And it would have to be something big. You know the type of people that almost relected Ted Stevens after his conviction? The same mentality of people vote for King Richie the second here in Chicago. NSS hit in on the head. Laws be damned, he takes good care of us.

There's one other way to look at it. Yes, the city is a pretty corrupt place under the emperor. But would some random mayor wind up having a more or less corrupt place if the emperor was replaced? Not like it's the best solution...but the power that the emperor has probably also acts to keep things under control...because you don't want him angry at you.

There's one other way to look at it. Yes, the city is a pretty corrupt place under the emperor. But would some random mayor wind up having a more or less corrupt place if the emperor was replaced? Not like it's the best solution...but the power that the emperor has probably also acts to keep things under control...because you don't want him angry at you.

This is true too - any mayor who replaces Daley would likely be just as corrupt, but probably not as effective.

 

Despite all of the negative things Daley has been tied to in general he has been great for the city as a whole. He is one of the most poewerful people in government if you do not think that is good for the city, I do not know what to tell you.

 

As for the Olympics I am still not sure why people do not want them other than, they just don't want them.

As for the Olympics I am still not sure why people do not want them other than, they just don't want them.

 

I'm not sure why people want them here. The Olympics aren't a panacea for all that is wrong here.

This is true too - any mayor who replaces Daley would likely be just as corrupt, but probably not as effective.

 

Harold Washington did a damned fine job in between the Daley dynasties.

I'm not sure why people want them here. The Olympics aren't a panacea for all that is wrong here.

 

I can't believe many of the reasons people don't want them here. If I hear one more person complain about three weeks in 2016 that are going to be too busy, I am going to puke.

I can't believe many of the reasons people don't want them here. If I hear one more person complain about three weeks in 2016 that are going to be too busy, I am going to puke.

I have seen reasons both rational and irrational or unfounded. The unfounded ones include the idea that it will cost them a ton of money (when as shown, it is highly unlikely to cost them anything at all), and that the Olympics will not provide any lasting effect (people are in denial of any sort of infrastructure or increased tourism dollars apparently).

 

But there are some real reasons, things that will certainly be the case - construction nightmares for traffic beforehand, traffic and crime during, and the possibility of terror attacks (slim, but real). But IMO, those are far, far outweighed by the benefits.

 

What about all the displaced poor people?

What about all the displaced poor people?

What displaced poor people?

 

What displaced poor people?

The ones living in the proposed Olympic Village site.

The ones living in the proposed Olympic Village site.

The ones who will end up with nicer, newer homes, which is what the village will become after the Olympics? And will get them for very little money, and get to own a home a tall? Those ones?

 

I don't know the temporary arrangements of anyone already IN that location, but I know the plan is to use the village as income-assisted housing for poor people. That's one of the nice benefits of this.

 

The ones who will end up with nicer, newer homes, which is what the village will become after the Olympics? And will get them for very little money, and get to own a home a tall? Those ones?

 

I don't know the temporary arrangements of anyone already IN that location, but I know the plan is to use the village as income-assisted housing for poor people. That's one of the nice benefits of this.

Poor people always get screwed. I've seen firsthand what's happened in Atlanta with the displaced.

Poor people always get screwed. I've seen firsthand what's happened in Atlanta with the displaced.

Please share about Atlanta. I do remember stories that they shipped homeless people out to Austin and Phoenix, which sucks. But these were vagrants in any case. Are you saying that poor people who were legally living somewhere somehow got screwed out of their homes? Because that is news to me.

 

Please share about Atlanta. I do remember stories that they shipped homeless people out to Austin and Phoenix, which sucks. But these were vagrants in any case. Are you saying that poor people who were legally living somewhere somehow got screwed out of their homes? Because that is news to me.

Count shipping off the homeless people as a big + to the Olympics.

Poor people always get screwed. I've seen firsthand what's happened in Atlanta with the displaced.

 

If you're so concerned about the "poor people" getting screwed, why do you want the games going to Rio? What do you think will happen to the thousands of people currently living in the favelas?

If you're so concerned about the "poor people" getting screwed, why do you want the games going to Rio? What do you think will happen to the thousands of people currently living in the favelas?

I'd be fine with the Olympics being abolished.

I'd be fine with the Olympics being abolished.

Ah, now we've gotten to it. I figured there had to be some underlying reason you hadn't mentioned yet.

 

I'd be fine with the Olympics being abolished.

 

Ok well that is definitely a minority opinion.

So even if the $4.4B comes into play, or we get a worse case than that and make less or no money, its still a win for the city.

 

And what if we don't even break even?

And what if we don't even break even?

As has been illustrated before, let's again look at the layers here...

 

--IOC and Chicago2016 say a net benefit of something like $16B is likely, plus long term stuff not measured

 

--If they are wrong, this other group says only $4.4B, plus again, some other long term benefits

 

--If even the most conservative folks are wrong, and we only make a little or break even, we still get the long term benefits

 

--If everyone is horrifically wrong, like beyond what history says is remotely likely, there is a $1B insurance policy to go into

 

--If the Olympics are an all-time unmitigated disaster and we exhaust the $1B of insurnace, we have the same private donors who have said they will have about a $500M safety net

 

 

We would have to dive under ALL that, to end up footing a bill, and would STILL end up with the long term benefits in infrastructure and tourism.

 

Asking "what if we don't break even" is like asking "what if a nuclear bomb is set off in Chicago"? Yes, its possible, and yes, it would be a disaster (different scale), but you cannot allow such a narrow possibility to prevent you from going after the likely large gains.

 

One thing I might get made fun of for, but it still surprised me.

 

The sun times did a piece where they bought a bar/restaurant and were going to see how much corrupt dealings they'd find in Chicago. They didn't find any except a tip from a government worker about how to avoid paying taxes on things.

 

I think at the alderman level there is obviously rampant corruption, as seen by the # of indictments., but it's possible that there is much less "greasing" than we realize.

 

Granted had they opened up a fake hospital it might be different story.

One thing I might get made fun of for, but it still surprised me.

 

The sun times did a piece where they bought a bar/restaurant and were going to see how much corrupt dealings they'd find in Chicago. They didn't find any except a tip from a government worker about how to avoid paying taxes on things.

 

I think at the alderman level there is obviously rampant corruption, as seen by the # of indictments., but it's possible that there is much less "greasing" than we realize.

 

Granted had they opened up a fake hospital it might be different story.

Its kind of like the steroids thing. People see that individual players/politicians do it, and they just assume "they all do it". But this is simply not the case. They don't all do it. Some do.

 

What about all the displaced poor people?

 

I'm guessing that will be way less than what King Richie the Second has been doing for decades anyway...

I'm guessing that will be way less than what King Richie the Second has been doing for decades anyway...

Richie II has been far better for the poor in Chicago than Richie I was.

 

Richie II has been far better for the poor in Chicago than Richie I was.

 

Even with the destruction and non-replacement of nearly every housing project in the city?