38 Comments - ZC - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 9:29 am: Difficult question. On the one hand, I want to see the Olympics come to Chicago, and safety net guarantees like this would encourage the international community’s vote. On the other hand, it’s a corrupt incentive. You’ve got to figure there are interested parties now angling for how they can wring every last dollar out of the state and the city from this. The more money laid out there, the more they’re going to try and grab. It’s like giving Chicago fire insurance and then sternly ordering it not to smoke in bed. - 105th Blues - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 9:32 am: Ummm they should only be willing to provide more money (read: more spending) if they aren’t running a deficit and have paid for other obligations. Chicago didn’t “have to” bid on being a potential olympics host and us State tax payers shouldn’t “have to” pay a subsidy for their voluntary decision. Most of my tax money already flows up there anyways. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 9:46 am: $150 million dollars to help revive Chicago and help it stay competative as a global city? Chicago needs the Olympics. Illinois needs Chicago to bounce back from it’s economic doldrums and the Olympics is the catalyst to do that. $150 million is nothing compared to what we waste in state government daily. Spending $150 million so that we can get the Olympics is the deal of the century. This is no time to be a sissy. Cough up the cash and lets get to work! - Shelbyville - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 10:04 am: I don’t think it is all that much money, but what has to be spent before the announcement is made? I am afraid that the humudity in Chicago is a drawback, unless all venues are inside. - frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 10:20 am: Is that $150 mil in today’s money or in 2016? and does it really matter, sounds like a cheap deal when you think of the potential tax revenue the games and bring in before, during and after. I’d like them to ponny up some high speed rail too. Here is the real question? Will Daley use the State’s money to finish O’Hara in time for the games? - What were they thinking? - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 10:21 am: Can they show this would benefit ALL of Illinois? - Mike99 - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 10:38 am: I’m still perplexed as to how Mayor Daley went from opposing the Olympic idea to saying it’s the greatest thing on earth for Chicago. If it were so great, why didn’t he support the plan back in the 1990’s? The original vision and idea for this was from Akif Malik and the Chicago Metro Organizing Committee. While it seems the Mayor has incorporated much of Malik’s very bold and innovative vision, the one key thing that is different is the stadium issue. Malik had several options ranging from upgrading Soldier Field to a new multipurpose retractable roof stadium on the lakefront that could be connected to McCormick Place. That would have justified the investment, provided year-round opportunities like the Super Bowl and Final Four and also made Chicago the convention capital of the world again (which it’s currently losing out to Vegas and Orlando). So, before we give any money, some questions need to be answered. Who’s accountable for the Soldier Field mistake of spending $700 million that shrunk the field and prevented it from being used for track-n-field and ceremonies? That mistake really costs more than a billion dollars. By the way, Patrick Ryan is a co-owner of the Bears. This bid has gone from an independent process to a city-controlled, city-centric process, so where’s the regional cooperation or discussion? If it’s going to be a city-controlled thing, then let the city pay for it. Don’t get me wrong, I love the original vision of the Chicago Olympic idea and vision from Malik, but we all have plenty of track record with the Daley administration to not Daley on anything. Also, check out some good info on this at http://behindthebid.blogspot.com. They have an interesting poll on the credibility of Daley. - Ghost - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 11:14 am: Yes, BUT it needs to come with provisions requirng appropriate checks and blaances on spending, and require compliance with the state procurment laws and criminal penalties for public officials in the handling of funds. I am all for the jobs and cultural benefits of such a huge honor for the State. We just need to make sure that before we asses if it lost money, that the project does not invovle paying out money to friends, family, associates….reciept of bribes for work etc so that we know funds are not being wasted. If there is no way to secure or protect spending from waste and overcharge, then we should not be a guarantor. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 11:29 am: Initially, I am not wild about the Olympics in my neighborhood. We have enough congestion anyway. We don’t need more people converging on us. If we do get the games, I am going to try and take a vacation for the entire length of the games. That being said, the financial contribution from the state is interesting. The questions to be asked should center around where the money will be spent. Building athletic venues? Pass. Building roads to handle the massive traffic jams or building improved public transportation? That makes sense for the entire region. - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 11:31 am: Having attended the Olympics when they were in Atlanta in ‘96, it is a wonderful experience and I believe that the city (and Illinois as a whole) would benefit greatly from the experience. And when you consider that against the amounts of money that Rod is already asking us to spend on his “wonderful” programs why not spend $150 million to get world wide exposure? Hey Shelbyville–if you think humidity is bad in Chicago during the summer, try Atlanta! It was worth the sweat and all of the events I saw were outdoors except for one. - 2016 - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 11:32 am: That is truly not alot of $$ and as someone who lives downstate, I would value the opportunity to attend an Olympic event in my home state. The economic benefits outweigh the cost. Putting Chicago on the world stage will also promote future tourism. Politics, and the dirt that goes along with anything this big, shouldn’t prevent us from backing this idea. - Tom - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 11:33 am: I can support a $150M state guarantee provided it comes with oversight as to how money is spent. If Chicago wins the Olympics the process of awarding contracts and jobs must be above the table. The old Daley system of using political connections as the primary criterion would be a major embarrassment and could set us up for massive cost overruns. We’re in this thing so let’s go for it. But make it a transparent, fair process we can be proud of. - vole - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 12:23 pm: Let’s see. 2016. Gas easily $5.00 to $10.00 per gallon. Air fares out of sight. Inflation similar to what we experienced in the 70s and early 80s. The cost of building for this will soar. Attendance may be way down compared with previous olympics. I’d have to call this a really big gamble. Tell me how this is going to pull Chicago’s nipple out of the ringer in this kind of very foreseeable and predictable scenario? This is a luxury built on a very unsustainable base. - Way Northsider - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 12:29 pm: Yes. Hopefully it would not be needed. It’s being in place is an investment in the future of the city which, whether one likes it or not, is somewhat equivalent to the future of the state. However, and it’s a big however, somehow we need to get the controls in place to ensure that the usual level of corruption is dampened. How one does that is beyond me. - Jenna - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 12:47 pm: I think the Washington Park stadium idea is terrible and is going to be very unappealing when compared to other cities that compete internationally. Sponsors don’t want to be hanging out on the south side in a stadium that doesn’t even have bathrooms! Malik’s original vision and idea was much better than the current city plan. If I recall, the original vision was also much more regional in how it included benefits for everyone. If we are going to have a city-focused, city-controlled, city-interests only plan, then it should only be the city that pays for it. - i d - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 12:47 pm: Way too soon for this discussion, much less drafting actual legislation to make it happen. - Reddbyrd - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 12:55 pm: The state should be willing to ante up twice as much if necessary. The ROI will be huge. Let’s try to set aside all the hang ups for awhile. - Gregor - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 12:59 pm: The track record on Millennium Park points to mismanagement and over-spending, and that was for a relatively small project but a similar model to what the Olympic effort would use… it will be worse on an Olympic scale. If you put a “safety net” of state funds out there, you reduce the incentive for the organizers and developers to maintain tight control on costs. They’ll just assume that net and more will be plugged into the bill. I would like to see some figures as to how much the city and state would *really* get, my gut says he whole thing is overall a losing proposition, as well as cover for Daley to sneak in his big dream casino onto Northerly Island. afterwards. - Sango Dem - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 1:01 pm: Hell no. We already spend enough state money on Chicago-area sporting and entertainment venues and events. Despite that, I still have to hear constant whining from Chicago people about the nickels and dimes spent on the state fair. - PalosParkBob - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 1:39 pm: Anyone who thinks you can estimate this kind of project out nine years is out of their minds, and the “estimates” are pure fabrication. There’s a “rule of thumb” for announced costs for big public works jobs like O’Hare, Millenium Park, 911, etc. The government only reports about one third of what they realistically think it’s going to cost, and those numbers are even usually low. IF this goes through and Chicago is selected, there’s a few things that are assured; every political crony will make a fortune, budgets will be blown big time by the early stages ala the O’Hare expansion, and it’s unlikley it will be ready on time. The only real uncertainty here is whether it will be Daley’s mob that will be feeding at the trough or Jesse Jackson Jr’s posse. The state will pony up more than a $billion here, even though we’ll have a shrinking economy and we’ll be so much in debt due to golden plated early retirements that we’ll be on the verge of bankrupcy. Any one doubt what I’m saying is gospel? - The Conservative - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 1:56 pm: Only privat money should be used. Now if they want to put a question to the public (binding) asking if they should use Taxe dollars towards this project, then fine. If they think this is something the majority supports then ask the straight up question. - Napoleon has left the building - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 2:07 pm: I think its a paltry sum, I would even support the $150M for the olympic bid if it was up front not a guarantee. The economic development benefits for the region are huge. BTW, Chicago is part of Illinois. Every Chicagoan is an Illinois resident! - South Sider - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 2:30 pm: Vole — What are you, a psychic? I give it a go and predict that gas will be less than $4.00 a gallon and airfares and inflation will be within reason. Who’s right? Jenna — WHere did you get the idea that the main Olympic Stadium venue would not have bathrooms? That’s ridiculous. I agree with the commenter who went to the Atlanta games. If you haven’t been to an Olympics you can’t estimate the wonderful impact of the games on the regional economy. This thing is a once in a lifetime event, where the entire world will be focused on our neck of the woods for two weeks straight. The influx of dollars leading up to and through the event the event will be a boon for Illinois of unparralleled proportions. (And believe me, there will be plenty of international tourists who will take the side trip to the Lincoln Presidential Museum, St. Louis and other areas.) The residue of positive images for the city and state will last for decades. We’ll finally be able to shed the Al Capone reputation and replace it with “beautiful, clean, friendly, wonderful museums, fantastic restaurants”. If you’re against this, you really are not taking the whole picture into account. - Jeff Trigg - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 2:44 pm: When was the last time a government spending proposal came in under projections? PPBob is right. They aren’t asking for a $150 million guarantee, they are asking for a guarantee with an amount they absolutely know they can fill in later. Notice, it has already gone from Daley PROMISING not one penny of public money would be used to this. Taking people’s money for games and entertainment is just plain wrong. The Olympics are not an essential service that public money should be used for. Economic development benefits of public spending on sports is NOT a huge benefit, and isn’t a benefit at all when it’s the Olympics. Welfare Sox Stadium and Space Soldier Field at least last longer than a month. The Olympics are a HUGE drain on surrounding communities and only serve to shift economic development, increase it. Not One Olympics Penny - NOOP - The Conservative - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 3:03 pm: WE are talking about Chicago… no one cares about Chicago. State money should not be used to line the crooked Chicago politicians pockets. - Dooley Dudright - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 3:06 pm: “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood…Make big plans, aim high in hope and work.” Daniel H. Burnham Yes — provide the $150M safety net. Aim high, Illinois. Stir blood, Chicago. Bring on the Olympics! But wait. Flash to year 2013. The state loan guarantee inexplicably gets funneled through McPier, and the spiritual descendants of Scott Fawell get all sticky-fingered goofy with it. So on second thought — “No Deal”! Sorry, Mr. Burnham. We are not worthy of your vision. Never have. Never will be. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 3:36 pm: Most certainly. But then I wanted the state to build a new stadium for the Cardinals in Fairview Heights. - Levois - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 3:59 pm: There should be strings attached and I’m assuming that at this moment there aren’t any. - vole - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 4:35 pm: “What are you, a psychic?” South Sider No, but it is a pretty good bet that we are going to muddle our way into the coming age of energy and resource scarcity and that the market will respond accordingly. People need to wake up and realize the emergency situation we face with energy, global warming, our national debt, our coming crisis with entitlement debt, etc. etc. Sorry to throw a skunk into your olympics party here, but my best hunch is that by 2016 we are going to be experiencing a world of great uncertainty and turmoil. Many of us feel it now without being sages, prophets or psychics. Putting on a brave face about hosting the 2016 olympics is just another sign of our decadence. - wrigs - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 4:39 pm: Hell Yes. The State should pony up the CASH. Of course, Tony Rezcko needs to be the lead guy in representing Illinois before the I O C!!! - Jenna - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 5:16 pm: To South Sider, part of the reason they are able to give this lowball estimate of $366 million to build a completely brand new stadium (keep in mind the RENOVATION of Soldier Field cost about $700 million) is because it is basically a stripped-down version of a stadium. No bathrooms, no concessions, no press box. Yet, they want to put some luxury skyboxes (Mayor Daley has to sit somewhere, right? Unless he’s in federal prison, of course for corruption). The temp stadium idea is to make sure that it does not stick around to compete with Soldier Field. We can’t have a private stadium, privately-financed. That would prevent the City of Chicago from controlling what goes on and all those jobs. It’s important to understand the temp stadium is in the best interests of DALEY, not the region or the Olympics. And, here’s where I got the thing about the bathrooms…from the Chicago Tribune’s Blair Kamin on January 24, 2007: “To drive down the stadium’s height and costs, concessions and restrooms would be located outside, eliminating space-hogging concourses.” - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 6:07 pm: Wow! Vanilla Man shows his true colors. Reduce public expenditures, reduce public expenditures! Unless, we can funnel them to the “fat cats”. Is Halliburton subcontracting with the IOC? - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 6:31 pm: PP Bob, count me as the first who is not in your little tinfoil plated amen corner. You blame everything from the State’s structural deficit to construction overruns on early retirement. AA thinks you must either be someone who just missed the cutoff for ERI or who is a school board member with a bad case of the ol’ red bottom about those schoolteachers that retired with a bigger pension than you did. I agree with Redd. Let’s all just chill out about this petty nonsense and realize how huge this will be for all of our state. - Disgusted - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 6:40 pm: Yet another boondoggle proposed by the usual suspects. If this goes through, Chicago “friends of Dick Daley, Milarod and Bill Cellini” will make a killing and the rest of us will get stuck with the bill. The movers and shakers of construction in Chicago will benefit the most and will pad the bill like a summo wrestler blow-up costume. All I can say to those who think they will prosper by hosting the Olympics, may I suggest you get the promise in writing through your attorneys. Unless you’re a “Friend of…” - NoGiftsPlease - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 8:16 pm: If this is such a surefire economic development scheme, why does it need a safety net? I believe that if there is a safety net, we will surely fall into it. As far as investing in the infrastructure of the region, I can see where our priorities are. Maybe we can institute a congestion pricing zone like they have in london to reduce congestion and invest in transit in preparation? That could be Mayor Daley’s grand finale — the olympics and congestion pricing. Then he can retire. - Concerned Voter - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 8:28 pm: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! - Holdingontomywallet - Tuesday, Apr 17, 07 @ 8:37 pm: NO. If your checkbook is in the red, you don’t promise money to anyone, it isn’t that complicated…. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Apr 18, 07 @ 2:37 pm: Sounds great. What’s in it for me? The PR is wonderful and the financial impact may be huge, but how does that benefit me if I do not live in the Chicago area? I know the tax benefits will pop up, but so will the “uh, $12B(or pick your own number)is just not enough because (pick your own reason)” rationale. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.