When Boston was selected by the USOC, Stephen Murphy told CBS, “Whenever you win a competition, it’s great! And we were up against such stiff city competition…We are the birthplace of American history. The Freedom Trail is here, so much is here and I think there’s so much to celebrate.”
At the March 6, 2015, City Council hearing, Councilor Murphy asked Boston 2024 representatives for a copy of the Agenda 2020 IOC reforms.
Councilor Murphy did not respond to the JP Gazette's request for his position for an April 10, 2015, article.
Councilor Murphy responded to our request for his current position on the Olympic bid with the following email on April 24, 2015, with the following statement:
“Thank you for your correspondence. First, I reject your premise. The Olympic possibility for 2024 is not an important issue within the purview of City Goverment [sic]. It is a distraction from the important issues facing our city. As someone who has devoted the better part of twenty years, balancing special interests to produce a city that works well, let's call the Boston2024 bid what it is: a special interest group trying to bring the Olympics to Boston for 17 days, nine years from now. It is not an important issue facing our city. Important issues facing our city are education, public safety, and quality of life issues that Bostonians expect and deserve to have improved through their elected city government. All of these become more difficult when outside sources of funding, federal and state government sources get reduced year after year. That is what I have been focused on for the past several years, and if reelected by Boston voters this November will continue to be my focus. Let's also call your group what it is, a special interest group trying to deny a Boston Olympics nine years from now. In other words, a distraction.Thank you for your correspondence. This should serve as my statement in my own words!”
Councilor Murphy did not attend the May 18, 2015, City Council hearing on the Olympic bid.
At the June 26, 2015 City Council hearing on Olympic venues and financing, Councilor Murphy reiterated the point made by other councilors, particularly Councilor Wu, that if there is to be a financial guarantee in the bid, then the Council will have to take a vote on it. He remarked, “In taking the temperature of the rooms, there is not a lot of appetite to vote for public funds for a private purpose, especially when we haven’t seen what the number is,” and he contrasted this with the budget process, where the Council had spent sixty-five days reviewing it and concrete numbers before them.
At the July 22, 2015 Council meeting, Councilor Murphy spoke in favor of Councilor Jackson’s subpoena order. He described Boston 2024’s tone when speaking to the Council as “off-putting, arrogant, condescending,” and he emphasized that Boston 2024 is the one that needs something from the Council and should be far more forthcoming with information. He stressed the unelected nature of Boston 2024 and reiterated his lack of interest in voting to appropriate public funds for a private purpose.
Contact Councilor Murphy to tell him why you oppose the Boston 2024 Olympics bid.