Let’s stop referring to those of us who oppose Boston’s 2024 Olympics bid as naysayers, as Shirley Leung does in her column “Instead of saying no, let’s try being open to the possibility” (Page A1, Jan. 9). No one is saying we are incapable of hosting an Olympics. Rather, we are saying it is not an enterprise worthy of our already world-class city.

We do not need either the US Olympic Committee or, worse, the International Olympic Committee to affirm that status.

Leung’s comparison of an Olympic bid to the Boston Harbor cleanup is absurd. The harbor cleanup has been a 40-year effort that will benefit all of us for years to come. It was a citizen campaign spearheaded in part by the Conservation Law Foundation. In contrast, the immense Olympics project’s only sure outcome is that we will be the television backdrop for a two-week event.

The current system of moving the Games to a new site every four years is antiquated. With the changes brought by telecommunications and transportation, the actual playing of the Games would be better served by permanent sites for the Winter and Summer Olympics.


Why do we keep moving them? Profit and greed come to mind. But to give the corruption-plagued and politically obtuse IOC the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the answer is that that’s the way it has always been done. That’s not a reason for Boston to participate.

Richard Howard