A local group opposed to Boston’s bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, No Boston Olympics, this morning was scheduled to plead its case against the city’s hosting dreams before the Special Committee on Boston2024 and the Boston City Council, saying hosting the games would require the city to write a "blank check" to the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
"Our members are not naysayers, we are not cynics, and we do not disagree with the inherent coolness and ‘once in a lifetime’ nature of a Boston Games. But we do disagree with the wisdom of pursuing the Games as a sound and responsible public policy," No Boston Olympics wrote in prepared remarks delivered by co-founder Chris Dempsey.
The speech came two days after Boston Mayor Martin Walsh showed his support for Boston’s Olympic ambitions during his annual address before the Boston Municipal Research Bureau.
According to prepared remarks, the group argued that Boston2024 has "dramatically overstate[d]" the benefits of hosting the Olympic games and "significantly understate[d]" the costs of and risks of hosting to the city and state taxpayers.
Noting that every Olympic Games since 1960 has cost more than the budget submitted to the IOC, the group said that the IOC contract requires a taxpayer guarantee for any unforeseen costs and overruns associated with the Games.
"Taxpayers are on the hook when costs go over the submitted budget. As it stands, the city of Boston – that is, city taxpayers – will be required to write a ‘blank check’ to the IOC … Now, Boston2024 will say it intends to take out an insurance policy to protect the city, but the group included no insurance premium payments in its submitted budget," the group said in its prepared statement.
The group did note that during 1984 Olympic Games, Los Angeles refused to provide taxpayer backing, and encouraged Boston to seek a similar arrangement.
The group’s testimony also focused on a $600-million payment to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) that is part of Boston2024’s operating budget, which receives taxpayer backing.
"This is a franchise payment – a ‘thank you’ for the privilege of bidding on the Games," the group said. "Those dollars go to USOC headquarters in Colorado Springs and are used for salaries and other USOC expenses – they are not spent here in Boston."
The group argued that if the bid moves forward, the $600 million be held in escrow and only sent to the USOC "if and when elected leaders in Massachusetts agree that Boston2024 has fulfilled 100 percent of its community promises."
The group further argued that hosting the Olympics would provide no tourism boost, citing statistics from Beijing and London that said tourism actually declined during the Olympics for those cities, nor would it provide a long-term economic benefit to the city, saying that "study after study by independent academics has shown that the Games do not create economic growth."
It also refuted the idea that hosting the games would force the city to complete necessary infrastructure improvements.
"It turns out that the stuff you absolutely have to build for an Olympics – a velodrome, a temporary 60,000 person stadium, an aquatics center – is stuff you don’t really need. And the stuff you really do need is stuff you don’t have to build," the group wrote its prepared statement. "In Rich Davey’s own words, ‘Boston2024 is asking for no new transit projects.’ It is difficult to see how the MBTA can be dramatically improved when Boston2024 does not support raising new revenue to fund the system."
