In a head-spinning and dramatic turn of events on Monday, July 27, Mayor Walsh announced that he would not sign a host-city contract for the 2024 Olympics at that time because of an International Olympic Committee (IOC) requirement that taxpayers would fund cost overruns for Olympic development and preparations. A few hours later, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) ended Boston's Olympic bid.

Boston area residents were divided on the Olympics issue, some feeling excitement about the games and the new development and infrastructure improvements they might bring, while others were concerned about the lack of openness surrounding the bid, the IOC's taxpayer-liability requirement, disruption to daily life and the displacement of existing businesses for Olympic venues.

As news of the Boston 2024 bid's demise spread, the South End News asked local lawmakers, business and neighborhood associations and community leaders to share their thoughts on hosting the Olympics and what the discussion of Boston's Olympic candidacy might yield for plans to improve life for Boston residents in the future.

George Stergios, president of the Worcester Square Area Neighborhood Association (WSANA) encountered strong reservations in his area about the Olympic bid and the ensuing upheaval and costs. Stergios wrote, "WSANA never took a vote on the Olympics bid, but we did have [No Boston Olympics co-chair] Chris Dempsey to one of our meetings and he received a warm and sympathetic reception. My guess is that the regular attendees were inclined against it but willing to wait to hear more details before coming to a final decision. Judging from the very unscientific sample of residents I just happened to talk to about it, I think most of us are relieved that we will not be hosting the Olympics for all of the reasons most Bostonians are: that is, that we might have been paying for it for the rest of our lives, and for reasons specific to our neighborhood, the traffic and general disruption."

Nancy Wall Farrington, president of the Blackstone/Franklin Square Neighborhood Association (B/FSNA) expressed a note of ambivalence but mostly disappointment at the ending of the Olympic prospect. "Since the start I have found myself on both sides of the issue. The Olympics were Boston's opportunity to move beyond a city of colleges, medicine, biotechnology and, let's not forget, sports. Sadly, we won't now be challenged and our infrastructure will not be brought into the modern era. Just wait, No Boston Olympics, till next winter and the T is still not working. We will come after all of you with pitchforks!" she wrote.

State representatives Aaron Michlewitz and Byron Rushing both expressed reticence about Boston's Olympic bid. Michlewitz said via e-mail, "My concerns with bringing the Olympics to Boston were always centered around the long term financial impact to Massachusetts, because it was always my belief that cost overruns were likely and that the burden would have fallen on the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. This concern is what drove me to file initial transparency legislation back in January after Boston was awarded the Olympic Bill. This bill created a Commission that I believe would have given the taxpayers a significant seat at the table throughout the process." Reflecting on the feedback from his district, Michlewitz observed,

"While it wasn't unanimous, I heard an overwhelming amount of my constituents in the South End and beyond that had serious concerns about pulling off an Olympics in Boston." Rushing wrote, "The Boston bid for the Olympics was becoming a huge and potentially very costly distraction. It became clearer each week and then each day and finally almost each hour that the Boston 2024 committee with the backing of the USOC was not going to expect private proponents of the Olympics to pay the full costs and accept all the risks. The mayor, the governor, and the state legislative leadership made it clear that the Olympics here should be no burden on the Massachusetts taxpayers. Boston 2024 disagreed."

Bud Larievy, a realtor at Sotheby's International, a board member of Washington Gateway Main Streets and Chester Square Area Neighborhood Association and a South End resident for over 30 years, takes impassioned and informed stances on many community issues and the Boston 2024 bid is no exception. Larievy shared his views in an e-mail, writing, "I think most people are relieved that the Boston is no longer an Olympic city prospect for 2024. There were too many unanswered questions, especially about financing. And the planning was top down and did not include the people who live in the neighborhoods. It went against Tip O'Neill's axiom that 'all politics are local' and consequently it failed."

Sue Sullivan, executive director of the Newmarket Business Association, saw both concerns and advantages, and hopes the process will inspire future growth. "For the businesses here in Newmarket, the Olympics posed a real challenge. There was great potential for increased business, as well as transit and infrastructure improvements. However, at the end of the day, there was also concern over whether the businesses could continue to do business here because the Olympics would further impact the rising property values and the desire for properties to be developed to their "highest and best use" - that almost always is not an Industrial use. Those issues have not gone away because the Olympics are no longer happening as the City's concept of creating two "new neighborhoods" in our area is still very real, however, the immediate pressures have diminished. I think that in the end, the city government is going to get what it wanted, which is the development of two brand new neighborhoods, Widett Circle and Columbia Point. These are still on the table and while I applaud the Mayor's vision for Boston 2030 and look forward to working closely on this, I will also hold him to his promise that there will be no eminent domain takings and no loss of the 750+ industrial jobs at Widett Circle," Sullivan wrote.

Pine Street Inn communications director Barbara Trevisan said via telephone, "We did not take a position on the Olympics. We were watching and waiting how things would progress. There was a lot of attention on the need for more housing, more affordable housing and improvements to the transportation system and we hope that kind of attention will be sustained going forward." A spokesperson for Rosie's Place had no comment on Boston's Olympic bid and its demise.

Vanessa Calderón-Rosado, CEO of IBA (Inquilinos Boricuas en Acción) reflected in a telephone interview, "I was in support of the bid. I felt that bid 2.0 was much better and there was still room for improvement. Boston 2024 was interested in talking to different organizations about how to make it better than everyone and I was part of those meetings. I thought some of the legacy projects proposed would have had a very positive impact on the city in terms of jobs and housing including adding 1,000 units of housing. All in all I am disappointed. I wish we had more time for the mayor to feel comfortable and feel all guarantees were in place, but he was under pressure from USOC and I understand where he was coming from."

Looking forward, most commenters saw an opportunity to use ideas raised in the Boston 2024 discussion to improve Boston for residents. Calderón-Rosado said, "I think there was a lot of great thinking and ambition. Great plans were put forward conceptually and in some detail that I hope could be considered for some areas in terms of traffic, housing, and mixed use, mixed income development. I hope that work will not wind up on the shelf collecting dust and will be used to move forward the mayor's goals for building additional housing. The difference would be that without the pressure and deadline of games it will take longer some developers may not be as interested now because they may not see the financial incentive or return on investment and it may take some time. But there is some good information there." Michlewitz said, "The Olympic discussion did bring a focus to the long term planning of the city, which I think was a healthy and important direction for us to take. I look forward to the Mayor's Imagine Boston 2030 initiative, which will continue the discussion even further about creating more affordable living, better transportation infrastructure and responsible development."

In terms of future planning, Stergios said, "I am glad that the redevelopment of Widett Circle is now on the table, and I guess we will have to thank Boston 2024 for part of the impetus that brought it there, but I am also glad that the redevelopment will not be distorted by the short-term needs of the Olympics and we will be able to weigh in the interests of the many thriving businesses operating there. And finally, with the Olympics out of the way, the city (and state) can focus on our major challenges: improving the schools, housing the homeless, and getting the trains to run on time and year-round.

Larievy wrote, "It did open discussion on the future development of Boston, especially Widett Circle and the revenues it would generate. It has in fact, broadened the discussion and empowered local business and neighbor groups to voice their feelings, ideas and needs. Mayor Walsh's plan for the development of that area will continue the discussion. It will still involve massive changes and will entail relocating several businesses and social/city services to other areas of the city, an expansion of public transportation, and the addition of retail and housing. Hopefully, this time, the city and state leaders will listen and incorporate the neighborhood suggestions into the planning and implementation of the proposals, especially in the construction of moderate income housing and the redistribution in the number of service centers that are overwhelming the District 4 area. This is a great opportunity for a new vision of Boston [in] 2024 that will bring us to an outcome that we all have envisioned together. Let's keep the momentum going, especially here in the South End!"