Reasons why Chicago should not get the Olympics (Rio: college, tax)

[edsg25]

It is more than admirable for Chicago to lower its murder rate. But the notion of lowering it in relationship to what those coming to the Olympics will see of our city is laughable. Just through the action of picking any US city as the Olympic site, the IOC is admitting that is headed to a violent place where guns are unregulated, where racial divide, drugs, gangs and other social ills make violent death than in more "civilized" nations. Coming to Chicago, a city loaded with vibrant and safe neighborhoods, the folks coming and participating in the Olympics will not only be safe, they will be in surroundings that give every vibe that they are safe.

The tragedy is not that Olympics will be in our city which has far too many murders: the tragedy is the murders themselves and how we margainize and forget about the lives of those in high crime area.

So Chicago deals with murders and violence because America tends to be a very violent place. And Rio deals with poverty and violence because, for all its positive growth, Brazil is still a place of so much squalor. And Madrid offers less violence and fewer guns because Spain and Europe as a whole has no understanding of any nation where its citizens feel they must be armed to survive and harp on the second amendment of their Constitution to assure gun rights when that very Costitution didn't desire to see all Americans packing, but wished for a ready militia in case of attack. Somehow I don't see the NRA being our savior for a militia that will never be called up. Tokyo, though teaming and crowded, is not nearly as violent as our cities, being a part of a relatively homogenous Japan, tight on societal rules, that keeps the glue in society that doesn't stick in our less traditional society.

You want to fix the murder rate in Chicago? FANTASTIC! Go for it. All problems should be dealt with locally. Just don't kid yourself. Our murder issue is far more a national disease than a local one and it happens with interconnections to places outside of Chicago that Chicago cannot control. Chicago is violent not so much because there is something violent prone about Chicago. It is violent because every city from Boston to San Diego, from Miami to Seattle is violent. And the real, real answers to that violence must be solved less so in Chicago, Boston, San Diego, Miami, or Seattle, as they must be in the halls of government, smack in the heart of Washington, DC

[Lookout Kid]

I don't think crime will have any impact on the Olympics whatsoever. People from outside of Chicago often overestimate the level of crime, and assume that things are worse than they really are. But if millions of dollars are invested in Washington Park and parts in between there and the Loop, you can guarantee there won't be any gangs anywhere near these venues. And most of the poor residents will simply be relocated. It sounds harsh, but it's already largely happened along much of the south lakefront--more through increased property values than any sort of conspiracy.

[ajolotl]

I would love to live to see that day that Washington Park is rebuilt. Interestingly a large number of the blighted old buildings have been torn down very recently and the area seems much less populated than even just a few years ago (I remember in the 80s you could barely drive down Garfield on a warm summer evening -- now it's just patches of people here and there). This reminds me a lot of how Woodlawn began to change. First, they got rid of as much as they could, then slowly a new class of people starting moving in.

Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't in general feel bad for anyone that is priced out and has to move, and I don't think special provisions should be made for them to stay. I've been both chased away by blight and priced out by increasing rents in trendy areas. It's part of life. Sometimes it's just time to go. No one was born with the right to stay in their childhood neighborhood their entire lives. Misguided efforts to create such a right are unnatural and a drag on the economy.

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

I don't think crime will have any impact on the Olympics whatsoever. People from outside of Chicago often overestimate the level of crime, and assume that things are worse than they really are. But if millions of dollars are invested in Washington Park and parts in between there and the Loop, you can guarantee there won't be any gangs anywhere near these venues. And most of the poor residents will simply be relocated. It sounds harsh, but it's already largely happened along much of the south lakefront--more through increased property values than any sort of conspiracy.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

I would love to live to see that day that Washington Park is rebuilt. Interestingly a large number of the blighted old buildings have been torn down very recently and the area seems much less populated than even just a few years ago (I remember in the 80s you could barely drive down Garfield on a warm summer evening -- now it's just patches of people here and there). This reminds me a lot of how Woodlawn began to change. First, they got rid of as much as they could, then slowly a new class of people starting moving in.

Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't in general feel bad for anyone that is priced out and has to move, and I don't think special provisions should be made for them to stay. I've been both chased away by blight and priced out by increasing rents in trendy areas. It's part of life. Sometimes it's just time to go. No one was born with the right to stay in their childhood neighborhood their entire lives. Misguided efforts to create such a right are unnatural and a drag on the economy.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Efforts to curb gentrification are usually a complete disaster. And discouraging investment in an area like the South Side of Chicago is a terrible idea. If you want to legislate affordable housing, do it in an area like the North Shore--where they actually have a shortage of affordable housing.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't in general feel bad for anyone that is priced out and has to move, and I don't think special provisions should be made for them to stay. I've been both chased away by blight and priced out by increasing rents in trendy areas.

I agree. There's no inherant right to be a bum, to Hell with them. I understand that certain politicians must cater to such people but there's no reason those of us who are productive and upstanding should worry about them. People (including me) like to rap the yuppies and "urban pioneers" (and anyone who actually refers to themselves as that SHOULD be rapped) but they've brought many neighborhoods back from slums to nice places to live. I remember when large areas of Lincoln Park were slums, believe me, it's a better place now.

I don't hold with "afforable housing", what I do hold with is people working and at high enough wages that they can afford regular housing. I'd rather subsidize workers through higher prices than subsidize bums through taxes.

[Costa Rica Chica]

Meatpuff:

On the west side (Auburn Gresham area) there's a great not for profit called TARGET Area which works to provide job training, job placement, assistance for people with previous police records to help them get back on their feet. They also provide leadership training for young people. They formed a congress of about 12 religious and nonreligious groups in the area representing African Americans, Arabs, and Latinos who work together to improve the neighborhood and relationships between the three groups. They also work in conjunction with Operation Ceasefire, which strives to remove violence from the streets. A small not for profit can only do so much, though. I agree with you - there has to be a combination of both a better form of policing ANDS improving the possibility for the people causing the violence, (mostly men between the ages of 17 and 35,) to get jobs.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Efforts to curb gentrification are usually a complete disaster. And discouraging investment in an area like the South Side of Chicago is a terrible idea. If you want to legislate affordable housing, do it in an area like the North Shore--where they actually have a shortage of affordable housing.

Not to mention unfair to property owners in the area. Never got the anti-gentrification thing. I mean, who actually wants a community to NOT improve?? The closest thing to it now is probably in Pilsen, though I don't think the force is particularly strong there. It's more under the surface than any real movement. Maybe people are finally starting to see the folly of this?

In my opinion, the anti-gentrification folks should instead focus their energy on relocating the people being pushed out to places where they are underrepresented -- such as the exburbs. We've encouraged the construction of "self sustaining" highways to serve these communities, so why not open up their benefits to people of all income levels? Sounds like a win-win to me.

[brikag]

For those who have read my posts from the past, I have stated that Chicago will lose the bid for 2016. Many of you have laughed and criticized my post as being outlandish or foolish. One key issue (broadcasting rights) is in jeopardy.

NBC paid a reported $2.2 billion for the 2010 and 2012 Olympics. That payment helps pay numerous projects that are involved with those Games,ie. the Media Center, Olympic village, venue renovations, and so on. It's not the lone funding for each Olympics, but it's a great help for those respective cities.

The USOC announced this past Wednesday that they will have a specialized network geared strictly to the olympics. It will broadcast everything Olympics. The IOC is claiming that this network will eliminate the funding for broadcasting all together and broadcast the Games at a smaller fee.

How Olympic TV May Kill Chicago's 2016 Summer Games Bid - TIME

Huron Daily Tribune > AP HEADLINES (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OLY_USOC_NETWORK?SITE=MIBAX&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE= DEFAULT - broken link)

This is not the first time the USOC and the IOC were at each others throats. The USOC wanted the revenues from the broadcasting of all future Olympics. Obviously the IOC said NO!

Olympics-Revenue-sharing battle could damage Chicago 2016 bid | Reuters

With all this bickering back and forth about broadcasting rights, with the last link resolved, who thinks that Chicago has a chance to host the 2016 Games?

Drill, Baby, DRILL!!!!!

TOKYO 2016!

[CollegeGuy9]

DRUDGE REPORT 2009®
Chicagoans for Rio 2016

I hate the suburbs. Guaranteed it is a suburbanite behind the website.

[Avengerfire]

A Chicago T.V. station already traced the website to Rio.