Any Olympic bid’s most feared enemy is the NIMBY – “Not In My BackYard”. Most bids get some opposition from community groups that point to potential tax hikes, inflation, lack of attention to social issues, “white elephant” legacies and more as reasons to reject the bid. Some of these groups have more resources than others and they can be disastrous to any campaign.
As recently as a month ago, a strong Olympic bid candidate for the 2010 Games was destroyed by the dreaded NIMBY. A poor economic environment and cost overruns from the Swiss Expo 2002 eroded public support that resulted in a failed referendum on funding the Games, and Berne was forced to abandon its highly developed bid.
NIMBY also made an appearance in the United States thirty years ago after Denver had bid and already won the opportunity to host the 1976 Winter Games. A local referendum on public funding was held and the voters decided to give the Games back because they weren’t ready for the expense. Innsbruck eventually hosted after NIMBY was instrumental in forcing a city to return the Games for the first and only time in history.
A decade ago, Toronto’s early favorite 1996 Summer Games bid eventually fell behind Atlanta and Athens but really lost to the local social activist group “Bread Not Circuses”, A.K.A. NIMBY, which felt more attention and funds should be diverted to aid the homeless. Of course IOC members weren’t likely all that concerned about homeless people in Toronto, but more about how this noisy group could potentially disrupt the organization of the Games, or the Games themselves – and that’s what NIMBY is all about.
The IOC knows all about NIMBY, and now they’re asking questions about it. In the applicant questionnaire for 2008 and 2010 hopefuls, bids were asked to reply to the following; “What is the general public opinion in your City/Region and country towards your project of hosting the Olympic Winter Games?” and “What opposition is there to your project? Please detail.”
So far, bids are treating these questions seriously – in the new era of bid transparency, denying opposition could be costly at the end. Vancouver’s 2010 bid openly admits in its questionnaire response that “there is some opposition to Vancouver’s bid”, and then goes on to list some concerns such as traffic congestion and “the possible displacement of low-income renters”. But then it details how they are dealing with the issues by involving citizens and working closely with community groups. That’s what the IOC needs to hear.
In the USOC race for 2012, NIMBY seems to be quiet in San Francisco but explosive in New York. There are several organizations protesting the New York bid, the most vocal being the “Clinton Special District Coalition” who are against a proposed Manhattan Stadium that is part of the proposal. This group is aggressively campaigning against the bid, and even more importantly, they’re being heard by the national and international media including a recent article about the issue in Germany, a potential 2012 competitor. It’s one ugly NIMBY.
According to the coalition, the bid committee is dismissing their concerns and denying the problem. Whether the opposition complaints are real or imagined is not the issue, but the perception of a problem certainly is, and it must be dealt with in order for the bid to receive full marks from the IOC. After all, the Olympic brand is one of the most highly protected brands in the world and the IOC doesn’t want to anger a few hundred-thousand New Yorkers.
New York already lost some credibility with the leaked Bear Stearns report that revealed an unexpectedly higher Olympic price-tag so ignoring opposition groups will only serve to increase doubts and negatively impact public support. Toronto chose to ignore “Bread Not Circuses” in its 1996 bid which turned out to be a fatal decision.
If New York gets nominated by the USOC on Saturday they will have to recognize and deal with the opposition groups openly and sincerely before they campaign internationally. NIMBY may be ignored by the USOC but it won’t slip through at the international level especially with aggressive European bids ready to pounce.
