It came as a surprise to many that Boston was even in the running for the Olympic bid. It was, however, no surprise when we found out which cities we were competing against: Los Angeles, which hosted the Olympics in 1932 and 1984; San Francisco, another prominent West Coast city; and Washington D.C., which would offer a logistical nightmare in our nation’s seat of government. The remaining global competitors are from Europe, a continent that has hosted nine out of the last eighteen Olympic events.

Geopolitics suggests it is Boston’s to lose. It would be the oldest American city to host the Olympics; it possesses a history and heritage that is voluminously unique in America; and it would send a global message to those who choose terror over negotiation that Boston is not only a defiant city but a resilient one as well.

The economic and social benefits of having the Olympics games in Boston are many and the boost to tourism throughout the region would be unparalleled. This is not a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; it is a once-in-generations possibility. If done correctly, it would do more than a federal stimulus, three casinos, and business tax breaks combined. We could not afford a better commercial for our city’s tourism, educational and medical institutions.

Here are some realities. Each of the last three Olympics held in major US cities left no deficits and produced combined profits of $361 million. The increased use of technology and global markets, when coupled with more efficient delivery of services, suggests that the record $250 million profit posted at Salt Lake City’s Winter Olympics could be surpassed substantially because the Summer Olympics nearly double the number of participating nations.

Critics are correct that sacrifices and compromise will be required. I challenge them, however, to provide a better incentive for infrastructure improvements than the Olympics coming to Boston or to identify a new revenue stream without raising taxes.

Nevertheless, it is wrong to dismiss critics simply as naysayers; their concerns are valid. However, they cannot replace the employment opportunities for residents in our poorer neighborhoods and our growing immigrant population. Many of their concerns can be addressed with transparency, open lines of communication, compromise, and the willingness of Bostonians to make it happen.

Their concerns about funding for education and human services require new revenues. The tax revenue generated from hosting an Olympics would help mitigate the increased burden on taxpayers. In addition, the improvements to long-term quality of life and the commitment of universities to construct new venues, housing, and dormitories will help mitigate the rising demand for and cost of housing. When the Olympic games exit Boston, they will leave behind more housing, more businesses, and a legacy that will be priceless.

The greatest challenge for Boston 2024 is to project the perception to the IOC and to the world that Bostonians are on board. The key to gaining the support of Bostonians is the articulation of the short- and long-term benefits derived from hosting this event as the representing city for the United States. The support will come: The IOC, the federal government, the private sector, and citizens across the country will contribute. Major cities across the nation could host Boston 2024 fundraisers where they would not only raise funds, but also identify sponsors.

The Walsh administration is correct to tread lightly on the democratic process before it is an issue, but if it focuses its energies on unambiguously promoting the benefits to the residents of Boston, a referendum in all likelihood would favor hosting the games. The jobs and revenue generated over the next nine years will far exceeds the inconvenience. This city has survived a revolution, racial strife, terrorism, and numbing snowstorms year after year. We will get over two weeks of Olympics traffic problems in about two weeks.

There is validity in the opponents’ concerns about the lack of transparency prior to the submission of the application, but there is also validity to the concern that early dissension would have placed Boston at a disadvantage with our American competitors. That aside, the sooner we can present a unified front, the sooner we can put forth the most viable proposal possible. That could ultimately influence or deter the decision of the remaining global competitors from even submitting applications.

All of which boils down to a simple question: Will Boston be a better city for hosting the Olympics? Logic and history say Yes! We need to lay out the best welcome mat for the world and for Olympian athletes, and that means all hands on deck.

Barry Lawton is a Dorchester resident.