Opponents of Chicago Olympics come under e-attack. Games backers put out call to pack dissenters' forum. Chicago's Olympics boosters aren't used to much opposition. So when they got wind that a handful of anti-Olympic activists were holding a public forum on Saturday, they didn't take any chances. They sent an e-mail to their volunteers, who number 10,000, asking that supporters pack the event and make their views known. Source/Read more.
21 comments:
I am happy that so many Chicago citizens are questioning the benefits of this massive money-guzzler and the upheaval and disruption that will accompany it.
Chicago is already one of the greatest and most beautiful cities in the world, and does not need to spend north of $20 Billion to be a "world class" city.
And it will cost at least that much. If you believe that it will cost ONLY $2 Billion, I have some fantastic townhouses on a bridge over the Mississippi to sell you. The London 2012 games have already run to 9 Billion Brit pounds, or $20 billion, and the Bejing games cost over $40 billion and much more than that in human tragedy as water was diverted from parched, starving, poverty-stricken provinces to the games, resulting in a disaster for local agriculture.
The games have lost much of their meaning and beauty because of the way they've been politicized, by glory-hound politicians.
Chicago doesn't need more costly bread and circuses. Multitudes of studies have shown that athletic venues built at taxpayer expense do not bring a net increase in jobs to a city, nor do they raise the average income of the denizens.
They only divert money from necessary services, such as our underfunded and undermanned police department and fire department, and from our decrepitating water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure.
I hope to be able to attend this meeting tonight and am right now rearranging my schedule so that I can.
We all might also want to write polite, respectful, well-written letters to Prince Albert of Monaco, who chairs the Olympics board.
Those of us who can see past the hype and realize that everything the city does must be paid for with money taken from the taxpayers and/or diverted from more urgent needs, should do everything possible to derail the Olympic bid.
I'm planning to go. I am thankful that someone has organized against having the 2016 Olympics in Chicago. Their website, No Games Chicago, has a page where you can send a message to the IOC that you don't want to see the games in Chicago. http://nogameschicago.com/no/?q=home2
The Olympic boosters caught wind of this event and sent an e-mail blast to 10,000 people to show up tonight. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-anti-olympics-29-jan29,0,5251103.story
chicagotribune.com
Opponents of Chicago Olympics come under e-attack
Games backers put out call to pack dissenters' forum
By Laurie Cohen and Kathy Bergen
January 29, 2009
Chicago's Olympics boosters aren't used to much opposition. So when they got wind that a handful of anti-Olympic activists were holding a public forum on Saturday, they didn't take any chances.
They sent an e-mail to their volunteers, who number 10,000, asking that supporters pack the event and make their views known.
"We need to show the world and the International Olympic Committee that this small group does not speak for all Chicagoans and that we want the Games here," the e-mail said.
The high-voltage reaction surprised the meeting organizers, who are paying out of their own pockets to rent a room at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
"What threat do we pose?" said Bob Quellos, an organizer of No Games Chicago. "I think the intent of the e-mail is to try to drown out debate and discussion."
The bid team for the 2016 Summer Games denied any effort to stifle dissent. "We are only asking our supporters and volunteers to take part in a forum discussing the idea of Olympic Games in Chicago," spokesman Patrick Sandusky said.
The Chicago 2016 e-mail went out after No Games rejected its offer to provide a speaker for the panel discussion at the event.
Since Mayor Richard Daley began his quest for the Olympics three years ago, there have been few dissenting voices. The City Council earlier this month approved, with no debate, a package of guarantees required for the bid.
No Games Chicago, which wants the International Olympic Committee to choose another host city in October, is raising tough questions about how much the Games might cost taxpayers and whether the projected benefits might be overblown.
Organizers of the new group hope Chicagoans will be alarmed by news from Vancouver, which will host the 2010 Winter Games. Vancouver had to take over the financing of its Olympics Village after banks cut off funding to the private developer.
"People should look at Vancouver and be worried about Chicago," Quellos said.
Chicago 2016 officials have maintained that taxpayers won't have to pay for the Games, even though the city has pledged up to $500 million to cover any operating deficit, will have to provide additional city services and plans to spend $86 million to buy land for an athletes village.
Thanks for that. Posted this information on the home page.
I like The Olympics
===I like The Olympics===
Charlie, explain further. More than this 5th grader style answer.
Are you and the 49th ward "green team" working on the environmental committee, trying to make the Games "green?"
I'm ambivalent. I can see people's point about the money and how it could be a problem and why not spend money on real things the city needs like infrastructure improvements & the schools. Although, I suppose there might be some infrastructure improvements made with the Olympics-just with a big price tag. I'm not willing to go to the mat about this issue myself.
It reminds me of Millenium Park and all the city beautification. Everyone likes it, but that isn't what makes a city truly green. I am pretty sure people on both coasts, where things are much more progressive, look at Chicago with disgust. In fact, I'm sure they do. Look at our pathetic recycling program as one example.
All of this corruption and machine politics just breeds inefficiencies that waste tons of money and resources. I wish we could get rid of it.
I like the Olympics, too.
I also like fine diamond jewelry, haute couture, and $5 million vintage co-ops in Lincoln Park.
Does my "liking" something justify a diversion of public funds from dire necessities?
We might want to think about what we "like" more: a well-funded police force, a reliable municipal water supply, a high level of sanitation, a fire dept able to respond OR sports venues and big showy events. We all take the former for granted because there's almost no one left living who remembers what cities were like when these systems didn't exist, or failed, and these basic necessities might become prohibitively expensive sooner than we think. So, we'd better get our priorities in order while there is still time.
Millenium Park went way over budget. Olympics is a far bigger project. The projected costs will balloon and be much larger than any projected income from it.
Daley and company get the gold medal for graft. Taxpayer will loose big time.
As I stated on this site a few months ago, that the city Olympic committe along with the Mayor have been selling the people of Chicago a package of lies! You all have heard it before, private funds, there will be no extra taxes needed, the city will benefit from the Olympics. What good will come from the Olympics being held in Chicago will be little from the long term costs that will plague the taxpayers.
Then after the dog & pony show is over & all the friends of the Olympic committe and other connected companies made their millions from the Olympics, then the truth will come out!! Over budget , taxes will have to increased.I do not want to think what the final price will cost the taxpayers!
Yes the areas where the events will be held will be top notch, well policed, (but the neighborhoods where the voters live, well might be alittled undermanned.
Can anyone tell me park looks better then Millenium Park ? Does any park in the city get better care? Why is this because ? Because Millenium Park is for the tourists,Yes we can go down there & many of us do, time to time.
I hope the people of Chicago wake up & question more intently about the costs of the Olympics. I hope one thing our former Governer might have done for the people, is that he brought out the level of corruption might just make the committe who picks the site of the 2016 Olympics will look else where.
Okay sorry,
I REALLY like the Olympics. What is a 49th ward Green Team and what the hell does it have to do with me?
Did I mention how much I like the Olympics.
Better?
I think the Olympics are fundamentally a good thing. I think it will lead to a lot of infrastructure investment that rarely goes to waste in this city, not to mention serve as an opportunity for some urban reclamation of some under-utilized neighborhoods.
North Coast-
would you expound on the urgent "...while there is still time." portion of your last comment.
"still time" to deter what?
I'll happily explain that, Newgarder.
The reason these major infrastructure repairs and improvements are urgent, aside from their flagrant decrepitude, is that we are looking at only a temporary pullback in the prices of fossil fuels, which will, by my rough reckoning, start to ratchet northward again this summer, and supplies will be still shorter than before, because most of the new drilling and recovery projects on the table have been canceled or deferred because they are not profitable with oil under $70 a barrel.
The reason is that we are in the period during which global production of oil is peaking, after which production will go down the slope of depletion, at a rate of 3% to 5% a year. All geologists and industry experts agree that peaking will occur soon, and their only argument is just exactly when. Some say as late as 2020, but most contend that peaking has occurred, and that global production peaked in 2005.
Past this point, we can count on reduced quantities of fuel available, while demand worldwide continues to increase. That means much higher prices- if you were around and aware in the 70s, you may remember what a 5% reduction in our supplies did to our economy then. That was when we passed the peak of our own domestic supplies and became dependent on foreign oil.
The further down the slope of depletion we go, the more expensive the stuff will get, and it will drive the cost of everything we use in front of it. Everything we do an d have depends on cheap and plentiful petroleum, and there is NO SUBSTITUTE for it. We can get electricity from nuclear (minus the NIMBY contingent)as well as coal. But forget about wind, solar, and biofuel. These things only fractionally replace petroleum. Worse, trying to run things on ethanol and biofuels will tip us into famines, for if we turned every acre of arable land from food to fuel production, we still couldn't keep even a quarter of our stuff running, let alone feed ourselves.
The sad conclusion is that we're probably looking at fuel costs of over $200 a barrel in five years. What will that do to the cost of asphalt, fuel, shipping, machinery,and other costs associated with rebuilding our massive systems. Never mind what it will do to our power bills and transportation costs. We are now asleep because the "demand destruction" due to the economic downturn has caused oil and gas prices to back off steeply, but this is part of being on the "bumpy plateau" of the peak, during which the economic deterioration caused by upward-spiraling fuel prices in turn causes price destruction.
In other words, we might, in five years, be so up against it just keeping our street lights on and providing minimal city services to a strapped population that can't pay another dime in taxes, that we have nothing left for the repair of these really big systems.
It's really scary when you consider how Daley and our aldermen have completely neglected our water and sewer infrastructure, which was very good when I arrived in this city 20 years ago. Or, at least, it was very good compared to the other blasted, bedraggled cities of the midwest such as St. Louis and Detroit and Cleveland. But it was old then, and none of our pols seemed to be paying attention to the fact that most of this stuff is at least 90 years old, and has a finite lifespan. Replacement should have been scheduled, and funds allocated, 30 years ago. It should be an ongoing thing.
And our formerly top-drawer public transportation has become a political football, and a very secondary consideration, at best, to the mayor, who has totally politicized the governance of the agency, which used to be run by expert transportation guys who rose through the ranks at CTA and got top management positions when they had proven their competence in most areas of transit management. Now, Daley doesn't care if his appointee knows dip about transportation; he cares only who his supporters and cronies are, and you are selected for the job on that basis.
But our mayor is a guy who will spend $6000 on a shower curtain while the bathtub is backed up and the furnace is on the blink. Now he wants to spend a fortune on a big party to entertain high society while the roof is caving in and the walls are buckling.
We need leaders with the proper priorities.
I am 100% against the Olympics. It will be boondoggle to the taxpayers and a boon to the politically connected class.
Plus the Olympics stink now that pro athletes participate.
The stats on what has happened to past cities that hosted the Olympics really says it all. I also think it's a big sell job by Daley and the city - once again, there will be some elite folks that make money off the whole thing and everyone else will be left dealing with the headaches, traffic nightmares and higher taxes!
Thanks for elucidating North Coast.
My initial response to your comment supposedly address' what I [perceived]as an alarmist effect.
Would you recommend any favoured sources for further erudition on these impending matters?
Newgarder, I'm compiling a list of information sources on Peak Oil, whic h I'll be posting on my blog late this week, including books, papers, organizations, and websites.
Most events, whether the Century of Progress or the Columbian Exposition have helped promote Chicago. My late grandmother and great grandfather had memories of both events. They were thrilled with the results even though the fire destroyed much of "The White City." MSI is from the Colombian, but the Century brought us other important Chicago Landmarks that we benefit from. These sites ultimately attract residents and business. Perhaps, not as many pessimists or socialists.
Usually, the significant private funding that improves areas that are undersdeveloped and impoverished. This results in the re-entry of the middle class and economic diversification in dying neighborhoods. The South side is slated for much improvement in the Olympic Plan. Garfield Park is an overlooked gem. However, there are areas of the City that are so under-utilized that the Olympics will re-energize those areas.
With the exception of Sarajevo, most nations that host Olympics including China have reaped public benefits from the improvement to infrastructure. Bonds and private investment is infused, but it is understood that Fire, Police and other services are needed.
Well, if you work in those areas, it means more work and more pay. If you own a home or condo, then you may be able to rent it and reap a benefit from the well behaved tourists if you market well. Of course, if you are a pessimist and think that the Government will spend too much, then what can I say.
Ultimately, most feel that the civic pride and economic boost is worth the effort. I've visited Atlanta and Salt Lake City both before and after. Most in those cities who I spoke with were happy with the outcome.
Chicago can always improve. It is not the cost, it is the ultimate influx. The Brits will benefit as did the Chinese and the Americans. L.A.'s large venues perpetually improved with each hosting. The issue is that if you are a internet surfer and don't leave your computer to check out the environment enough, then you should oppose it. I mean how can you support something that doesn't improve your living space or pay the rent?
To lafew and others, I have posted a bibliography of Peak Oil information sources on my blog. Enjoy.
Water and sewer was worse in the past according to the information kept, IMHO, and I was born in Chicago and have lived here day in and day out since 1986, from Sunnyside and Wilson to Howard and Ridge.
Back in the eighties, industry was much more overwhelming on the water supply. There were fewer tests and fewer knew or cared what they were drinking. A reactionary mentality does no one any good. It seems more status quo to deny progress than to allow it.
I cannot make sense out of the material on North Coast's website and its relevance (no offense to the author). That is, not to say that I won't eventually figure it out, but it does not get to the point quick enough.
My point is that progressing and developing areas that were traditionally black belt should lead to integration on a number of levels, economic, racial, and cultural. This challenge remains and focusing on one failure in Vancouver seems a bit pessimistic to me.
I am realistic that certain public works projects that can improve public health and quality of life even at potential short term challenges. Risk is inherent with progress.
Ultimately, any structure will need to be fixed to remain. Torn down to make way for something else or turned into some sort of monument. It will provide employment for many doing something. It may even provide those who sit at their computers with work. New entities and edifices will attract international and national interest. When people visit, spend or stay, our city will ultimately improve. There will always be boosters and detractors with lofty goals that are equally subject to abuse.
Events like the Olympics, whether in Atlanta and Salt Lake City tend to improve those economies over time. Visit those cities. If you remember them before the Olympics, then you may be in for an eye opener. If you don't, then you are ignorant and should accept it.
Who spent what on corrupt Politician A and why? Let's leave that to law enforcement and prosecutors. Which brings up that ultimate concern which is that public attorneys and law enforcement are perpetually underfunded. CIS is a tv show; not reality. Politicians don't want to be indicted, so they don't fund unless they are idealistic or out to pad their pockets. Some often won't do the right thing without some assurance of a perpetual job. Again, there is the status quo challenge! Should we yield to newer politicians are mantain those who we know and trust; sort of? Whose next on the 49th Ward hit parade? Will we elect a mini Mussolini or a little Hitler of sorts, who will scapegoat some group or person to the exclusion of all others? Will they find another target after the first leaves Dodge?
Businesses that want to see simultaneous public improvement and opportunities to promote their products and services should not be stiffled. Some are perpetually bent on finding flaws in private enterprise or the entreprenurial spirit, corruption and gluttony aside.
Frankly, if government creates too many laws, then everyone has the potential of doing jail time. Oh Brave New World! Or should we look forward to that bullet in the forhead?
All the Peak Petroleum stuff seems like petty politics until I can find the time to figure out (I have other priorities unless it 'cuts to the chase'). Efforts can be made to encourage attention and if the opposition cannot get enough attention,well? If you don't like the investors, then encourage better ones to take their places. IMHO, it is so easy to sit in the mezzanine like a muppet and comment from above.
The naysayers screaming about world economic trilaterals with fixation on its economic behemoths will not improve our surroundings and quality of life. To me, such rhetoric is a power play for attention, pure and simple. This sort of discourse does not foster responsible economic growth.
What the slope down from the peak of production will mean is vastly higher costs for absolutely everything we do, with much less economic opportunity.
We're already bankrupt,both jointly and severally, thanks to ten years of the most manic financial malfeasance ever visited on the world.
As we have less and less of this civilization's feedstock, which is petroleum, we will have less of everything we use it for: fuel, asphalt, electricity, electrical generating equipment, FOOD(less nitrogen fertilizer), clothes, heat. Air travel will be off the table for most people, and automobiles will start coming off.
If we don't have the money to fund our underfunded and undermanned police dept now, what will we do when everything they need to do their jobs costs twice as much, and when most people have to spend half their incomes on food and fuel, just to keep decently warm and nourished?
I don't believe this is inevitable, but it's a good bet that bare necessities are going to take a bigger chunk out of everyone's budget, and it will be all we can do to keep minimal lifeline services and basic maintenance going. Bread and circuses will just have to go by the wayside.
Post a Comment