Tepid local support puts Boston's Olympic bid in doubt

BOSTON — Toward the end of a nearly four-hour public meeting last month, Heather Townsend rose to question the organizers of Boston's 2024 Olympic bid.

Why didn't they support a referendum that would bind them to their promise not to use taxpayer money? After the Games, who would control the land where the proposed Olympic stadium would be built? Could the city at least guarantee that no one from Boston 2024, a private group leading the city's bid, would own that land?

Like many of the more than three dozen people before her that night at Harvard Business School, Townsend got few answers — at least not ones that satisfied concerns that she and a growing number of Bostonians have about the bid.

Bid organizers say the purpose of the meetings is to seek public input on a bid that is far from finalized. Altogether, nearly 30 such sessions are being held across the state through September, including nine around Boston alone.

Boston 2024 CEO Richard Davey frames this as a means of inclusion and cultivating popularity for the bid.

"The public is influencing not only how we're thinking about venues, how we're thinking about legacy," he told USA TODAY Sports this month, "but also how we're thinking about ultimately gauging the public interest. ... Our ideal situation is to have a demonstrable majority public support."

So far, though, Boston 2024's situation is far from ideal.

Since the U.S. Olympic Committee selected Boston over Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., in January, a series of missteps by Boston 2024 and low public support have put the bid on shaky ground. A poll for Boston radio station WBUR released Thursday showed an increase since last month, with 40% of registered voters now supporting the bid, but the poll still showed 50% opposition.

"Boston can and should lead America's bid to host the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games," USOC CEO Scott Blackmun said Thursday in an email to USA TODAY Sports. "We're obviously pleased that the more people learn about this extraordinary opportunity, the more they seem inclined to support the bid. We'll continue to work with our partners at Boston 2024 and the City of Boston to engage residents and successfully answer the public's legitimate questions."

With several groups opposing the effort, organizers face a difficult task of persuading Bostonians to support it while building a case with the International Olympic Committee. Looming over this is a city and statewide referendum on proceeding with the bid that is set for November 2016 — after two important mileposts in the IOC's host selection timeline.

Cities must formally declare as applicants by Sept. 15. Subsequent to that date, a nation cannot change its candidate city. In spring 2016, the IOC is scheduled to select a short list of finalists.

Boston faces competition from Rome and Hamburg, which have declared as applicants — as well as a likely bid from Paris, which has the approval of the city council, and potential bids from Budapest; Istanbul; Doha, Qatar; and Baku, Azerbaijan.

If Boston's bid gets to November 2016, Davey has said it will not proceed further if the referendum does not yield majority support in the city and the state. The balloting would occur amid global examples of skepticism about the value of hosting the Games. Although the IOC has approved recommendations designed to reduce costs of bidding for, and hosting, the Olympics, public votes or pressure have forced four cities to drop out of the running for the 2022 Winter Games, leaving two potential hosts.

There is precedent for a U.S. city dropping out. After being awarded the 1976 Winter Olympics, Denver lost the Games in 1972 when voters overwhelmingly supported a ban on the use of state money for the Olympics.

The United States has not hosted a summer Olympics since 1996 in Atlanta. New York's bid for the 2012 Games and Chicago's for the 2016 Games reached the finalist stage only to be spurned by the IOC.

Opponents to Boston 2024 express views that range from doubts that organizers can deliver on their lofty vision for the Games without cost overruns and state taxpayer money, to questions about the potential ulterior motives of a powerful group of business, construction and political leaders who are advancing the bid.

Said Townsend, who is part of the group No Boston 2024: "We don't tend to take taxation without representation lightly around here."

David Wallechinsky, president of the International Society of Olympic Historians, said while IOC voters often decide host cities based on their own agendas, a Massachusetts vote with at least 60% support would be viewed favorably. Anything even in the low 50s, he said, would be "disastrous."

USOC SELECTION, THEN MISSTEPS

In the bid documents it submitted to the USOC in December, Boston 2024 wrote that the city was "overwhelmingly united in its bid for the 2024 Games."

Almost immediately after securing the USOC's selection, missteps and bad publicity followed.

Walsh initially signed an agreement with the USOC prohibiting city employees from speaking negatively about the bid. He later revised the agreement.

Next came the disclosure that former governor Deval Patrick would make $7,500 a day as a consultant for Boston 2024 and that its staff would have annual salaries of nearly $1.4 million. Patrick reversed course and said he would forgo the fee.

Boston 2024 hired several staffers and consultants who are veterans of political campaigns and well-connected in Massachusetts politics, including the former leader of the state Republican party and advisers to Patrick, Mayor Marty Walsh and current governor Charlie Baker.

Questions about the Boston 2024 financial plan have ensued.

"If you're not trying to get taxpayer money, why would you hire a huge group of people who are like a dream team of people you'd go to to get taxpayer money?" says Evan Falchuk, a former independent candidate for governor.

Falchuk has publicly released language for a referendum seeking to bind Boston 2024 to its promise to not use taxpayer money to run the Games. Davey said Boston 2024 is open to that language, but it's premature to commit to that before speaking with stakeholders.

That kind of ambiguity and opacity has been eroding Boston 2024's position for months.

To win over the USOC in December, Boston organizers sold a walkable Games built largely around existing venues and the area's array of university facilities.

Boston's bid documents, which organizers released after a call for transparency from Walsh, revealed a basic Games-specific budget of $9.1 billion: $4.7 billion in operating costs that include temporary venue construction and operation; $3.4 billion in non-operating costs for the Olympic village, broadcast center and associated infrastructure; and $1 billion in security costs expected to be provided by the federal government.

Organizers have said venues would be built by private donors and leased to Boston 2024 during the Games.

"We are planning for a privately financed Games," Davey said on a teleconference town hall with more than 900 residents last week. "We are not seeking taxpayer dollars to build venues or to operate the Games when they come in 2024."

But what about other costs?

In its bid documents for the USOC, Boston 2024 asserted that, separate from the organizers' Games-specific budget, the effort stood to benefit from $5.2 billion in general public transportation and infrastructure improvements that the state already had underway and are "guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth."

However, not all of those projects are funded. Davey responded by saying the Games could proceed without any upgrades that haven't been funded. But Walsh told the Dorchester Reporter this month that if Boston were awarded the Games, state and city taxpayer money would be needed for transportation projects that aren't already funded. Walsh's office declined to make him available for an interview with USA TODAY Sports.

Transportation's connection to Boston's Olympic bid was highlighted when the subway failed amid record snow in February. Support for the bid immediately tanked. In polls of a little more than 500 Boston-area registered voters for WBUR, support for the bid fell from 51% in January, to 44% in February, to 36% in March. Meanwhile, opposition to the bid grew in the inverse — from 33% in January, to 46% in February, to 52% in March. The margin of error is 4.9%.

While the poll results released Thursday showed an uptick in support for the bid, 90% agreed that the Olympics are very likely or somewhat likely to cost more than current projections.

After the March polling report, Davey and Boston 2024 reversed course on their opposition to a referendum, saying last month that they supported having the November 2016 vote. If Boston 2024 pulls the bid, its insurance would owe the USOC $25 million.

Smith College economics professor Andrew Zimbalist, a vocal critic of the bid, recently published a book titled Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and World Cup.

Asked for his opinion of Boston 2024's financial plan, Zimbalist said: "It's very hard to make a detailed critique of it because it's constantly changing. To the extent that there are what seem to be consistent features of the plan, I don't think there's a prayer in heaven that they would be able to pull this off without public money, and without billions of dollars of public money."

Organizers have promised layers of insurance that would indemnify the taxpayers — a concept first explored in Chicago's failed bid for the 2016 Games. Davey said insurance wouldn't make this a "completely zero-risk opportunity," but it would help.

SHIFTING THE MESSAGE

After the slew of negative publicity, Boston 2024 organizers late last month took out an ad in The Boston Globe in which they outlined 10 self-imposed criteria they need to meet to host the Games. Among the items listed were job creation leading up to and during the Games, thousands of affordable housing units being created and a reiteration of the federal government picking up the tab for security.

Davey says organizers need to be clear that while the Olympics won't solve issues with affordable housing or transportation, it can help address those.

Most recently, Boston 2024 has shifted its message to legacy — what the Olympics can do for Boston and what Boston can do for the Olympics.

Davey used the Boston Marathon, which draws hundreds of thousands of spectators, as a comparison.

"I think having Bostonians understand that the Olympics can be that, but for 30 days in a row, in the summer of 2024," he says. "I think once we get through the questions on finances and on venues and really start to talk about the Olympic spirit, what the Olympic movement means, I think we're going to see a lot of support. But that will take time to have those conversations."

Which is precisely what troubles Kelley Gossett, co-chair of an opposition group called No Boston Olympics. With the Games dominating the political conversation in the state and Boston 2024 officials meeting with elected leaders in the legislature several times in recent weeks, she wonders what will happen to other city issues like affordable housing, transportation and education.

"We want them to pull the bid yesterday and get back to core conversation," Gossett says. "This is a very costly distraction that threatens ... precious, scarce resources."

Baker and leaders of the state legislature are seeking an independent analysis of Boston 2024's plan, specifically asking that costs, responsibilities and risks of overruns that could fall to the local and state government be examined. They've capped the cost of that report at $250,000.

This month, Walsh told Boston TV station WBZ that he planned to open the Office of Olympic Accountability with his handpicked staff monitoring the bid. The $750,000 for that office will be paid for by Boston 2024.

Heavy advertising and political campaigning are likely to occur, requiring Boston 2024 to create a political organization for advertising and lobbying.

Might that, and the long trail of public meetings, be enough?

"I think it's an uphill battle," Gossett says. "I think we need to see a lot more evidence that this makes sense for our community and our region."

Contributing: Christine Brennan