will facilitate this rapid increase and will potentially increase the rate of displacement of low income residents.

    These are all issues to consider as there are nine public meetings are scheduled to occur.

    Reply
    Link

  14. Admit it, no city ever benefits from Olympics. Every Olympics city was left to be the landfill of global consumerism, lazy multiculturalism and cowardly peacemaking campaigns.

    Reply
    Link

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today