Hey, there! Log in / Register
Olympics: Referendum, Widett Circle, Marty Walsh
By adamg on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 7:53am
So now Boston 2024 will push a statewide referendum, which might remind some of the effort a couple decades back to repeal rent control in Boston, Cambridge and Brookline via a statewide referendum.
Boston 2024 actually talks to the property owners in Widett Circle, who are no longer hopping mad about plans to turn their collection of food-processing buildings into an Olympic stadium, especially now that Marty Walsh says he won't use eminent domain to take their property (recall, however, that the Olympics people originally proposed a new authority to do that).
Meanwhile, Walsh's campaign consiglieri gathered in Dorchester last night to talk about a door-to-door pro-Olympics campaign.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
shakes head
I love how they are starting to change their tune as they slowly are losing support for this. Not sure why they think a vote is a good idea, it will be voted down, especially if its state wide, because we know how much western mass feels about funding things for the boston area.
I don't think it's Western Mass
They always hate it when all the money flows into Boston without their having a say. What I worry about is the hard-sell Boston2024 is going to put on the 128 and 495 belts - where people live close enough (and largely have money enough) that they can envision having a fun time at an Olympic basketball game (after fighting for the three tickets that don't go to corporate sponsors) but won't have to live with the day-in-day-out ruination of the city and its neighborhoods.
Agreed.
I think aiming the referendum at a wider area than the ones that will be directly affected by the games will help Boston 2024, unfortunately. I worry that people who won't have to deal with the construction, transportation problems and land grabs won't care, and will vote in favor.
I have to assume Boston 2024 feels the same way - assuming there were choices about who to poll, I would expect them to poll the group of people most likely to give them a favorable response. And if it comes out favorably, they'll dismiss their detractors in a heartbeat.
Money flows the other way, doesn't it?
I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure money flows from the Boston area to Western MA, not the other way around, the same way it flows from blue states to red states at a national level.
Western Mass* does not have a
Western Mass* does not have a critical mass (no pun intended) of voters to make a dramatic impact on statewide elections. In terms of partisan elections, Democrats win there overwhelmingly but it does not move the dial much since there's just not that many people there. That's not to say I disagree with point, I agree that folks there are not gonna wanna funnel more money to Boston (a view I have heard from my friends there, whether accurate or not).
And by Western Mass, I mean really west, not Worcester County ;-)
I think the IOC is forcing their hands
The IOC made a comment within the past week or so (of course I can't find a reference to it) where they said that they don't want a host city in a place where there isn't widespread support for the games.
One of the problems with a referendum is that it's probably not going to say "Do you want the Olympics to be held in Boston in 2024?" Yes/No
It's probably going to be written in some way where a No vote is a vote for bringing the games here.
Maybe, but...
I thought in a recent article (can't find it right now, but it may have been posted on UHub) an IOC official was quoted saying that in reality, they care much more about how the public feels about a Boston Olympics in 2017. The implication was that it's early days yet, and that the IOC is used to having the public come around after a few years of being worn down.
If that's true, then it's doubtful the IOC is putting the screws to Boston 2024 just yet. Nonetheless, obviously Boston 2024 wants to turn things positive as soon as possible.
as seen on TV
like the poll on Parks and Recreation:
"Do you think Leslie Knope should be in England, do you not think that, or do you not think that that?
Not be in Europe: 48%
It's okay: 17%
Confused by the question: 35%"
The Walsh Way?
Our goal is to do this the "Walsh Way"..
Says the little mercenary creeps who helped Marty and his union pals shnake their way into City Hall. Now they've taken nice jobs with Suffolk Const...I mean Boston 2024.
And the falling poll numbers clearly represent a people who don't want this blatant ripoff and yet with shitty schools, rampant gun violence and crumbling infrastructure that will somehow only get fixed if an Olympics is approved, Walsh and his team of off the rack puppets seem to only be focused on Boston 2024.
I wonder why?
yes!
John Fish was quoted.. and I'm paraphrasing.. He said something about the Olympics are for Boston in 2030 and what could be possible.
My question to Fish is.. why have the Olympics at all and just do the projects as a part of a Master plan. Do we need the Olympics as an excuse to fix our city's problems? Nope.. so let's do fix them anyways, sans Olympics.
Because the sad reality is
Because the sad reality is that many of these donors and people that will jump on board an Olympic bid won't spare a dollar to help with actual city issues. I do not include Mr. Fish in that, he actually has been someone that has kept his company headquarters in Roxbury, hired many city residents, and donates a lot of his own money and time to worthwhile civic activities that don't get press attention.
Still Connolly
butt hurt I see.
Dude, I live in Belmont
why would I give two shits about John Connolly?
Oh
a Romney guy.
Smoke and Mirrors
Somehow I don't think anyone is stupid enough to fall for this. 2024 is just trying to derail Falchuk's referendum.
That Was My First Thought
And, if 2024 is the only organization collecting signatures, there are all kinds of ways to make sure either the signatures don't make it to Galvin for verification or are fucked up in some way to make enough of them void so that the referendum doesn't make it onto the ballot.
It's like you spot a rat in your kitchen. You decide to set a trap to catch it. Then the rat says, "Hey! I'm all for a trap! Let ME set it. If I'm caught, I won't complain..."
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Marty's short coattails
While that team won a very close Mayoral race, they went full bore for several other candidates since then who have all failed.
Warren Tolman for AG
Martha Coakley for Governor
Joe Ruggiero for East Boston State Rep
are there more?
heh
Few things
1. Can you explain to someone who only have half two and a half decades, what the referendum reminds that is from a few decades ago?
2. We are getting a chance to vote on it now. Shouldn't that mean being a bit happier in the comments?
2. No, because...
2a. ...we haven't seen the wording of the proposed referendum, or how it's being represented. Are you "happy" about things you know nothing about? I'm not.
2b. It isn't going to happen. The Massachusetts referendum process allows citizens to propose and vote on laws and constitutional amendments. It has no provision for voting on funding of dog and pony shows.
Even if it happens
The vote would be November 2016. The bid would be due January 2016. What the hell exactly do they think we'll be voting on?
There's an old saying in union circles
Never call for an election unless or until you know what the results are going to be.
These guys think that they can pull a Steve Winn--walk in and buy a ballot initiative that gives this greedheaded grab the imprimatur of public approval. They will spend whatever they think is needed to achieve that. And they will outspend the anti-2024 forces 100-1.
Something Fishy and Casino Referenda Redux
Didn't this happen with the casinos, too? Good point about the rent control initiative, Adam. I hope others can elaborate as I have only passing knowledge, and being a transplant, I was very curious.
These initiatives appear to be symbolic more than anything. The powers that be have clearly found the best instrument for massaging and managing discontents.
A referendum is more orderly and safe than sustaining the type of engagement that is truly necessary for the pols to make sound long-term policy decisions.
I hope that opponents of the Olympics are able to use this ongoing public relations war into something good. Highlight the incompetence, arrogance, insularity and disingenuousness of the people who are in bed with moneyed interest. Explain the dire urgency of transportation and affordability.
The IOC and local boosters may be powerful but organized resistance can also have its blessing, for example, we can discuss the issues that nearly everyone believes actually matter, rather than allowing business as usual to triumph.
No reason to oppose eminent domain
This is absurd populist garbage. Anglo-American society favors strong property law because of the personal connections we associate with the owner. I don't care what this company says, it has no strong personal connection to Widett Circle. As soon as they found out their site was being eyed for the stadium they knew they could milk this for far more than it's worth.
Passing no judgment for or against the Olympics for the sake of argument, if it is going to happen-which would be the case by the time eminent domain were exercised-we can all agree we should avoid unnecessary costs, since at least some (probably much) of the cost will be passed along to the taxpayers. This means we shouldn't be buying some crap piece of land for far above market value from a food distributer who had the good fortune of owning one of the last underdeveloped tracts in the city.
This is a highly inefficient use of land and it exactly why we have eminent domain in the first place. Unfortunately it's become such a boogyman in the American psyche that we'd rather let some greedy business cash in on a windfall on the taxpayer's dime than even consider it. If this was someone's house then, sure, don't take something special away from the little guy. But there is no justification in fairness or logic for opposing eminent domain here.
OK, then what?
Let's follow this out.
1) State and Boston2024 use eminent domain to take the land away from the people who own it because they aren't using it well enough
2) Stadium is built, Olympic fun time occurs, stadium gets torn down
What is step 3 with the land? Is there any possible right answer other than "the developers behind Boston2024 either get to keep it or get to buy it at 'market rate' and then cover it with Olympics Landing, a gigantic luxury apartments-and-fancy retail plaza"?
It's the part where taxpayers have to do the buying and then Fish and Friends get final possession that makes the eminent domain option sound pretty terrible.
Separate problem
Your objection is understandable but is unrelated to mine. All I'm saying is IF Boston2024 ends up with that land it's better for the rest of us that they end up with it at market price, because that's what we end up paying. Boston2024 will get their hands on this land no matter how much they have to pay for it. If the taxpayers are going to cover all the overruns anyway then Boston2024 has no incentive to keep costs down, which is exactly where it become Walsh's responsibility to step in and do so himself where possible, such as by exercising eminent domain.
Eminent domain is a bad idea
Boston2024's entire schtick is that they aren't going to require any taxpayer money to make this bid happen. Whether you believe that or not, (and if you do, I have a bridge for sale) it's their official position, which means that they're saying that the purchase price of this land is going to be coming out of the pockets of their own investors. At that point, we're talking about a private company purchasing land from another private company, and getting eminent domain involved is bad for everyone except Boston2024's shareholders.
The "greedy business cashing in on the taxpayer's dime" in this case is Boston2024, not the New Boston Public Market. You're proposing that the state step in to deliver an asset to John Fish at below-market value, to prevent cost overruns to a privately-owned company. That's not what eminent domain is for.
Yes, my argument is based on the assumption of public money
But as you suggest, the idea that no tax money will be used is so ridiculous I refuse to entertain it. Starting from that premise, it is irrelevant to Fish's gain how much he pays for the land. But yes, I agree completely it is generally wrong to use state power to transfer private property from one owner to another without a strong public interest.
Boston2024's greed is irrelevant to my argument as it is premised on the Olympics moving forward, which would be the case at the point eminent domain were exercised. Just because Boston2024 is greedy, doesn't mean New Boston Public Market isn't. If I were cynical enough I could even envision the two colluding to get the best deal for New Boston and then passing along the costs to the taxpayer.
And lastly, the land would in theory be delivered at market value, not below. Admittedly landonwers often get screwed out of actual market value in eminent domain actions, but if Walsh really cares about protecting New Boston's interest he should direct his efforts towards ensuring it gets a fair price.
Well, obviously
...my quick and accurate answer to that is "Stop Boston2024 right now, and nobody will ever have to buy that land".
My more detailed reply is: it's not like the land is sitting there empty. There is business going on there, business that frankly the city depends on, and I question the assumption that the land isn't being used to its fullest. In fact, food distribution and warehousing seems infinitely more vital to the city than a stadium (especially a temporary one), so why should the state ever have to be on the hook at all, just because Boston2024 says they really want it?
Question is particular to that parcel
If we will build a stadium, which this whole scenario is premised on, it's better in a central location to reduce traffic. By contrast there is little reason New Boston couldn't operate out of Chelsea or Dedham, or somewhere where land is under-utilized. Admittedly transportation costs would increase but property taxes would decrease and even at market value they'd make money on the move if they went somewhere cheaper, so the net effect wouldn't necessarily increase its cost of business.
Is that true
If the primary business of the Widett cluster is serving the hospitality industry, then you're adding time and transit costs to most of their transactions with the core of the Boston restaurant businesses which are downtown/Back Bay/South End. Dedham and Chelsea are much, much worse for high turnover local service industry.
I'd argue you'd be better making the users of a stadium drive to Dedham or Chelsea - the location of Gilette has had zero impact on the Patriots ability to sell it out for football games or concerts.
Why the focus on this land as underutilitzed? Why not the former convention center or any of the other one story buildings around 1st St in Southie?
Fair enough, but
Obviously I haven't done an economic analysis,but I wouldn't be surprised if these costs offset with some of the benefits of moving. They could also liquidate, reinvest in something else, and be just as well off in theory. This would be bad for the employees of course but their situation wouldn't be improved if New Boston sold above market price.
For the purposes of the Olympics there's a strong interest in reducing traffic to outlying areas. As to alternative sites you're right that there might be better options, but we would run into the same problem. The landowner would refuse to sell at market value because it would know it can get a higher price since Boston2024 has no incentive to control costs.
You are right, but the courts say Nick is right
In my opinion, eminent domain should be reserved for public purposes, like roads and schools. Unfortunately the courts have ruled it can be "highest and best use". So if the powers that be think there should be a mall there, they can take the land, sell it to a developer and put a mall there.
As you point out - that's the fly in the ointment here. We are not taking the land and selling it to developers for what should be the maximum value to the taxpayers. I wouldn't agree with that - but in all likelihood it would be legal.
Instead - and the weakness in Nick's argument - is that even if we determine that there is a higher and better use - say a large residential development - we are squeezing in a middleman who will squeeze out taxpayer dollars. You'll never see it on a cash flow statement - but that is what in effect they are doing with their current proposal.
As many have said - this does give us a chance to look at the future of Boston. If the city wants to take the land, they probably have that right. But to make sure the taxpayers get their full value, we should take it, lease it to Boston 2024 for the Olympics at a market rate price (TBD), let them build the stadium AND tear it down and THEN sell it off to developers - who should have the demolition and disposal money set aside in escrow.
If the city wants to take the
This is dead on.
But I'm unsure of your evaluation of the overall merits of eminent domain. In the example you give I fail to see where the taxpayer dollars are being squeezed out. Landowner transfers to developer at market price, developer invests, improves, and profits.
If you approach this from a purely economic standpoint I see nothing wrong with this. The original landowner could develop the land itself but presumably either lacks the resources or is negligently wasting the land. Since public interest therefore favors landowner's transfer of the land to someone who can make use of it, eminent domain abrogates its property right in favor of a liability right—that is landowner still gets its due but doesn't have any say in it. If we then buy into the basic concepts of capitalism, developer is deserving of the profits it gets from its subsequent investment on the land.
I see no problem here. If it's residential or the property has some other subjective value to the owner (as in the tragic Kelo case) then we can't examine this through a purely economic framework. But in the context of urban industrial land this isn't a concern.
Short on time today - but
Real quick - believe current zoning is industrial or light industrial. City can take it cheaply at that zoning (or and agency given the power - like the BRA). Transfers to Olympic group - at that price - roughly. Stadium developed, knocked down and land is rezoned to say office/residential/mixed use - now whoever owns it gets HUGE windfall.
If city just took the land, rezoned and moved on - then the city gets the profit from the rezoning. If' I'm understanding this correctly - essentially the profits will at the very least go to pay for the stadium and demolition - which is in essence public dollars that you don't see on a cash flow statement - but that the city should reap if we just skipped the whole Olympic thing.
Step 3: Proft
My understanding was that, after the Olympics, the stadium area was going to be "developed" and luxury condos, and possibly some retail or office space built there, which would bring in lots of money for the investors.
I wonder is there is any way to put a lien on those profits, if (when) there are cost overruns....
US Olympic Committee must be thrilled
The US Olympic Committee must be thrilled. So the pageant winner isn't sure they ever wanted to be involved in the first place? And their ineptitude runs so deep that they're going to make us wait until the last minute before they might pull the plug, eliminating the chance of any US city hosting the Olympics? Well done, Boston!
This is a huge win already for opponents of bringing the Olympics here. If I'm on the US Olympic Committee I'm pulling the plug on Boston immediately and putting efforts into pitching a city that has its shit together.
I don't support bringing the Olympics here, but what a bunch of muppets.
Learn your history
The history of the Olympics is full of cases where some individuals put forth a city, to the point (in the backroom-deal world of Olympic bids) of getting it to the later stages or even selected as an Olympic venue, and when other individuals weighed in, they had a different take on things. Google "Denver 1976" for one. And you sarcastically say "Well done, Boston"? Do you really believe, like so many idiots apparently do, that "Boston" is a monolithic entity with unified groupthink, or that it should be? Apparently you're more upset at "Boston"'s inability to goose-step in perfect formation, thus making us look silly before all the world, than you are at this rush-job proposal that has heretofore ignored the opinions of most of those who are directly affected. Please understand if I find your priorities appalling.
I think
you need a nap.
To elaborate
I support the referendum but laugh at its timing. The time for this was before Boston approached the USOC, not after it's been selected.
Nothing in my comments warranted a nazi reference, but if that's your card I guess you have to play it. I do agree with your aspirations to be just like Denver in 1976, but do you think we're aiming too high? Could we really be Denver 1976? Imagine.
Perpetual outrage must be exhausting.
I support the referendum but
Only if you care about the democratic process.
Also, referendum's the wrong tool. It can't possibly work. Talking about a referendum is clearly a "shut up and go away" tactic.
I wouldn't know, but I bet that you can teach me a thing or two about perpetual incoherence.
Olympic rehections
You don't even have to back that far... Norway just declined the winter Olympics this last fall.
NORWAY (the kings and queens of winter sports) didn't want the winter Olympics, (and neither did Sweden.) This should be an indicator of sorts as to how desirable the Olympics are becoming.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/01/us-olympics-winter-norway-idUS...