examiner.com - 1087 views
Are those opposing the 2016 bid really doing it because it is in the best interest of the city, or are there other motives?
Sign Up or Sign In to vote for this story or Read more »
Comments
Damn it, if I see someone take Daniel Burnham's "Dream no small dreams" quote out of context one more time I may explode.
Conclusions, then foundation arguments. That's the rub, Cshess87!
Corruption killed the olympics Daley had 20 years to clean up the city.
Obama sends the wife so he's not tied to losing bid...
This guy's a real peach. Let's go:
We do.
This is ridiculous. There is nothing to gain politically by opposing the Olympics in Chicago. Zero. Anyone who comes out against them publicly puts a big target on his back.
This guy's using the prom king argument, wherein being popular and having lots of people pay attention to you is innately a good thing. You could also call this the Blago argument. I reject it as false. Being "the center of the universe" is not innately good in and of itself for any person, place, or thing.
I see no links. No specific numbers. No actual facts in this paragraph, which appears to be the crux of his argument. Without these things, I can only assume this guy hasn't done his homework and doesn't know what he's talking about.
From who? The 5 republicans with city jobs? Ludicrous!
...says the guy writing for a web site where he gets paid by the pageview.
Why is he "betting" about the sentiment in other cities when he could do a little research and figure out what's actually happening over there?
They don't know better, they know different. Daley knows what's up, his goals are just different than those who oppose the games.
They were all picked by the Mayor.
I'm pretty sure Obama's got Daley's back on this one.
And you know this, how? A recent WGN poll showed sentiment was largely anti-games.
This statement is not backed up in any way. As such, I have no reason to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and believe what he's saying.
Link? Those people are likely full of crap. Would this guy enjoy his girlfriend more if 4 million people were checking her out every day? I bet he'd love that.
An unbiased source!
An unbiased source!
An unbiased source! According to your mom, broccoli is great for you, too.
Ok. This is a good point. Props for mentioning this. There are some people outside the cabal who support the bid and think the mayor's plan will work. That's why it's worth discussing fairly and honestly.
Why is he shilling?
There are some great arguments in favor of the Chicago 2016 bid. Michael Hughes makes and backs up nearly none of them in this piece.
"If Chicago should lose the bid I wonder if these critics will be able to sleep with clear conscience."
Yes.
The Civic Federation is far from an unbiased source.
Do explain. I wasn't so up on them. What's their story?
How does it feel to be a "political assassin?"
I love this guy's thesis, that journalists are opposing the games in order to make money. I'm sure Ben Eason loved running a company that went after the mayor of Chicago every Thursday.
Start with Patrick Ryan's financial support of the Civic Federation and work your way down.
Comments like these are why we're working to get a rating system up and running. Thanks for the detailed analytis, CBM.
According to the Mountain of Evidence blog, it's debateable whether the Civic Federation actually approved of the Olympic plan to begin with:
http://www.mountainofevidence.com/2009/08/fran-spielman-pimping-it-again...
Further:
Barbara Stewart is a CF chairperson. She's also a SVP at Chase. Where Daley's brother works.
Margaret Houlihan is on the board, too. She works for United Airlines. The same UA who got a $25M TIF gift to relocate to Willis Tower.
Willis, of course, made a contribution to 2016 in order to get their own TIF gift.
Rice Financial.
William Blair ..., the list goes on.
This is the original, right?
Seems like a pretty weak paraphrase.
Can somebody maybe explain why, if not Chicago, any city, anywhere should host the Olympics at all?
I mean, if the use of city funds makes your libertarian jocks itch, the Rio, Tokyo and Madrid bids are all backed by funds of their respective federal governments. Doesn't get any more "big goverment" than that.
The World's Fair/Olympics comparison seems apt enough to me - a grab at greatness, without the financial bottom line necessarily being the bottom line.
I think the Olympics are a massive hot potato Chicago just shouldn't want to catch. Whatever place they head to will face some serious financial difficulties for years to come.
Hal, thanks for the heads up. This is illuminating stuff.
"I mean, if the use of city funds makes your libertarian jocks itch, the Rio, Tokyo and Madrid bids are all backed by funds of their respective federal governments."
Federal governments.
Not city.
And, Chicago has larger fish to fry on an immediate level before we can be looking towards something like the Olympics.
Schools are failing. Gangs are running rampant in various parts of the city. Police are under-staffed and under-funded; and the city services struggle beneath the weight of curious funding schemes.
Should something go wrong with the planning done by Daley's buds, and the residents of Chicago have to foot the bill, the damage could be detrimental.
Is that a worthy risk based on Daley's track record of over-budget and delayed projects?
A lot of people think not, and Daley hasn't done a lick to calm those fears.
Funding for the U.S. Olympic Committee and all its related efforts has always been a local responsibility, and not a job for our U.S. Federal Govt.
According to Wikipedia:
This excerpt from the book "Social Issues in Sport" via google books contrasts how the US Olympics are funded vs. the standard of every other country in the world:
So every U.S. host city has had to address these same local can of worms to compete internationally with other host cities with far more money to spend.
Putting you in one of two camps, if you are against the games. Or three, maybe....
1. You are so anti-Daley that you would allow petty partisan differences to hurt the regional benefit of the games to the Chicago area. Because surely, Rio or Madrid are totally without their share of social ills or political scandals, right?
2. You are anti-Olympics, and don't see them as being such a big deal, or as big a benefit as everyone in the WORLD makes them out to be...
leading me to 3. You are so ideologically libertarian that the Olympics, the statue of liberty, or anything of greater, symbolic significance without a firm bottom line securely in the black does not compute for you.
Even the '90s Bulls put a spotlight on the city.
I appreciate you taking the time to “debunk” all of the facts within my article in just as frothy of a manner as I wrote my case for the Olympics. Some of the points you make are solid, however, most I take issue with. I would actually like to thank you for improving the quality of my article, because I should have added links to back up my figures in the first place, thus I took your advice and have inserted them (and have provided them throughout this rebuttal).
However, the links probably won’t change a thing because, perhaps not you, but one of the detractors within your clan will claim that the data is unbiased via countless degrees of separation. The only way to provide an “unbiased” source, it would seem, is if you and your cronies went and conducted the research yourself.
I do tip my hat to you for giving me some credit for making at least one good point about the additional insurance and private funding that will protect taxpayers. Then again, folks on the site are already poking holes in the data (without providing their own) and by the time I post this, you may have already ripped me for the one single point you gave me kudos on.
You do chastise me for lacking links to the data, which seems to be the entire foundation of your critique, links which I have now provided. So I have debunked the vast majority of your alleged debunks. And where the bloody hell is your data that contradicts the data presented? Besides screaming it will cost taxpayers’ money - in general terms – tell us why these numbers are wrong? Many of the opponents (not you directly in your critique but others) are beginning to sound as crazed as the anti-healthcare reform movement. “Socialism will bankrupt our country.” Blah, blah, blah.
Shame on me for not adding the links. Shame on you for not typing a few words in a search engine to see if I was wrong. Before screaming bloody murder, were I you, I would have googled some of my “outlandish figures” just to see if they were in anyway reasonable. But obviously you didn’t, and you just focused on making me look like a moron. You did an effective job. And since you were unable to factually debunk what I wrote, I have no reason to give YOU the benefit of the doubt. Not in the least.
Here is a link to the study done by a third-party that backs up my claims about jobs created and the billion dollars of economic impact:
http://www.chicago2016.org/Portals/0/Press_Releases/Chicago%202016%20Eco...
Here it the data about public support:
http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUSLV24037120090901
*93 percent of Spaniards back hosting the games
*Japan is at 72%
*92 percent of Americans support it BUT only 47% of Chicagoans so you have your gotcha moment. Congrats. But it was once 77%, which backs up my argument that it’s the fault of you and your ilk that these numbers have gone down due to your personal disdain of Daley. (I am guessing you are all Cubs fans too.
4 billion viewers stat: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1755284,CST-NWS-olyproscons06.ar... How ironic that you didn’t even check this out yourself. You just assumed I fabricated it. Thus, I don’t take any of your critique any more seriously than you do my article.
Now that I have backed up my data with these studies from third-party sources, why are you not supporting the Olympics?
And “ouch” on the slam about me getting paid by the hit. I make less than a penny a hit my friend and have a decent day job. I am not necessarily doing this because it will make me wealthy. I enjoy the hell out of writing and wrote the article because I believe in the cause. Although I can buy a box of sliders for the 5 bucks I’ll net on this.
“From who? The 5 republicans with city jobs? Ludicrous!” – I must admit – this was good.
Would love to hear the great arguments for backing the bid that I have not mentioned. Way to reference YOUR arguments, again making me look like a moron, without providing the actual so-called great arguments that I have not provided. And before you come back with the predictable: “you make yourself look like a moron” show US some data Mr. Banker, who seems to be the one operating backwards from preconceived notions. Why don’t you open your mind? I actually wrote an article a few months ago slamming the expenses of the Olympics and that we would lose money. I kept an open mind and it was changed by substantiated facts.
And the comment bashing me for my usage of the Burnham quote from one of the readers I would say: arguably pithy? Yes. Out of context? No.
It’s been a pleasure. I do enjoy the back and forth, and have another site where we do it all the time - THE LEFT vs. THE RIGHT (although the current topic on the site is a bit outdated - Sotomayor) at www.CrossPolemics.com
Thanks for your constructive feedback, and I look forward to similar exchanges on a number of topics in the future.
Sincerely,
Michael “the real peach” Hughes
Oops - my previous post was addressed to ChicagoBankerMan. sorry - Michael Hughes
Michael!
You, sir, are a mensch. Thanks for stopping by. This conversation we're having is fun and, I hope, interesting for passers by.
A couple points:
1) I don't have a pack or a bunch of cronies. I've seen people both in favor of and against the Olympics on this site. You should post your stories here. Tons of local bloggers and writers are already. It's like Digg for Chicago stuff.
2) That's terrific that you've added in links. My ultimate goal in commenting, and yes, in leaving that comment on your site, was not to offend or insult, but to help sharpen minds and arguments. Glad your piece is now the better for my criticisms. That was my main criticism and now it's been addressed. Thank you.
3) I am not supporting the Olympics for purely selfish reasons. I do not want to pay for the Olympics. I do not want to pay for them and do not believe the reports and promises from our local officials arguing that I won't in some way pay for them. There are several reasons I don't believe them.
a) These people have change their stories again and again. Mayor Daley swore for years at press conferences that he would not put Chicago on the hook for covering the Olympics. Then in June, when asked by the IOC if they would, he said yes without consulting the city council. How can I trust him on anything else games-related when he pulls this stuff?
b) Leaders of the Chicago 2016 games bid committee came right out of working for the city. As as pointed out by a local blogger named Driftglass recently (http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2009/09/first-rule-of-clout-club.html) when someone leaves a city job, they're "prohibited for one year from assisting or representing a person in a business transaction involving the City."
This is a serious rule created to keep unethical things from happening. It's been sidestepped completely. And there is no recourse I can take beyond voting for someone else as Mayor next time around....or refusing to throw in with the schemes of people who pull this crap.
4) I'm glad you concede that there's no political ground to be gained by opposing the Olympics. Doing so publicly is a death sentence to working with the city. The Chicago Reader has a great piece about why all the local arts organizations are supporting a bid that will drain their usual sources of funding: they feel like they have no choice.
I guess it just comes down to me not thinking the ends justify the means. A great Olympic games run by crooks who put their taxpayers on the hook for their ambitions is not something I can get behind.
Thanks so much for responding. I'm happy to take another go at this if you want to keep going.
Oh, Len ...
Until/Unless you can provide proof that Daley is capable of handling the Olympics in a fashion, which goes against his history of fiscal silliness, I'm not sure you'll be able to sway the libertarians.
Or the Democrats.
Or the Republicans.
Or the Independents.
Or the Greens.
And you'd need to since the opposition to Daley (not the Olympics, necessarily) transcends partisan lines.
However, for the sake of logical curiosity, let's look at this through the other end:
Which camp are you in?
1 - You are so pro-Daley that you would ignore the growing voices of discontent coming from the general public on this issue and dismiss them as being petty politics (which would require that you prove that point, of course) and that you're willing to trust a man who's given you very little reason, of late, for that trust. Granted, that does violate the tenets of democracy; but, well .. we're used to that in Chicago by now, aren't we?
2 - You are so pro-Olympics that it matters not how these games would be planned and financed - you're simply in the "give it to me" camp, and damn the consequences: good or bad.
Which could lead me to 3, which ... well, would be more like a drunken gambler in Vegas, siddling up to the roulette table and placing his wad on 100 black because, well .. he's hammered and thinks he can pay of his second mortgage and get the hired goons off his lawn.
Let's keep 'er civil (says the jerk who wrote the attack on the original poster). I wonder how worthwhile it is to rehash these discussions. MHughes made a good point that they do start sounding dogmatic after a while.
It is. Burnham is referring to giant blueprints about how a city is to be designed. That's what he did in the plan that bears his name. Getting the Olympics is not comprehensive planning. Getting the Olympics is an attempt for a short-term economic boost at best, but generally speaking is usually more of a request for recognition of what has happened. The Olympics did not turn Atlanta to one of the greatest cities in the South. Rather, it received the Olympics in recognition of what it was doing. This isn't necessarily an argument against the Olympics, per say, but we should actually acknowledge what's going on here. That and I really hate abuse of this quote.
I commend your even-handed response and am grateful for the Yiddish compliment.
I was just joking with a Libertarian friend in the hallway about the exchange on this site, and of course, he backs your sentiments exactly. And believe me, I do understand the corruption argument. It comes down to do we trust Daley to pull this off or don't we. For all of his weaknesses, and i guarantee it won't come out as planned - ala Millennium Park - I think the overall objective will be met. For all of his faults, Daley has accomplished some very good things, and he has helped our global image (as much as he has hurt it at times).
If you believe that all of the people involved with the 2016 Committee are crooks - it's hard to argue against that. But, I think this is so visible, that mechanisms will be put in place to track every dollar.
There isn't a city in the world void of corruption, and unfortunately that's the hand we're dealt. We either run for office or as they say we "throw the bums out" in the next election. Until then, we deal with the lesser of two evils. Of course, the Games will cost money - but I think its a worthwhile investment.
I like this site and will frequent often. Do you run this site?
Brad Flora runs this site.
ChicagoBankerMan is right - I especially take umbrage with your third point, Mr. Hal Andrews, mainly because it hits too close to home.. But Mr. Andrews, if what you are saying is accurate, I am moving out of this city. This Daley tyrant can't be trusted. Chicago is such a hell hole after his decades of rule and its on the brink of utter ruin. And I don't belong in any of the 3 camps outlined above. I am not pro-Daley, and between me you and the wall - I don't care if we get the Olympics all that much, I just saw a good angle. I am in the camp that sees a lot more upside than downside of hosting the Games. Honestly. Outside of "politicians are incompetent", things like the Olympics are launched successfully despite the politicians. If L.A. can do it and survive, so can Chicago.
This is true. I am merely one of it's loudest blowhards.
"But, I think this is so visible, that mechanisms will be put in place to track every dollar. "
And here, sir - is where we diverge.
Yes. Daley has done some awesomely good things in Chicago.
Unfortunately, he's done some inescapable bad.
He's been able to skirt around the bad by hiding behind convoluted internal process and abject rejections to FOIA requests.
And don't even get me started on the rampant TIF abuse (the "only game in town" per Daley, and the root of this city's financial quagmire).
I would certainly pray that transparency mechanisms are put into place to protect the people of Chicago; but, as we've already seen demonstrated with the 2016 Committee, they can't keep their own members on an even ethical footing, and forgive me for not having any trust in Daley.
Further, if Burke is in charge of the oversight committee .. oy!
Fox/hen house, anyone?
I do appreciate you stepping into the fray. Ballsy move, G$, and you earn some serious respect points for it.
Heh. Michael, you're a funny and overly open man ;) I deliberately used roulette and not blackjack cuz I didn't want to be a hypocrite.
Anyway - I'm not so much saying that Daley is a tyrant; but, ever since this Olympic idea entered his head, his grip on reality seems to be victimized by sweaty palms.
Again, he has done some very good things, downtown .. but, there are gaping holes in the civil fabric outside of the loop/lakefront which he's blatantly ignored, and that's disconcerting.
I think Chicago would make for an interesting backdrop for the Games - and there could be a monumental upside, but I can't ignore the ham-handedness with which Chicago's bid has been handled and that fuels much doubt that the positives would not be shared throughout the city; or worse, they fumble and the Chicago tax payers get hosed.
That sort of doubt lends little to instill the required trust in such an endeavor.
The parking meter deal and his "I'll sign the deal before I know how to honor it" didn't help much.
And we love you for it!
This article is such fraudulent BS! How surprising that political activists are political! Meanwhile, Mayor Daley is depicted as somehow not political (not to mention not corrupt)? The dishonesty is abject.
twestgard- I don't think this author is fraudulent and I was being as intellectually honest as I can be. You might accuse me of being delusional or nuts, which is fairer. Because if I am delusional or nuts I am honestly incapable of admitting such, because to be truly delusional, one can't be aware of it. That makes sense right?
What? My point is that political people have political debates, and it's silly to try to label only one side "political" as an insult. Mayor Daley is political, and self-interested. Maybe No Games is too, I don't claim to know, but if so, so what?
Millenium Park was a financial disaster. Vancouver Olympics are a financial disaster. London Olympics are a financial disaster. Hired Truck was a financial disaster. Is it political for me to point that out? Maybe, but they are also facts.
Thanks for citing me - I was so angry to see how the headline toed the Daley Line of Lies. Fran Spielman has really been dropping her guard and printing all kinds of fraudulent BS that just happens to support Daley. I don't know why, but her paper is almost bankrupt so maybe she's angling for a job. She knows how to do real investigative work but hasn't recently.
The answer to that is it has become a big trophy that every dishonest politician wants, because it's not their money.
As the Olympics get increasingly expensive, the amount lost on each one gets larger. But even if it could turn a profit, it would still be a stupid move.
The standard that should be applied is whether hosting the Olympics is the best use of public funds. Do we get the most bang for our buck with them as opposed to something else?
We would get more tax base improvement by spending the same amount of money on mass transit, extending the Red Line southward, for example. The value of land near the train increases, therefore the tax price goes up. We would promote healthy sports more with improvements to parks and schools. And I guess it should be noted that we could just not take that much tax money in to begin with, although that's not my personal view.
So no, unless the Olympics are radically restructured, it's a loser no matter where it goes. I feel bad offering it to Rio, but better them than us.
Might this discussion be moved to a private message channel, twestgard & mhughes?
Why would that be needed?
Post new comment