Fred not Lynn said:
What are these billion dollar specialty sports venues that won't get used again? Seriously, a velodrome doesn't cost that much, a pool doesn't cost that much. The main stadium is your big spend - the so-called "white elephant" minor venues are really a drop in the bucket, and turn out to be pretty useful after the fact because they're pretty rare. L.A. Built a velodrome for 1984, and since then they've built a whole new one because it's an actual useful asset to the community.
The original plan called for the velodrome to be turned into some kind of community facility after the olympics ("think dance complex" said the organizers) because no one wants a damn velodrome.
Anyway along with what others have posted there are two major issues to me beyond just the probable cost overruns and the inconvenience.
1. Circumventing the planning process / land grabbing:
Massachusetts is bad at regional cooperation, but there have been some steps in the right direction towards really developing an urban planning process that works for multiple stakeholders and develops healthy neighborhoods, cities and regions. The Olympics would circumvent and basically supercede all of this for the benefit of a few developers and construction companies. Examples:
-in 2013 the Boston Redevelopment Authority completed the Fort Point Master Plan (
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/planning-initiatives/fort-point-district-planning-%28100-acres%29) where they engaged the community and developed a plan that most are happy with. This is where Boston 2024 decided to put the media center, and even if they follow the plan with the land afterwards (unlikely) you're putting a ten-year hold on the plan that has already been agreed upon.
-Harvard has been buying land in Allston for a long time and while it's been contentious they at least are making some concessions to the community regarding expanding into Allston. Again, the Olympics would accelerate this and there wouldn't be time for community input.
-The potential olympic stadium site is currently the site of the New Boston Food Market where a bunch of food wholesalers are located (
http://www.dotnews.com/2014/we-re-not-sale-powerful-interests-circle-site-southie-line). Maybe it's a good idea to move them and build housing there, but I think they should have some say in that instead of their land being taken.
-The Mayor just announced an effort to make a comprehensive plan for the city of Boston which would be the first since 1965, called Boston 2030. Of course, kind of hard to do that when he also wants the Olympics as I doubt the two plans will mix well.
2. Sort of related to #1, opportunity cost:
-Even if it magically ends up being fully privately funded, that's private money that can't be used for other things.
-Some of the post-Games plans for the Olympics land would be good for the region -- if the olympics village becomes housing, that makes sense and is needed. If the stadium site becomes a mixed-use neighborhood, then yeah, that's good (if it becomes a soccer stadium paid for with public $, not so much). But if the land is just taken and the infrastructure built based on what is best for the Olympics, it's not going to be designed for what's best for the city. This is basically urban planning 1960s-style, where a few elites decided what was best for the city and built it. What we have now is messy but in its best cases it works a lot better.
Honestly all the supporters that I have come across either think it would be great as a spectator or have something directly to gain from it and the most convincing argument they can come up with is "oh, it won't be that bad". Boston is already building as fast as it can get projects approved. People want to live here and jobs want to locate here. No, it's not NY, but nowhere is.