Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Lobbying by the Children’s Museum and mayor’s staff obviously had a bigger impact over the last few weeks—especially the last few hours—than the push from 42nd Ward alderman Brendan Reilly and other opponents of the museum's Grant Park plan.
A couple of aldermen said Wednesday that mayoral aides offered them administration help for projects in their wards in return for their votes. While horse trading is part of politics, some of the projects probably would have—and almost certainly should have—received city help without the promise of a vote on a citywide issue. As one alderman put it: “I just wonder if they cashed in for too little.”
But this is why the mayor and his team are good: they don’t just ask (or tell) people how to vote. They also provide the goodies to help the decisions get made—and the arguments that can be used to defend them.
Way back when, Mayor Daley and allies like Father Pfleger suggested that opponents of the museum plan were essentially racist for not wanting black and brown kids in Grant Park. That didn’t go over too well, so the arguments kept changing. By the time of Wednesday's vote supporters were reciting another line: the museum will offer poor kids the chance to expand their horizons by getting out of their neighborhoods and visiting the city’s front yard, which some aldermen referred to as the city's "back yard." (The fact that schools already can—and do—take field trips to cultural institutions downtown was generally left unmentioned, as was the thought that they can currently visit Grant Park at any time.)
Shortly before the vote an alderman and a mayoral staffer each made versions of this argument to me. Then, during the debate on the council floor, almost every alderman who spoke in support of the museum plan offered a variation of it. I can’t state for certain that cheat sheets were circulated. And in fairness, opponents of the plan shared some arguments too. But the sudden frequency of the cultural enrichment defense was odd if it wasn’t planned. Some examples:
Billy Ocasio, 26th Ward: “I envision parents having the opportunity to spend the day to take their children to the greatest backyard the city ever had: Grant Park. It is our greatest backyard. It is a backyard a lot of our children don’t get to go to very often. It is a backyard where they could run, observe, and explore things they’ve never seen before. Our children in our poor communities of the city may never have a chance to get down there. If you talk about the neighborhoods, our children need an opportunity to explore. Our children need an opportunity to see the rest of the city—to get out there and imagine and be creative. That’s what this provides them. This is our backyard—let the children come here and kick the ball around.”
Emma Mitts, 37th Ward: “Why shouldn’t our children be able to have the opportunity to go and experience the cultural diversity that this city has? You know, if I’d had that opportunity when I was a child I think I would have had a better life. But now I’m not going to deny these children that opportunity.”
George Cardenas, 12th Ward: “I took my family to visit Grant Park. I wanted to do my homework—I wanted to make the right decision. So we went there. I took my two daughters. It was a Sunday, and we’d just had breakfast. And to me, it was important because it was for my daughters that I was going to be making this decision. And I stood in Bicentennial Plaza, looking toward the lake, looking south toward Grant Park. And I said to my daughter, ‘Isn’t this beautiful?’ And she said, ‘Yes, Papi.’ And that to me was showed me what this was about.”
Toni Foulkes, 15th Ward: “I have to agree with my colleagues—it’s all about the children. I remember when I was young, going to see the King Tut exhibit. My friends and I took the Green Line downtown by ourselves. That one ride got me out of my comfort zone, going somewhere else by myself. Kinds in our communities like West Englewood need to get out of their neighborhoods.”
Ike Carothers, 29th Ward: “I come from a community where I really believe young people will relish the opportunity to come downtown. … And my colleague from the 42nd Ward, I’ve got to tell you, I hope you’re buying us all lunch, because this debate has kept us here a long time.”
I can't wait to see what else they plan to plunk down in Grant Park.
these aldermen can barely put together a correct sentence on a good day.
I wonder if it was "Billy/Ike/Toni, we have an offer you can't refuse." Yessir, what is that sir? (piddle in pants)
We will guarantee your pension and give you a new toilet at the park for the kiddies, howbouts dat??
yessir, yessir (ahh maybe I shouldn't have piddled but it feels good when its for da mayor)
I hope this drags on through the courts forever. How can hugely valuable public land be given away to a private corporation?
But she conveniently left off the fact that her kids do not even live in Chicago. They are enrolled in school in Washington DC, where she spends three nights per week - so I do not see where there is much time for her to spend at Navy Pier with them.
Really its very easy to tell the difference
Billy Ocasio is a terrible alderman.
Billy Ocasio, 26th Ward:
"I envision parents having the opportunity to spend the day to take their children to the greatest backyard the city ever had: Grant Park."
What, Billy, they can't do that now? And without the mayor's rich buddies spending millions of the taxpayers hard earned dollars on their own, private, for-profit, psuedo non-profit money-making machine? And without desecrating and dishonoring a century old tradition of prohibiting the PRIVATE sector from EVER building within the "...greatest backyard the city ever had."?
But that would be too easy and wouldn't provide the opportunity for making/taking a shitload of bucks out of the pockets of the taxpayers and transferring them into the pockets of the favored few, said favored few whose pockets are already overflowing with the former dollars of the taxpayers, gleaned from previous sweet-heart deals and all consistently claimed to be 'for the greater good' of the citizens who foot the bills.
"It is our greatest backyard. It is a backyard a lot of our children don’t get to go to very often."
You don't get out much, do you? And what, pray tell, is preventing said children, which you so disingenuously refer to as 'our', from 'going to' this 'greatest backyard'? There are buses and trains, both CTA and Metra, that will take anyone, from any part of this city, and bring them to within walking distance of Grant Park every day of the week. Check the relevant schedules. If you are so interested in 'our' children 'getting' to Grant Park, how about putting YOUR money where your mouth is, and creating a truly non-profit fund, for the sole purpose of financing regular field trips for 'our' children, you mealy-mouthed, lying rascal. THAT wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime and WOULD accomplish what you claim needs to be accomplished, namely, enabling 'our' children to experience and enjoy 'the greatest backYARD the city ever had'.
"It is a backyard where they could run, observe, and explore things they’ve never seen before. Our children in our poor communities of the city may never have a chance to get down there."
Give it a break, asshole, there's little to nothing preventing 'our children' from visiting this park, or any other. You've got plenty of free time, organize a field trip or two, just to get your feet wet, pay for it out of your own, stuffed pockets, do something good, for a change.
"If you talk about the neighborhoods, our children need an opportunity to explore. Our children need an opportunity to see the rest of the city—to get out there and imagine and be creative."
Refer back to the previous comments.
"That’s what this provides them. This is our backyard—let the children come here and kick the ball around."
No, that's what this DOESN'T provide them. What it plans to provide them with is, basically, nothing. Do you really think that anyone believes that this museum is for anything other than profit? And aimed not primarily at 'our' children, but at the tourists' and suburbanites' children being bused into the city on a regular basis?
IF the Chicago Children's Museum was really interested inn helping the children you so hypocritically refer to as 'our', they'd invite said children to visit their present museum FREE OF CHARGE, or at least, presently, at a substantial discount.
And, IF this proposed new museum is truly 'for the children', then the Chicago Children's Museum would commit to definitely opening said new museum to ALL children who are residents of this city totally FREE OF CHARGE, since this proposed new museum will be located entirely on PUBLIC LAND.
Are they gonna do that? What's that? Speak up, Billy, I CAN'T HEEEEEEEEAR YOU!!
Emma Mitts, 37th Ward:
"Why shouldn’t our children be able to have the opportunity to go and experience the cultural diversity that this city has?"
They have the opportunity, every day of the week. Do what I suggested Billy do, if you know for a fact that there are kids who aren't free or can't afford to pay bus or train fare, organize field trips through your ward office, you lazy, lying oreo. Take some of that $100k+ you pocket every year and put YOUR money where your mouth is.
"You know, if I’d had that opportunity when I was a child I think I would have had a better life. But now I’m not going to deny these children that opportunity.”
Who denied it to you, as you claim/imply? What did your parent(s) do, turn your ass out onto the street, empty your pockets before they did and neglect and/or abuse you? Do you mean to say that your mother and father never taught you about opportunity? About the value of education and knowledge? And hard and honest work? And kindness, charity and generosity? What does that make you now, when you have the wherewithal to help the children you claim will be benefited by enabling the rich to get richer? Shit, I thought Billy was an asshole, but you've topped him in half as many words.
George Cardenas, 12th Ward:
"I took my family to visit Grant Park. I wanted to do my homework—I wanted to make the right decision. So we went there. I took my two daughters. It was a Sunday, and we’d just had breakfast. And to me, it was important because it was for my daughters that I was going to be making this decision. And I stood in Bicentennial Plaza, looking toward the lake, looking south toward Grant Park. And I said to my daughter, ‘Isn’t this beautiful?’ And she said, ‘Yes, Papi.’ And that to me was showed me what this was about."
Just when it seemed an alderman couldn't sink any lower, Jorge uses his family to tout the mayor's money making scheme. Shame on you, Jorge, shame on you.
Toni Foulkes, 15th Ward:
"I have to agree with my colleagues—it’s all about the children. I remember when I was young, going to see the King Tut exhibit. My friends and I took the Green Line downtown by ourselves."
Now, that wasn't so hard, even then, was it? So why, again, is it necessary to spend millions of the taxpayers' dollars and violate the laws pertaining to PRIVATE business being prohibited from building on PUBLIC LANDS?
Since you know how to get downtown, how about YOU organize field trips from YOUR ward office, 'for the children' of your ward? And finance it out of YOUR amply filled pockets? IF you care, as you claim you do. How about it, Toni? Or don't you get your hands dirty anymore?
"That one ride got me out of my comfort zone, going somewhere else by myself."
And the taxpayers are supposed to finance kids getting out of their 'comfort zones' why? Not forgetting that these same kids will be paying top dollar to visit this supposedly not-for-profit museum, what, exactly, is preventing them from doing exactly what you claim you did? On their own, sans any assistance from the taxpayers, via the city government's misuse and abuse of said taxpayers' dollars? Don't you have ANY confidence in the children of your ward/community, or the parents of same? Don't you think that, if they wanted to travel outside of their neighborhoods, they are perfectly free and capable of doing so?
"Kinds in our communities like West Englewood need to get out of their neighborhoods."
I'm sure they do. Some come downtown to pick pockets, shoplift, do snatch & grabs and generally hustle for a buck. Some have been so neglected, by their parents and their schools, that they don't even know where the lakefront is. What are YOU doing to help them? What benefits do they gain from Daley's rich friends getting richer? Or have you cut a deal for a certain piece of the contracting action, to be doled out by you to a select few of your supporters and their families? Just what are you up to, Toni? C'mon, you can tell us, we won't rat you out to the Feds.....
Ike Carothers, 29th Ward:
"I come from a community where I really believe young people will relish the opportunity to come downtown."
I'll bet you do. Now, what do yopu define as 'young people'? Because there are many 'young people' in their teens who "...come downtown." on a regular basis, for the reasons referred to in my comment to Toni. Are those the 'young people' you are referring to? Or is it those children who are still actually children, whose parents don't give a shit what they do, as long as they're not around the house and underfoot doing it? Because everything said to your colleges above holds true for you.
NOTHING is preventing every alderman or woman from providing the means, methods and financing to have weekly field trips run out of their ward offices, IF these 'public servants' are so fervently interested in providing the opportunity for the children of their wards to "..come downtown.".
Nothing.
" … And my colleague from the 42nd Ward, I’ve got to tell you, I hope you’re buying us all lunch, because this debate has kept us here a long time."
Now, that's a real shame, Ike, that you had to put in some hours DOING YOUR JOB on Wednesday. Just goes to show that when the mayor snaps his fingers, most of his lackeys jump, even when they'd rather be having lunch. What a sacrifice, what dedication, what hubris.
Your clouted anus is showing.
"NOTHING is preventing every alderman or woman from providing the means, methods and financing to have weekly field trips run out of their ward offices, IF these 'public servants' are so fervently interested in providing the opportunity for the children of their wards to '..come downtown.'.
Nothing."
So, Richie Rich, where do the 'black children' go to sign up for your 'Field Trip to Downtown' program?
Said program financed solely from the pockets of all those aldermen and women, and their faithful supporters, such as yourself?
What's the E-Mail address, street address or phone number that the 'black children' can use to book themselves into that FREE 'Field Trip to Downtown'?
Where can the 'black children' get the brochures describing all the wonderful and educational things they're scheduled to see, on the regularly scheduled, weekly 'Field Trip to Downtown', that fulfills the need so fervently being touted by the mayor who cares only about children?
How much out of pocket dinero has the mayor ponyed up?
Is it true that the Chicago Children's Museum has underwritten this wonderful program? With no strings attached, no requirement to visit their museum, at full ticket prices?
Let us all know the details of the mayor's immediate and dynamic solution to the problem of 'black children' being denied access to our downtown areas and our lakefront parks.
I hope that those children residing within this city who happen to not meet your standards as 'black children' will also be allowed to participate in this wonderful, and immediately available, 'Field Trip to Downtown' program.
You wouldn't want anyone to think you're a racist, would you?
Where are the quotes from the white aldermen that supported the museum ?
If you'll pull your head out of your ass, you'd notice that I quoted the aldermen/women that Mick quoted in the article these comments are, theoretically, about. (scroll up to the top of this page)
If you've got verifiable quotes from every other alderman/woman who voted as the mayor wanted on this issue and that are said aldermen's and women's explanation as to why they did so, please, feel free to post them. I'd be happy to also rip them new ones.
Especially if they're as full of shit as the 5 numbnuts that Mick quoted.
I'm an equal-opportunity commentator.
Unlike others, (who have agendas that routinely use race as one of many cards in their deck of deceptions), when it comes to the misuse and abuse of taxpayer dollars, as well as the misuse and abuse of law-making authority and the democratic process and the exploiting of differences in the citizen's skin color, ethnicity, gender and/or religious beliefs, my interest is solely in honest government, an honest government being one that taxes it's citizens ONLY to pay for authentically essential public services, ONLY as much as is truly necessary and ONLY in a fair, equitable and accountable to the taxpayers manner.
Furthermore, since Democracy depends upon the balance between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, and since this city's, county's and state's governments have strayed far from the principles of Democracy, (so far, in fact, that one can accurately describe them as functional aristocracies, no different than the monarchy our founding fathers rejected when our country was created), it is every citizens' responsibility to raise their voices in opposition whenever our autocratic rulers routinely dictate, or attempt to dictate, and impose their fraudulent will(s) upon the citizens whose best interests they falsely claim to represent.
This issue is an example of this mayor's autocratic rule.
The City Council, if you didn't know it, is the Legislative branch of our city's government, said legislative branch being the branch of our city's government responsible for the proposing and making of law.
The Mayor, and his appointed department officials, are the Executive branch, responsible for the application/administration of policies, compliant with the laws made by the Legislative branch.
The city's Judicial branch is responsible for interpreting and adjudicating said laws.
If the City Council was, as a whole, doing their fucking job, THEY would be the originators of the city's laws, NOT merely a vehicle for facilitating the Mayor's agendas.
In an authentic Democracy, the Legislative branch proposes, the Executive branch applies and the Judicial branch adjudicates.
In it's currently perverted form, our city's government effectively has no Legislative branch, nor an effectively independent Judicial branch, leaving the Executive branch acting as a dictatorship/autocracy.
However much this may be to your liking, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Democracy.
It is also not, for all practical purposes, accountable to the citizens it purports to be serving.
When, as in this case, (and in so many others), the will of the people is ignored, is it really honest of you to object to that will being expressed?
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT