As of January 1, 2016, Gapers Block has ceased publication. The site will remain up in archive form. Please visit Third Coast Review, a new site by several GB alumni.
 Thank you for your readership and contributions over the past 12-plus years. 

TODAY

Monday, December 18

Gapers Block
Search

Gapers Block on Facebook Gapers Block on Flickr Gapers Block on Twitter The Gapers Block Tumblr


Fuel

Val / October 2, 2009 4:56 AM

I really think Chicago is going to get it. I'm watching right now from London and the mood from foreign press is the same. And Obama just showed up to vouch for the games. Very cool.

charlie / October 2, 2009 7:28 AM

I hold the impression that a large majority of the people who are against the 2016 games in Chicago, are not against the games, they are anti-Daley.

I want the games because I love the Olympics and have since I was a small child.

Using the Olympics as a political pawn in order to attempt to trip up , or as some see it, hopefully dethrone Daley is antithetical to the spirit of the games.

Bring on the games in the spirit of the games.

kvg / October 2, 2009 8:45 AM

@charlie - It's not about dethroning Daley. The spirit of the games is brother/sisterhood, cooperation and coming together in fair play. That is antithetical to the entire Daley dogma and how he and his father ran this city. I'm an unabashed Olympics lover, and it pains me to say this, but bringing the Games to Chicago would validate an administration that gained the power it did through strongarming, corruption and nepotism. It's not unlike how the Beijing games happily ignored the abuses of Tibet (admittedly, a much worse stain than anything Hizzoner has done).

However, in general: We already have some of the highest taxes in the country. That will get worse; the city has a horrible track record of bringing large-scale projects to the city on-time and on-budget.

Finally, I don't buy this crap about Chicago being linked with Al Capone. When can we get over our inferiority complex? We have a great and vibrant city with a number of Fortune 500 companies; the tourists downtown and gushing NYT/international write-ups tell you that. Was Atlanta's profile "raised" as a result of '96? No. We don't need a giant money-sink simply to raise our self-esteem.

Great story on this here: http://is.gd/3SjWK

R / October 2, 2009 8:46 AM

I get what Charlie said--it would be a good opportunity to get the Olympics if Chicago wasn't run so poorly. Sure, I don't want to see Daley succeed (because you KNOW he's going to think he's the reason for getting the games), but I don't want to see the destruction and financial havoc this will wreak on the city.

Chicago is a frail city, in a lot of ways--we have well-planned but poorly run mass transit (I can't get anywhere in under an hour on CTA), extremely high sales tax that is the highest in the nation and guaranteed to rise would we get the games, and a very racially divided city with a high crime rate. That just skims the surface.

Things are falling apart; the Olympics is not the glue we need.

I'm disappointed that Barack Obama supports this.

David / October 2, 2009 9:13 AM

Oh boo-hoo, we've got such a corrupt city, a feudal system of politics, blah blah blah.

For all the rats we know infest City Hall, we have an unprecedented opportunity to hold the Mayor accountble. However, that can't happen unless we have some STRONG anti-corruption measures in place. There are good people (Patrick Fitzgerald, for example) who can make sure the rats stay away.

But that can only really happen if we get the Olympics. WE as citizens of Chicago have a duty to push for oversight and public accountability. Taking our ball and going home simply isn't an option.

Ramsin / October 2, 2009 9:24 AM

Oh, David, boo-hoo, thousands of people will be displaced out of their homes and pushed into poorer neighborhoods;

Oh, David, boo-hoo, families whose only form of escape and relaxation is use of a local park will be unable to use those parks for years at a time while construction project go on;

Oh, boo-hoo, thousands of private security will descend on our community and enforce a security state on us for months if not longer;

Oh, boo-hoo, we'll use regular tourist and convention business as they swerve to avoid the jacked-up Olympic prices and taxes.

Saying "boo hoo" doesn't make it serious.

And a US Attorney can't stop bad spending priorities or corruption. Just investigate it after the damage is done.

I love the Olympics. If they had put these games together working with the people, instead of just trying to sell them to us, I would be a lot more comfortable.

David / October 2, 2009 9:59 AM

I'm sorry you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, but I was and am serious, and the fact that I couch my opinion with statements which point out the inherently whiny nature of my fellow citizens doesn't make them any less meaningful.

But hey, let's go through point by point.

I'll grant that citizens in areas may be displaced, but that effect can be balanced by the additional economic opportunities the Games can bring. And if you haven't noticed, displacement already happens; it's called gentrification.

Families who go to parks will be largely unaffected by Olympics construction, since the vast majority of Chicago's public parks have nothing to do with Olympic construction.

As for your dystopic vision of a security state, that's an inevitable outgrowth of the Olympics regardless of whether we get them or not. So your false concerns about a "security state" don't amount to much considering we've had moments like this in the past (Obama's acceptance, for example) and they've gone off fine, and that's just with CPD officers.

I presume you meant "lose" instead of "use" in your claim about tourist dollars and convention business. Heck, I'll grant you that. But taxes? If you think new special "Olympics taxes" will suddenly appear, then I'll credit you with visionary psychic powers I simply don't possess.

My use of Patrick Fitzgerald was, as I said, an example. We need someone with proactive powers to be able to emplace and enforce strong anti-corruption measures.

And as for that little coda about your love of the Olympics and your wish that they'd involved the people of the City of Chicago, let me remind you that YOU are one of those people, and sitting on the sidelines throwing stones doesn't do anything constructive.

prattfall / October 2, 2009 10:05 AM

I very much like David's take on the situation: we get the Olympics, we all have to get involved to make sure all the bad stuff we expect to happen doesn't happen, and actually turn the Olympics into the boon to the city the Mayor pretends he wants it to be. Its the opposite of my cynical take, that the 70% of Chicago that didn't show up to vote for Daley in 2008 will be MIA as the Olympics runs roughshod over the poor and working people that Daley wants so badly to get rid of. I'm rooting for you David, but if we get the games, I'll be rooting from a different city.

Ramsin / October 2, 2009 10:13 AM

Sarcasm is hard to read. Granted.

But studies on Olympic tourist dollars are all over the map, and they do show that regular tourist dollars get displaced, so there isn't necessarily a net increase. No net increase means no money pouring into the small businesses everybody keeps mentioning.

Hospitality taxes around the times of major events are extremely common--Don't forget, Mayor Daley instituted a hospitality tax to finance Soldier Field. ("It's not your money, this is a tax on out-of-towners.")

One night event versus a months-long "santizing" as happened in Atlanta--they built a temporary prison just to round people up off the streets and throw them into.

Families that use Washington Park, Douglas Park, parts of Lincoln Park, and 31st Street beach will all be affected for long stretches by construction. In fact, 31st Street will be closed for private use--that was in the bid book, actually.

I know displacement already happens. It will just be turbo charged by the Olympics.

I don't like that thinking the Bid Committee's process for putting the bid together and the subsequent backlash from people concerned about how it will effect them is being conflated with not having civic pride. If I didn't love this city, I wouldn't care.

Cinnamon / October 2, 2009 10:21 AM

I've tried to write down how I feel. But I read a column yesterday that explains exactly what I was thinking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/01/olympic-games-2016-chicago-obama#

I'm pro-Chicago, I like the Olympics, but I don't think Chicago is in a strong enough position right now to take this responsibility on.

Guy Smiley / October 2, 2009 10:26 AM

Well, that's that. Sorry, pro-Games folks.

charlie / October 2, 2009 10:32 AM

Color me surprised.

Carlotta / October 2, 2009 10:39 AM

First reaction: AMAZEMENT

Second reaction: TOTAL RELIEF!!!

Third reaction: HUMONGOUS ANGER. I've never felt so disenfranchised in my life!!! All the politicians -- Dem/Rep, local/state/fed -- were for this boondoggle. Every media outlet, save the Reader and Crain's, were propagandists for Daley.

I'm particularly furious with Obama. He dithers on health care, letting the pharmaceutical & insurance companies dictate the terms of the debate. One year after the financial meltdown we still have no legislation to curb the excess that led to it. But Obama finds time to fly overseas to kowtow to a bunch of autocrats for the opportunity to bankrupt Chicago and enrich the Daley regime.

He'll rue this day when he misspent his political capital on behalf of Daley. SO MUCH FOR "THE OBAMA EFFECT."

kvg / October 2, 2009 10:42 AM

@ Ramsin - your points are right on.

@ David - we don't need the Olympics to reform the city. And a tax hike was incredibly likely. From the Trib:
"For months, Daley had promised that the Games wouldn't be a burden on Chicago taxpayers, proclaiming he would stick to limited financial guarantees from the city if the Games lost money. But the IOC stood firm in its demand that candidate cities pledge a blanket guarantee for the Games. In June, Daley did an about-face and promised the IOC just such a guarantee, fueling public skepticism that taxpayers would foot the bill if the games became a boondoggle."

A boondoggle they'd have been. Enjoy 'em Rio!

prattfall / October 2, 2009 10:43 AM

Carlotta: I hear you. Everyone with a voice went all-in for the Olympics, even when only half of us really wanted them, and the benefit to Chicago was dubious. As far as the Obama effect, personally, his waffling on the public option killed that for me, but I expect we'll have forgotten the outrage by the time the next Federal elections roll around.

Mucky Fingers / October 2, 2009 10:54 AM

I would of LOVED to see the Olympics here, but getting the bid right now would have justified Daley-style politics.

snuh / October 2, 2009 11:11 AM

phew, i'm relieved. genuinely speaking here, how does this make obama look bad now that we know the olympics won't be in chicago? wouldn't it have looked a whole lot worse if he didn't show up to cophenhagen? i don't see that, even as president, he had anyway of not looking good out of this.

flange / October 2, 2009 11:17 AM

i loved this sentence from the trib's article about our wonderful loss:

"Now the mayor comes home to face recession-driven budget woes and concerns about violence that plague Chicago, without the ability to change the public dialogue to Olympics talk."

doesn't that sum up the situation perfectly? this was a) something shiny to distract us proles while b) he finished emptying the city's coffers.

which will happen anyway, but now it won't happen while the world is watching. so to speak.

maardvark / October 2, 2009 11:18 AM

It's not too surprising that we lost. It is, however, surprising that we were dead last.

I think it tells one that, whatever they may say to the contrary, the IOC is still irredeemably anti-American. Never mind Iraq--the Salt Lake City scandals and the overcommercialized Atlanta games mean that we won't see another Olympics on US soil until the current members of the committee are all dead and buried. (And it's only fair, as we did host four Olympics (two summer and two winter) in the space of 22 years in there.)

Dennis Fritz / October 2, 2009 11:40 AM

YEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!! Chicago is DENIED!!! I fonally got my way for once!!!

Nonconformistradical / October 2, 2009 11:44 AM

"I think it tells one that, whatever they may say to the contrary, the IOC is still irredeemably anti-American."

Suggests you thought you had some divine right to win.

"Never mind Iraq--the Salt Lake City scandals and the overcommercialized Atlanta games mean that we won't see another Olympics on US soil until the current members of the committee are all dead and buried."

Perhaps you don't deserve another one.

annie / October 2, 2009 11:44 AM

Simply, I'm sad. All those jobs..gone.

And I am intrigued by all of the experts posting here today. Lots and lots of complaints about a terribly run city, but I haven't heard one solution!!
Think it's easy??

Plum / October 2, 2009 12:04 PM

My heart is a little broken right now.

Nonconformistradical / October 2, 2009 12:11 PM

"And I am intrigued by all of the experts posting here today. Lots and lots of complaints about a terribly run city, but I haven't heard one solution!!
Think it's easy?? "

For a country as rich as the US it should be easy.

Dee / October 2, 2009 12:18 PM

Well, we can all take comfort in the fact that as Chicago mourns, New York sympathizes.

In Bryant Park on Friday, New Yorkers reacted to news of Chicago’s defeat with a mix of sympathy and indifference.

“I think it’s a shame,” said Andrew MacNair, 60, an architect who lives on Central Park West. “It’s the sister city. It’s the cowboy town. We’re the sail port.”

Magda Morris, 31, a stay-at-home mother who lives in Midtown, said, “I really don’t care. It would be better if it was New York.” She added, “I’ve never been to Chicago; all I know is that it’s pretty cold, colder than New York.”

And Lindsey Signorelli, 24, a student from New Jersey, said, “Not that I’m anti-American, but I was kind of hoping Brazil would win.” She added, “I’ve never been to Chicago to judge, but it doesn’t seem to be a place to hold the Olympics.”

Guy Smiley / October 2, 2009 12:46 PM

And I am intrigued by all of the experts posting here today. Lots and lots of complaints about a terribly run city, but I haven't heard one solution!!

Here's a solution for you: how about if Daley and the rest of this administration put HALF the energy and ingenuinty and effort into solving the problems of this city as they did in trying to get the Games. How about if the city came up with the same billions of YOUR tax dollars they were pumped and ready to hand the IOC to fix the schools, the streets, pay the cops, hire more cops, hire more teachers, etc. How about they come up with the same corporate promises and arm twisting they did to push the game to keep up from having to pay a special tax on freaking SHAMPOO.

Those are my solutions.

Emerson / October 2, 2009 1:26 PM

Guy Smiley for the win!

I don't live there anymore, and I'm sorry y'all will miss out on the fun and the (I'd say small) net economic gains. But I wouldn't trust King Richie II with a sock full of dimes. He and Obama both need to get back to work.

maardvark / October 2, 2009 1:34 PM

"Suggests you thought you had some divine right to win."

No. Let's fill in some details here. EVERYONE--not just here, but in the foreign press as well, along with experts in the field--suggested Chicago's bid was the second-best (after Rio's). So I'm not surprised at the result. But the fact that we came in DEAD LAST, when the technicals suggested we should have been second, is what I'm suggesting is a deliberate slap in the face to the USOC, telling us to go away for another twenty years. I did NOT think we deserved to win, much less had "some divine right" to it.

And like I said in the part of the post that you didn't sneer at, this is the just result, after all, since we get the Olympics too often, and they kinda sucked the last two times we did.

annie / October 2, 2009 1:49 PM

Guy Smiley - talk to the governor about your shampoo! And yes taxes are high, and that is thanks to our buddy Stroger!

Guy Smiley / October 2, 2009 2:27 PM

Yes, I meant to correct that shampoo tax bit. I should have mentioned the whole TIF boondoggle.

Tom from Elgin / October 2, 2009 2:56 PM

Top Ten Reasons why Chicago lost the Summer Olympics

10. Facing Ditka in any olympic event here is pointless.

9. Russia objected to the Olympics being held in the Polish capital.

8. Olympic softball is not played with a 16 inch ball.

7. The IOC looked at the new Soldier Field and said, "WTF"?

6. An opening ceremony with O'Leary's cow, mob cars, gunfire, and leftover styrofoam greek columns "just didn't do it for us".

5. Chicago summers are only six days long.

4. The committee did not believe the five rings actually stood for "O"bama, "O"prah, "O"lympics, "O"Hare and "O"ly cow.

3. The curse of the billy goat.

2. Proposed olympic mascot Blago The Clown just wasn't "cuddly enough".

1. "No, we can't."

ChicagoCliff / October 2, 2009 3:57 PM

The attitude on boards like these just makes me sad. The lack of civic pride--of pride for your GD city--is just completely lacking.

Everyone can agree that Chicago has it's problems. But to describe it as frail or on the brink is just detached from reality. The idea that we couldn't handle the Olympics is just laughable. And Rio is a model for Olympic preparedness? (No offense to them...in fact congrats!)

It is one thing to think that the Olympics wouldn't bring net benefits to the city. I get that argument: let's not bring something here that will make our lives worse. But to say that the Olympics are good but we, as a city, are undeserving is just dumb. It lacks any historical context or common sense and shows an intense dislike of your own city.

I think people often confuse "making it better" with "insufferable complaining". There is no shortage of the latter here...

Dan R / October 2, 2009 4:57 PM

Ugh. I'm so disappointed. I would've loved to see the Olympics in Chicago.
I think that the reactions of a lot of locals who didn't want the olympics just reinforces the notion of Chicago as a small-minded, provincial town that isn't much interested in the world around it... that also has a massive (justified) inferiority complex.

I also laugh hysterically when people say that this is in any way a measure of the success or failures of Obama. Just disaffected conservatives looking for something to complain about. I also like that they are "cheering" at the United States' defeat.

Sucks / October 2, 2009 5:01 PM

Damn. I just wanted a job.

Guy Smiley / October 2, 2009 5:08 PM

The lack of civic pride--of pride for your GD city--is just completely lacking.

Oh, please. This is the same arguement conservatives used for anyone who opposed the war in Iraq. "You don't support Bush? You're a terrorist!"

It's "civic pride" that made a lot of Chicagoans call for an end to the rampant murder rate NOW rather a two week party seven years from now. It's "civic pride" that made people ask why the mayor doesn't put this much emphasis on repairing out schools, our police department, our streets. "Civic pride" is wanting the mayor to end the daily corruption in city goverment and saving us billions in waste and misuse, not hoping he makes us look good to some guy in Brussels.

If you love this city, you'd want the major to be just as excited to fixing this city for the rest of your life instead of putting YOUR BILLIONS on a gamble for a two-week fest.

Garrison / October 2, 2009 8:30 PM

Again, Mr. Smiley nails it.

I'm so tired of my fellow Chicagoans making excuses for a poorly run and corrupt city.

What has Daley done for the City exactly?

And after you say beautiful parks and flowers, then what?

Are you going to perpetuate the myth that he made the City "livable" again, created an Urban Renaissance and people moved back to the City?

That happened in spite of Daley.

That has been a cultural and social phenomenon that has happened all around the country. He wasn't Mayor of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Portland, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston and dozen other places that this has happened. He gets zero credit for it.

I'm sure some here are just like many of my friends, more than willing to forgive Daley's sins because "turning him out of office would make Chicago look bad". Oh the irony...

Dan R / October 2, 2009 10:16 PM

Well, I certainly hope that all of the people that did not support the bid and have harped on the city's crime rate and poor schools plan on actually doing something to solve those problems. Are you going to tutor CPS students? Volunteer for anti-violence organizations? Donate to churches, food banks and social service organizations? Canvass for worthy political candidates?
Or are you just doing to say "waa waa... Daley is corrupt. Why won't he fix things?"
I suspect the answer is no, but I hope otherwise.

Peter Zelchenko / October 2, 2009 11:02 PM

What is this?! I thought GB was to be an Ol*mpics-free Zone today! I'm calling my lawyers!

PMan / October 2, 2009 11:29 PM

Having the Olympics here would have been nice, but it's not going to be a big factor in my overall life-happiness either. It would have helped a lot of people in this city -- some of them undeserving henchmen of Daley.

And Guy, I think that the reason Daley doesn't spend more time and energy solving problems is that some of these problems aren't going to be solved no matter how many brainstorming sessions or public hearings we have. It took us a lot of history to get where we are, and alot of these problems are near unsolvable in the near term.

The Wire got things pretty well straight. Every day the mayor spends in his office, he eats shit for breakfast and lunch. It's just better to be dining with civic leaders in Europe.

Peter Zelchenko / October 2, 2009 11:51 PM

And after reading all of the thoughtful (and civil) comments, I have nothing to say. Here's a toast to civic pride.

Nonconformistradical / October 3, 2009 3:37 AM

"I think that the reactions of a lot of locals who didn't want the olympics just reinforces the notion of Chicago as a small-minded, provincial town that isn't much interested in the world around it... that also has a massive (justified) inferiority complex."

'Provincial' is a word which could be applied more widely in the US. On visits there - admittedly not recently - I have found your TV news extremely parochial. Too many US citizens and other residents are dangerously ignorant about the rest of the world. If you paid a bit more attention to South American events then you might have understood better how much economic progress might have been made in Brazil and that Rio might actually DESERVE the Olympics.

"I also laugh hysterically when people say that this is in any way a measure of the success or failures of Obama. Just disaffected conservatives looking for something to complain about. I also like that they are "cheering" at the United States' defeat."

I think Obama was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. He might have got just as much criticism if he hadn't turned up in Copenhagen.

madachode / October 3, 2009 7:48 AM

I really would have like to see the olympics in chicago but I'm afraid that the effect of the games would have raised taxes for those still living there to a level higher than ever seen before to pay for all of the union slugs ghost payrolling and taking advantage of the "construction" for the events. Also I truly think that the IOC can't understand why the city has a anti-gun law but not a anti-sodomy law to keep the north halsted things supervised and under control like the other canidate cities do.

Guy Smiley / October 3, 2009 9:26 AM

And Guy, I think that the reason Daley doesn't spend more time and energy solving problems is that some of these problems aren't going to be solved no matter how many brainstorming sessions or public hearings we have

Fine, maybe "solve" was the wrong word. How about "address with the same vigor". A kid gets killed in a stupid gang fight and his answer is denounce it at a press conference that was called to address something else and march two or three blocks with a few community activists.

Those banners for the Games said "Imagine". I try to imagine the same drive and determination pointed at the immediate problems. Ask yourself why they don't hold rallies at the Daley Center for that.

Guy Smiley / October 3, 2009 9:30 AM

I suspect the answer is no, but I hope otherwise.

CAPS meeting regularly, attend positive loitering meets, in constant contact with my alderman (the last issue I brought to them was a frequently used alley that was becoming a drug/drinking/brawling center for a bunch of lowlifes), using my skills as a graphic artist to work on a community newspaper for free... so, yeah, I try.

And what about you? Or do you feel there's nothing wrong with this city, so consequently you don't do anything?

ChicagoCliff / October 3, 2009 10:37 AM

Oh, please. This is the same arguement conservatives used for anyone who opposed the war in Iraq. "You don't support Bush? You're a terrorist!"

*gasp* Are you f'n serious? The arguments couldn't be more different.

Here's some apparent news for you, Guy: civic pride means helping the community you live in and not broadcasting the communities ills to the world for the purposes of getting your way. Based on your posts, you seem to actually care about your community. But on the other hand, you have no problem bad-mouthing Chicago to anyone that will listen.

That isn't civic pride. That's petty torpedoing. And frankly, it isn't constructive. It doesn't help us rise above our problems. It doesn't help unite us. It doesn't make outsiders say: that's a place I could live or a place I'd like to help.

Your attitude--and the attitude of too many posters here--diminishes the appeal of our city. Both to outsiders and to our own citizens. This isn't a matter of "you don't agree with me so you are terrible." (And no, you aren't terrorists.) But your attitude and your proclivity towards trashing Chicago is, objectively, not helpful.

The fact that you can't see it is central to the problem.

Guy Smiley / October 3, 2009 11:47 AM

*gasp* Are you f'n serious? The arguments couldn't be more different.

It's not the arguments I'm referring, it's the drastic response by people to an opinion that's different that theirs. if you think that you can't have civic pride AND complain about the city, then yes, you're as misguided and narrrowminded as the people who think going against Bush meant supporting the terrrorists.

Guy: civic pride means helping the community you live in and not broadcasting the communities ills to the world for the purposes of getting your way.

Yeah, don't let it get out that we have cops that beat barmaids for not serving them or that kids get beat with w2x4s. Man, if those secrets get out to the rest of the world...

Got some news for you. The rest of the world knows about our shortcomings already. Those incidents and more made it around the world thanks to Youtube, etc. Anyone mentioning them is not telling the world any city secrets. And not to diminish the power of Gapers Block, but do you really think that writing here is 'broadcasting to the rest of the world"?

But on the other hand, you have no problem bad-mouthing Chicago to anyone that will listen.

Bad-mouthing Chicago? Saying that we need to put just as much effort into stopping senseless killings as we do in trying to get the Games is "bad-mouthing"? Saying I wish that Daley would find creative ways of getting this city back out of debt and put an end to selling every city asset we have just like he managed to find creative ways to fund the Games is "bad-mouthing"? The so be it.

Sorry, but the problem is people who are satisfied with the bread and circuses being thrown at them and who fail to demand better of their civic leaders and don't care how vocal they have to get about it. If you're one of them, thanks a lot.

Nonconformistradical / October 3, 2009 1:15 PM

"Saying I wish that Daley would find creative ways of getting this city back out of debt and put an end to selling every city asset we have just like he managed to find creative ways to fund the Games is "bad-mouthing"? The so be it."

As a matter of interest - I note that Daley has been re-elected as Mayor of Chicago without significant opposition on the last 3 elections and has been mayor since 1989 - I'm getting my information from Wikipedia but assume that this factual information is correct.

If the guy is so useless then why do the people of Chicago keep re-electing him? Is Chicago politics completely stitched up by the Daley clan?

Carlotta / October 3, 2009 6:05 PM

Nonconformistradical: It takes 25,000 valid signatures to get someone's name on the Chicago mayoral ballot. Daley hasn't challenged any competitors' petitions in the past 3 elections because he needs the illusion of opposition.

Yes, we need a candidate with citywide appeal who can galvanize the immense effort it will take to throw Daley out. David Orr, anyone?

Brandy / October 3, 2009 9:57 PM

I'm so glad I don't have to listen to people bitch about Chicago getting the Olympics anymore.

charlie / October 3, 2009 10:31 PM

David Orr, anyone?

You can not be serious? David is a fine public servant but would not have even a remote chance at becoming Mayor.

Think again.

ChicagoCliff / October 3, 2009 10:51 PM

if you think that you can't have civic pride AND complain about the city, then yes, you're as misguided and narrrowminded as the people who think going against Bush meant supporting the terrrorists.

so we'll just scream "NAZI" at each other to settle arguments, then? if you can't make reasoned arguments, just compare the other side to some despised boogie men.

nicely played, random internet person.

your idea of civic pride is pretty warped. helpfully pointing out issues and working towards solutions is a LONG way from whatever it is you and your ilk are doing. the cynicism and disdain for the city is quite apparent and is simply not constructive, no matter how you try to pretty it up.

Nonconformistradical / October 4, 2009 4:54 AM

"It takes 25,000 valid signatures to get someone's name on the Chicago mayoral ballot. Daley hasn't challenged any competitors' petitions in the past 3 elections because he needs the illusion of opposition."

I understand the population of Chicago is around 3 million. The population of Switzerland is a bit under 8 million. Whenever someone in Switzerland wants to have a national referendum on some particular subject - which happens quite often - they have to get 100,000 signatures calling for one. Don't see why Chicago shouldn't manage 25,000.

"Yes, we need a candidate with citywide appeal who can galvanize the immense effort it will take to throw Daley out."

Well hopefully I've started a debate about finding a serious challenger to Daley.

p / October 4, 2009 8:28 AM

Hey switzerland boy- worry about your own country for a start. namely the policies of your banks which have allowed all sorts of foul and criminal shit to transpire throughout the years.

and i'm not certain put i'm pretty sure that the "debate" you've "started" won't turn the tide here. what are you like a internet missionary? keep it. aren't you supposed to be neutral anyway?

as far as losing the games- I am saddened by it. It would have provided needed jobs to several industries, namely the trades. there are many other positives (and some negatives) but i must go now. oh and i believe that most of the above posters are dressed funny by their mothers.

Nonconformistradical / October 4, 2009 8:48 AM

"Hey switzerland boy"

I didn't say I was Swiss. I'm not. I merely pointed out that they have a system where they often manage to gather 100,000 for a national referendum.

p / October 4, 2009 9:07 AM

oh ur Swiss alright...with all the Holes..in your Arguments. A-yo!

if nonconformity was an olympic sport- A) Would you compete B) How well do you think you would do C) What country would you represent ?


Nonconformistradical / October 4, 2009 12:04 PM

"oh ur Swiss alright"

No

"if nonconformity was an olympic sport- A) Would you compete B) How well do you think you would do C) What country would you represent ?"

As a nonconformist I wouldn't expect to have anyone against whom to compete on equal terms - that's the thing about nonconformism - do your own thing and go your own way

madachode / October 4, 2009 6:54 PM

Civic Pride? Just what does anyone of you reading this know of civic pride? Take your kerouac crap and billy bud and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Civic pride my ass, most of you have not been born or even raised in the chicago city limits, and dont even tell me that you are from chicago when actually you are from schaumberg or naperville. 1/2 of the idiots that post on this site either A are from the suburbs or B are from the suburbs and have thier parents paying their rent.

flange / October 5, 2009 9:08 AM

nonconformistradical: i moved here from another state somewhat more than a decade ago. a city election was a few weeks away, and i was not going to meet the residency requirements to vote, so i waited until after the election to register to vote.

when i went in, the clerk asked me if i'd voted before or was a new registrant. "i just moved here," i told her. she took my info, typed it in, and corrected me: i had voted in the recent city election.

you may also want to google for a book one of the commenters here, peter zelchenko, wrote, bizarrely titled "it happened four years ago" (out of date before it hit the racks). nonetheless, very revealing look at a chicago city election.

GB store

Recently on Fuel

Urban Ethos [26]
What is Chicago's "urban ethos"?

Cool Glass of... [16]
What're you drinking?

Supreme Decision [22]
What's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act?

Taking it to the Streets [20]
Chicago Street Fairs: Revolting or Awesome?

I Can Be Cruel [9]
Be real: what is the meanest thing you've ever done?

View the complete archive

GB Store

GB Buttons $1.50

GB T-Shirt $12

I ✶ Chi T-Shirts $15