Well it took awhile, but the Obamas, both Barack and Michelle, have finally pissed me off. As most of you are aware, the decision regarding the hosting City for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games will be handed down this Friday morning. Chicago's chances seem to be rather strong, and I have no doubt that a firm last minute push from the glamourous First Couple of the United States makes a compelling inducement. Michelle Obama is in Copenhagen as I write, smooching the behinds of the IOC:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/6248302/Michelle-Obama-in-Copenhagen-for-Chicago-Olympic-bid.html
I will lay my cards on the table. I am 100% against the Chicago Olympic bid, not the least because it is a ram-it-down-our-throats attempt by the corrupt King Daley to secure his legacy as the Best Mayor Ever. That certainly does not help matters, but I have what I believe are other solid reasons for withholding my personal support:
1. Chicago's infrastructure: roads, bridges, the CTA - in large part decrepit, and certainly not able to welcome millions of international travelers.
2. The economy is still sluggish and the City is nearly bankrupt. They do not have the funds to fix #1.
3. The City's plan, I mean "Chicago 2016's" plan (a activist group of which King Daley is an honorary chairman) to secure private and Federal funding, without a local increase in taxes to pay for the Games, basically consists of a wish, a hope and a prayer.
4. When questioned about #3, Chicago 2016 representatives get defensive and try to limit inquiry by using the same sort of dissenters-as-unpatriotic rhetoric that would make Dick Cheney proud. How do I know this? Because I attended one of the organization's community meetings and saw it myself.
5. The answer to the anticipated traffic congestion upswing is to shut off parking downtown and double the capacity of the CTA, not with more environmentally friendly trains, but with carbon monoxide burping buses.
6. The "eminent domain" displacement of many South Side residents in order to make way for Olympic village structures. The City "guarantees" this will not happen. However, I interviewed a women from Housing Bronzeville a few weeks back who has already been "unofficially" approached about relocating.
7. Finally, the most selfish reason of all: Chicago is a spectacular City, a place with a relatively affordable cost of living, a somewhat hidden gem behind the flashier New York City and L.A. The crowds, congestion, fame and waste of the Games will change all that forever.
My friend Tim argued last night that the benefit to Chicago, with respect to short- to medium- term job creation and economic stimulus, outweighs all the negatives. I am not sure of that. I have wanted and needed people in charge to convince me we are not just mortgaging our future to pay for a little bit of televised glory. I have seen and heard the City's financial proposals. They are weak, and I am more than slightly afraid they will ultimately hit City residents where it hurts: in their homes and wallets.
I know there are strong feelings and disparate viewpoints on this charged topic. Please share.
Posts
I'm ambivalent, but I also may be a little biased because one of my partners is close to the planning process. I think that there are a lot of "ifs" in the implementation (which is pretty much true of any big undertaking), but . . . this could be very good for civic morale. The concerns you raise are quite valid, though I would point out with respect to #6 that eminent domain requires compensation, which will not be given to favela dwellers if the Olympics go to Rio. Poor people are going to be forced to move wherever the Olympics are held, so I'd almost rather it be poor people who live in a society with a strong rule of law tradition that is required to at least provide some compensation, rather than people who are completely powerless and not entitled to any compensation at all. And IF the Olympic money leads to better transit infrastructure (yes, a big IF), it may be for the good.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do have to take issue with the idea that Chicago is "relatively affordable." It is so only in a specially handicapped competition that includes only the Northeast and California coastal areas. Most everywhere else in the country is vastly more affordable than here. True, paying much more than we're paying now is not really attractive, but let's not delude ourselves that Chicago is remotely affordable by the standards used in the rest of the country.
Point taken about the City's affordability Sanjiv - perhaps I should have made it clear that when I labeled Chicago "relatively affordable," I was comparing apples to apples, i.e., major metropolitan areas. I have done small town, rural living too and yes, they think Chi-town is mad pricey.
ReplyDeleteI do think the Olympics would be good for civic morale - but almost exclusively on the North Side, which will see a huge boom in business and very little displacement. This whole thing just reminds us that this City has been sharply divided, along racial and geographic lines, for way too long.