Where, oh where, will casinos go?

It seems we’re destined to get several more gambling casinos erected in both Chicago and the nearby suburbs.

Will this become political battleground in war of casinos?

We’ll be able to take our pick of just where we want to go on the occasion we feel the need to throw some money away on the off-chance we can hit a big jackpot and become instantly wealthy.

BUT THERE’S ONE factor that has been popping up in my brain – the way in which the siting of a city-based casino will also impact the way the so-called south suburban casino will be located.

There are several municipalities scattered throughout southern Cook County, all of which are insistent that they’re the only local place to erect one of those tacky, flashy, gaudy structures that promise instant wealth (and downplay the chances you’ll walk out of there flat-broke, instead).

It seems there is one line of thought that a south suburban casino ought to be placed in a community fairly close to the Illinois/Indiana border. Almost as though its existence would stand in the way of people who otherwise would try to fulfill their gambling “jones” by venturing to those casinos in Indiana (Hammond, East Chicago and Gary, to be specific).

Why cross over State Line Road to the land of Hoosiers if you can gamble closer to home?

SO IF THE notion of a casino being located near the Lincoln Highway right by Interstate 394 (just barely in suburban Ford Heights) becomes reality, does that impact the idea of a city-based casino by making it more likely that such a facility would be located in the heart of downtown – to take advantage of the nearby presence of out-of-town tourists?

Or does the concept of putting a city-based gambling complex down around the 10^th Ward (as far southeast as one can go and still be in Chicago proper) become the big boost to the people who think a suburban casino ought to be at a site on Interstate 80 at Halsted Street?

I should make one confession. I have a step-mother who enjoys the environs of a casino (playing the slot machines is her big kick), and that latter location would put a casino about a five-minute drive away from her home.

It intrigues me the way these varying proposals for more gambling are going to impact each other – even though the political people tend to act as though the city-based and suburban-based casinos will exist in differing worlds.

ALMOST AS THOUGH they’re Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

Rather than the idea of an East Side neighborhood in Chicago casino being only about a 15-minute drive down the Bishop Ford Freeway to the would-be Ford Heights site.

Which may also suffer from the general reputation that suburb suffers in the public eye. I already can envision the notion that many people will have in thinking a Ford Heights site is too decrepit to want to go to.

Or it could also turn out to be like when Ford Motor Co. decided to build an auto plant in that area, and actually picked a site right on the municipality’s border. What was then East Chicago Heights, Ill., went so far as to rename their town to try to make Ford Motor think they were special.

ONLY TO HAVE the company choose to annex into Chicago Heights proper. Would a casino feel the need to claim they’re in another town (Sauk Village or Lynwood?) to escape the perceived stigma?

For all those people who already are calculating how much of a cut their municipality will receive in tax revenues from a proposed casino, we ought to consider that just because the Illinois General Assembly has given authority to allowing a few more casinos does not mean anybody’s ready to open for business anytime soon.

If anything, the real political infighting will now begin – with village vs. village being pitted against each other to argue the merits of who’s most worthy of having a casino with over-priced buffet where one can gorge themselves in between black jack hands operating within their boundaries.

Because let’s not forget – the operating premises of many casinos is that they want to keep customers inside at all times. They certainly don’t want them spending money at any surrounding businesses in the community – spending that would generate true economic development.

  -30-

Did we get a preview of the ’20 presidential “brawl” this year in Chgo?

Could Lightfoot campaign give us clues as to how … 

Let me state up front – I don’t have a clue who I support for president. Although I’m inclined to think that both former Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont are too old to be taken seriously as candidates.

A notion that I’m sure will offend certain political people who are viewing the 2020 election cycle as one in which their guy can finally achieve long-desired aspirations.

BUT I HAVE to admit to dreading the Democratic primary for president, largely because I fear the twenty-some people saying they want to run for the office will all get so pig-headed and believe there’s no way they can lose.

There’s no way anybody would vote for Donald Trump over them, and it’s everybody else who needs to get a clue and get out of the election.

All I know is that I fear it will be that very attitude that will enable the re-election of “the Donald” and ensure that this Age of Trump stretches out to the maximum length permitted by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

With also the likelihood that Trump (already 72 years old) could theoretically be the oldest president ever surpassing Ronald Reagan if he were to live long enough to finish a second term in office.

… we get the re-election of Donald Trump?

IT BECOMES POSSIBLE because the large number of Democratic presidential aspirants will do nothing more than create confusion amongst the electorate. People won’t have a clue who to cast ballots for.

Which could mean the followers of this Age of Trump will feel emboldened to the point that they’ll be the ones who feel compelled to vote. Which means they’ll get all wrapped up in talk of presidential mandates – as in Trump’s minority voter support would have to be treated as though it truly represents the will of the American people.

Ugh!

Now why is it that I feel like this? Largely, it’s because I feel like I’ve already seen this saga play out with last week’s election of Lori Lightfoot as mayor of Chicago. An election cycle I have to confess I was glad to see come to an end.

HAVING TO WEED through the dozens of people who talked of being mayor weeding down to 21 people who finally put their names on the ballot – with 14 of them ultimately qualifying.

BIDEN: Past his presidential prime?

I don’t think there ever was a consensus behind any one candidate. Even after the process weeded down the candidate field to a two-person run-off.

I know the Lori Lightfoot backers are going to be offended that I don’t see an overwhelming victory for her over Toni Preckwinkle. Because even a week after Election Day, I still can’t get over the atrocious voter turnout.

For an election cycle that was supposed to be historic and a case where, to have a chance to dump Rahm Emanuel, it really seems that the bulk of Chicagoans didn’t care.

REALLY! SOME TWO-thirds of the registered voters of Chicago didn’t bother to vote. They didn’t care enough – brought about largely by the confusion from having so many candidates convinced that everybody was destined to fall in love with them. It was nowhere near the swarm of voters (about 83 percent) who turned out in 1983 when Harold Washington became mayor.

BUTTIGIEG: Can he pop out of masses?

And now, that the Chicago election cycle of 2019 is complete, I almost fear we’re destined to repeat the electoral chaos come 2020 at the national level. As if the electoral nonsense wasn’t absurd enough this year, we get to do it again next year.

Double Ugh!!! And groan!!!

So if you’re asking me who I back for president, I have to say I want most of these current wannabe candidates to come to their senses and drop out so we can have a manageable field from which to pick. Either that, or we’re destined to get an encore of Inaugural ceremonies in 2021 in which Trump will claim even more people turned out to celebrate his greatness than did back in January 2017.

  -30-

Organized labor can’t make up its mind for the Chicago mayor election

Remaining neutral?

It's intriguing to see the way that the various factions that comprise organized labor and unions are shaping up with regards to the upcoming mayoral election run-off.

With the "excitement" factor amongst the electorate focusing on the campaign of Lori Lightfoot for mayor, it seems that Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle is counting on having the "reliable" factor of having labor unions on her side.

Siding with one-time member

BECAUSE UNIONS DO have the ability to get their members to turn out and actually cast ballots in accordance with the desires of union leadership.

If that one poll commissioned by Stand by Children Illinois that shows Lori Lightfoot with a 2-1 vote ratio in her favor really has any truth to it, then Preckwinkle really is going to need every bit of organized labor support if she’s to have the least bit of a chance to have victory in the April 2 run-off election.

Which is why Camp Preckwinkle surely was disappointed to learn this week that the Chicago Federation of Labor – the organization that oversees so many union locals – has decided to remain neutral.

The union leadership may well be taking the honest attitude – one that says their interviews with the two mayoral candidates have such similar views and attitudes on issues related to workers and labor that they can’t pick between the two.

PRECKWINKLE: Her labor backing unsure

ANYBODY WHO THINKS there’d be a serious difference between a Mayor Lightfoot and a Mayor Preckwinkle is exaggerating the fact.

Although it seems that the labor unions that backed the campaign of Susana Mendoza during the first phase of the municipal election cycle are basing their endorsement decisions on the fact that Preckwinkle focused much of her negative campaigning against Susana.

Lightfoot could get some union member support just based on the fact that they want to spite Preckwinkle come April 2. And since the Preckwinkle campaign is basing its hopes so heavily on a strong union member voter turnout, the lack of an endorsement could result in enough voter apathy that could result in a Lightfoot victory.

LIGHTFOOT: Uncertainty a plus for Lori?

Perhaps even enough that justify the idea that Lightfoot is leading Preckwinkle by a 58 percent to 30 percent margin.

SO I’M SURE that Preckwinkle is determined to exaggerate the significance of one union that seems willing to stand by her side – as in the Chicago Teachers Union. Which remembers that back in the days before she became a political person, Toni was a school teacher.

The union issued its own statement saying that the 2-1 voter ratio support for Lightfoot was “stupid.” They were quick to recall that Stand by Children was a group that supported efforts back in 2011 to raise the standards by which the teachers’ union could go on strike.

As they see it, the group was nothing more than an organization promoting the anti-labor beliefs of Bruce Rauner – who we all know later went on to his one term as Illinois governor, where he tried imposing his anti-union agenda on all of us only to have the voters reject his re-election bid last year.

Should we disregard the idea that Lori Lightfoot has such a huge lead, or that people are that opposed to the idea of a “Mayor Preckwinkle?” Personally, I think the number of people surveyed for the poll (only about 400) is too small to reach a serious conclusion about anything.

BUT IT WOULD seem that Preckwinkle has at least the teachers’ union remaining on her side. Although, to be truthful, it’s not unusual for the teachers’ union and other unions to be in disagreement with each other.

Will Preckwinkle move from left to right side of bldg. following Election Day?

With the schoolteachers often taking more progressive stances on issues as opposed to the unions that represent workers who earn their living with physical labor.

Although the idea that Preckwinkle has the more liberal union members potentially on her side would fit in with the Preckwinkle campaign strategy of convincing voters that she, and not Lightfoot, is the true progressive for people to pick from come Election Day.

Which is a stance she would not have had to think of taking if the originally-expected scenario of a run-off election between Preckwinkle and William Daley were reality.

  -30-

14 more ‘shopping’ days ‘til we narrow down the field for a new Chgo mayor

We’re two weeks away from Election Day, although some people have taken the time to cast their ballots already.

Chicago's next mayor?

Not that it’s all too clear who the people are leaning toward at this point. One of the drawbacks of a 14-candidate field for mayor where “undecided” is leading everybody else is that it’s not all as clear as the polls would have us believe.

THE LATEST POLLS may well show Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and one-time White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley as the top two vote-getters. But they’re not dominant.

There’s always the chance that the “margin for error” factor that is inherent in polls is undercutting someone else to the point where they may wind up being amongst the top two candidates once the votes are actually counted. The very reason why the old cliché about the “only poll that matters is the one on Election Day” is ever so true.

There’s also the confusion of the early voting process that theoretically gives somebody a chance to have a head start on building their base for Election Day.

But until Monday, all early voting took place at the downtown offices of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. Anybody who wanted to cast their vote already had to take a trip downtown – and I’m not sure how many people are that politically motivated.

ACTUALLY I DO know. It’s 1,762.

The so-called 'frontrunners' … 

That’s the number of people who went to the early voting center during the past couple of weeks. That figure is bound to get a significant boost in the next few days, as now is the point in which an early voting center will open up in each of the city’s 50 wards.

But it may also be a time period in which confusion reigns. As in one in which the lack of a clear front-runner will make people inclined to wait until the last minute before deciding just who it is they’d like to see become the successor to Rahm Emanuel as mayor.

Why rush into things, many may think? They may wind up voting for a ‘loser’!

… for a spot in April 2 run-off

AND BY LOSER, I don’t mean someone who didn’t get the most votes. I mean someone who may later turn out to be totally incompetent for the mayoral post.

What I personally am trying to figure out is just how much of the ‘undecided’ vote will remain undecided enough to not bother casting a ballot.

I don’t doubt municipally-minded voters will believe this is an excessively important office for which to cast a ballot. But I also wonder how many people will come to the conclusion that none of the 14 are worthy of their vote.

How many are going to feel contempt for the concept of having to vote for the least-inept mayoral candidate available? How many will decide it’s just not worth their time or effort to show up – either at an early voting center or at their polling place come Feb. 26?

IN WHICH CASE, it may wind up being that all 14 candidates will get a slight boost in the poll percentages that show them all basically piled up on top of each other in terms of voter support.

How loud will Enyia scream IF she falls short?

It means that the Feb. 26 election is likely to produce a result with some two-thirds of Chicagoans casting votes for someone other than the two who qualify for an April 2 run-off.

Which means the ultimate factor in deciding who will become Chicago’s next mayor may wind up being the candidate whom somebody could support as their compromise pick, if their preferred candidate can’t get enough voter support.

This may well be the election cycle where being second-best in the minds of voters two weeks from now will have the end result of being the person who gets to take the oath of office come May.

  -30-

Playing part of a pol, without having to carry out accompanying responsibilities

Perhaps it’s only natural that people who can’t hold a position any longer (or are just tired of it) use their fame to try to get themselves a television gig.

Will we someday have to see Rahm … 

Being a “commentator” allows them to keep portraying themselves as some sort of expert on whatever it is they’re interested in – without having to carry out any of the actual responsibilities.

OR HAVING TO go through the hassles of continually getting themselves re-elected to office!

Think about it? We’re now forevermore going to see Luis Gutierrez as the outspoken critic of our national immigration policy, while Rahm Emanuel will portray himself for as long as he wishes as Chicago’s “mayor.”

No matter how much the thought of those two men in those positions stirs up levels of contempt and disgust, we’ll always now think of them as “congressman” and “mayor” no matter what it is they really do in life.

These thoughts popped into my head when, on Monday, Gutierrez felt compelled to release a statement saying he’s now a part of CNN. He’ll be someone they can put on the air to talk about immigration policy and the Puerto Rican population of our nation.

… and Luis speak out … 

IN SHORT, THE man who during his two-plus decades in Congress portrayed himself as “Mr. Puerto Rico” himself any time a related issue came up on Capitol Hill can now go about portraying himself as the ultimate expert.

Those of us who remember back even further when he was a City Council member bellowing about like a crowing rooster (giving him the nickname “El Gallito”) will find act old – if not downright repetitive.

Yet the rest of the nation is going to get his share of the act. Particularly the ideologues who often will find themselves on the receiving end of whatever admonishment Gutierrez feels to dish out at any given time.

It assures that even though Gutierrez ceased to be a Congressman last week, he’ll continue to be heard. Personally, I’m waiting for the moment Gutierrez successor Rep. Jesus Garcia, D-Ill., does something that Luis considers to be a screw-up.

… on our television sets?

I HAVE NO doubt the rhetoric will be ugly – in both English en Español.

Not that it will be any more pretty when Rahm Emanuel finally steps down as mayor come May. For the talk is that brother Ari, a professional talent agent in his own right, already is doing the groundwork for Rahm to become one of the ranks of professional commentators himself.

For as a former member of Congress and White House aide under both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, he has a certain amount of issues and policy background. Combined with his eight years as Chicago mayor, he may wind up trying to claim himself as the expert on all sorts of things.

Could Garcia be blasted by Luis and Rahm?

Maybe he can even develop a personality of sorts that would allow him to be declared an unofficial “mayor” of the nation – someone who can forevermore be thought of as having an expertise. Even on issues upon which he knows absolutely nothing.

THAT ACTUALLY WAS the niche Rudy Giuliani once held, as the symbolic “America’s mayor” – at least until he became associated publicly with fellow New Yorker Donald Trump and relegated himself to the niche of the crackpot’s protector.

Will Rahm replace Rudy as 'America's mayor?'

Is the nation ready for Rahm; to speak out at his own will on whatever he thinks interesting? Anybody who tries claiming Rahm doesn’t have Rudy’s stature is engaging in crackpot rhetoric of their own – both men served as mayors of their respective cities for eight years.

But every time they appear on television, we get reminded of their stints – and many of us may wind up thinking they’re still in office doing great things; instead of merely blathering about on various issues that they had little to actually do with.

Which almost has me wondering if the greater point of running for electoral office is to gain the years of experience so that, one day, one can claim the legitimacy so they can someday go on television and have people think they used to “be somebody.”

  -30-

Campaign tactics meant to gain whatever edge candidates can get

We’re at that stage of the mayoral election cycle in which candidates are desperately trying to game the process in ways they desperately hope will give them an edge on Election Day.

The four mayoral hopefuls …

Even though many of the things they’re now going are really trivial and superficial and not likely to make one bit of difference in terms of turning out votes.

THIS IS THE election cycle in which there are no incumbents seeking a return as mayor, meaning every political dreamer with delusions of grandeur is putting themselves in the running.

Monday was the first day in which candidates could file nominating petitions, and it should be noted that aides to four people showed up at City Hall to make their claim to a ballot spot.

Jerry Joyce (a long-time Daley family friend, is he really running against William?), Toni Preckwinkle, Paul Vallas and Willie Wilson were those people, and they’re now likely to go about making claims they’re the only candidates who deserve to be taken seriously. After all, they’re dedicated enough to file early – which may give them the chance of having their names listed at the top of the list of candidates on the Feb. 26 ballot.

With the political theory being that some people are clueless and confused enough that when they cast their ballots, they vote for whoever’s name is atop the list.

… with dreams of getting … 

PRECKWINKLE, THE FORMER alderman from Hyde Park turned Cook County Board president, herself claims getting that top spot on the ballot could account for a percent or two of the vote – which in this year’s electoral mess could be enough to prevail.

Kind of scary, if you think about it.

The municipal election cycle’s most prominent post being resolved by the ballots cast by people who didn’t put any thought into WHO they were voting for – but merely cast a vote for a ballot slot!

You may have noticed that many more names have tossed themselves out for mayoral contemplation beyond the four individuals who filed early Monday morning.

… the number one mayoral spot … 

OF COURSE, THERE’S the fact that the deadline for filing is the end of business next Monday. And yes, there will be those people eager to have their names listed last on the ballot.

Because names are put on the ballot in the order that candidates file their petitions, there are bound to be a few candidates who will want to show up just before 5 p.m. so they can be absolutely last. A Dec. 5 lottery will break any ties that develop.

With the line of logic being that having one’s name at the end of a lengthy list of political dreamers is better than being stuck in the middle of the pack. Just think being seventh on a list of 13 or so candidates for mayor?

Geez, you might as well wear a millstone around your neck. Because you’re actually going to have to campaign completely on the issues and the merits of what kind of candidate you would make. And yes, that line is meant to reek heavily of sarcasm.

THERE ALWAYS IS the chance someone will show up late Thursday, only to have someone else manage to slip in just behind them. Or the risk of having someone show up at City Hall at 5:02 p.m., just a moment or so too late to file the nominating petitions you struggled to put together.

… on the Feb. 26 Election Day ballot

Which brings your political aspirations for Election ’19 coming to a crashing halt not because you were defeated at the polling place, but because your campaign dreams became irrelevant to the process.

All of which makes the activity of Monday morning running trough next Monday night an intriguing part of the process for politically geeky observers.

Because a lot of people are engaging in actions now that will seem downright trivial and irrelevant come May when one of these people takes the oath of office promising not to totally embarrass themselves as mayor – and everybody else will have their heads filled with fantasies about how much better qualified they would have been IF ONLY the voters had come to their senses.

  -30-

Casting a ballot to maintain status quo

I went to an early voting center Friday, and came walking out of the polling place feeling like I did my part to maintain the political status quo. Nothing more!

Many of us haven't paid the least bit of attention. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

It’s election cycles like this one that I envision cause many people to think there is no point to the process. As it was, when I arrived in the morning, no one was present. I got to walk right up, pick a voting machine, and cast my ballot for the municipal elections that my current residence gives me a say in.

ACTUALLY, MOST OF the posts that I was given a say in turned out to be ones in which the incumbents ran unopposed. The school boards in my area had some choices, but they were literally cases where I was to pick multiple members and the number of “losers” will be few.

From what I can tell, I’m in the norm.

It was last week that Cook County Clerk David Orr said that 67 percent of the posts that were up for grabs across the county were unopposed. Only 334 of the 1,031 contests had challengers.

For a couple of posts, there literally were no choices. I was asked to “write in” a name. Perhaps I should have proclaimed myself to be a candidate. It would have been as legitimate as anyone else.

FOR THE RECORD, I’m not a candidate for any office. I left those spots blank.

Now the reason I cast my ballot early even though I didn’t have any extreme sentiments in favor of any specific candidates (although I have to admit the mayor in the municipality I’m currently residing seems like an affable sort and probably is qualified – which is good because no one else seems to want the post) is because of my professional duties.

I’m not sure yet if I’m needed by anybody for Election Day work. So getting things out of the way in casting a ballot now when I had a free morning just made some sense.

It really makes sense in those election cycles where there is interest and the early voting centers can be a way to avoid long lines. Which I’m pretty confident I can get away with saying that Tuesday will not have.

BUT THIS ISN’T a presidential cycle. It’s not even a run for the state Legislature, which is a post that many people theoretically comprehend has some significance, but in many cases can’t be persuaded to get off their keisters to cast a ballot.

In many cases, they don’t even know who their legislators are – and I doubt anything will happen between now and the next election cycle those people run in that the public will become better informed.

This is the municipal level, where the government geeks like to believe is the one where all the “real” governing is done. The tax levies are approved that set the property taxes on your home

The local ordinances are set that determine the particular quirks for your community.

BUT TOO MANY of us take the attitude of actor Carrol O’Connor’s “Archie Bunker” character who on "All in the Family" supposedly went for decades without voting, and said he wasn’t about to waste his ballot on petty little offices. Only the big ones for him!

Perhaps we are better off if people who can’t be bothered to learn about their local governments stay out. I’m sure there are those who think the 2016 presidential election was one in which clueless people cast ballots – thereby causing chaos for the masses.

But I do seriously believe that we as a society are better off if we educate ourselves about what is happening around us and take a public interest. Even if it’s just so we can make educated arguments about how messed up our government officials are.

That’s why I felt compelled to cast my ballot for the status quo. I want the “right” to tell my government officials how “wrong” they are.

  -30-

Bad tickets? Too bad, considering the reason for issuing them was the revenue

I remember an early-morning (as in about 1 a.m.) moment I had a couple of decades ago in the South Loop when I took a wrong turn down a one-way street, and got pulled over within a half-block by a Chicago police officer for driving in the wrong direction.

Too overactive?

I got ticketed, and actually showed up in court about a month later – only to get one of the biggest breaks I ever got in my life.

FOR IT SEEMS that the officers in question who pulled me over had issued a few tickets that night whose legitimacy was questionable.

What wound up happening was that the state’s attorney’s office had to dismiss the charges against every single person who got a ticket on that particular night.

Including myself. My wrong-way on a one-way street wound up being tossed. The court clerk in that courtroom handed me back my driver’s license and I didn’t have to pay any fine.

I still recall the look of disgust on the face of the assistant state’s attorney in that courtroom, knowing she was going to have to repeat the same drill for so many cases because of a cop screw-up.

I WONDER IF she’d feel just as appalled at the Chicago Tribune report on Wednesday that said the video cameras erected at Chicago intersections to catch traffic scofflaws had managed to screw up, and that some $2.4 million in fines were not valid.

I’m sure there’s somebody within municipal government who had already spent that money, and is now desperately trying to figure out how to make up the lost revenue.

It seems the problem lies with cameras that were still active, recording traffic activity and issuing citations, even after hours when they were supposed to be turned off.

For it seems some of those locations only had restricted traffic flow at certain times of the day. Or in other cases, signs warning people of parking or traffic restrictions were written or erected in such a confusing manner that it could be argued that motorists really didn’t know they were doing something improper.

I’M SURE THERE are some people out there who are dismissing this as a petty flaw. There probably are some people outraged that I got away with driving for half-a-block the wrong way on a one-way street.

But it really does come down to that legal principle that we hold our law enforcement officials to a higher standard and will not allow flawed cases to proceed.

These improperly-operating cameras can’t be allowed to take over and impose all these citations upon us – even though I’m very sure the big reason for having those cameras is to catch as many violations as possible as a municipal revenue source.

The fact that catching those offenses might make our streets more safe for the public is probably a secondary concern.

ALTHOUGH I HAVE to confess that reading the Tribune report about all those tickets being tossed out and the revenue lost amused me in the same way that watching television re-runs of “Hill Street Blues” does.

How many times did the officers of the Hill Street station in that Chicago-like city (even though the real-life Maxwell Street station’s outside was used in select scenes) do some minor gaffe that wound up resulting in their whole case being thrown out?

Usually with the voluptuous public defender Joyce Davenport delivering the lethal legal blow; leaving her boyfriend-turned-husband Captain Furillo as frustrated as anybody else!

Think of these flawed cameras as the 21^st Century equivalent of a police gaffe, and we have to wonder how little some things change at all.

  -30-

Rahm’s ‘bosom’ buddies?!?

It’s safe to say that Mayor Rahm Emanuel knows how to make enemies.

It seems no matter where he looks or what he does, there will be someone more than willing to take a pot-shot at him.

TAKE THE FACT that Emanuel presented a city budget proposal for the municipal upcoming fiscal year. Much of the news coverage focused on the fact that the budget doesn’t try to do anything to resolve the city’s problems in providing for adequate funding for its pension programs.

As in they will be dealt with in the future – specifically some point following the February and April municipal elections. A newly-elected City Council will wind up having to address the issue; in hopes that enough time will pass between their actions and the 2019 elections that voters won’t hold it against them.

Although I couldn’t help but notice that Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey was quick to trash Emanuel for a budget that they contends favors the wealthy interests of Chicago rather than regular citizens.

“This budget continues a top-down imposition of two distinct cities, one for the privileged and one for everyone else,” Sharkey said. “Balance comes through savage cuts to public service and accounting trickery, as there is only minimal revenue generation in this budget.”

HE GOES ON to say, “The reality on the ground is that neighborhoods on the South and West sides of the city continue to struggle with daily violence. Budgetary allocations for police only cover positions lost to retirement and are nowhere near what the mayor promised during this first campaign.”

The tone of the rest of Sharkey’s comments is just as hostile. It seems that the loss of Karen Lewis at the top of the Chicago Teachers Union is not going to result in any more favorable body of people for Emanuel and city officials to deal with when trying to address issues related to the Chicago Public Schools.

It also is written in such a tone that I wonder how much it is inspired by the rhetoric of Gov. Pat Quinn – whose own campaign talk is now on auto-pilot to imply that Republican challenger Bruce Rauner is just a rich guy who doesn’t care about average people.

It’s no wonder that Emanuel and Rauner are actually friends on a certain level, and that perhaps deep down Emanuel wouldn’t object to a Quinn defeat come the Nov. 4 election cycle – even though he’ll never publicly admit to that fact.

BUT IT’S NOT just the teachers union that’s bad-mouthing Emanuel these days. There’s also William J. Kelly, a Beverly neighborhood resident who is running a fringe campaign for mayor and differentiating himself by claiming to be the lone Republican in the race.

Kelly wants to be taken seriously by pointing out that he has come up with $100,000 for his campaign, which actually has caused the limits on self-spending for campaigns to be shot to pieces.

Emanuel can now come up with as much cash as he wishes to drown out anyone who has the nerve to challenge him come next year’s municipal election cycle.

Although I’ll give Kelly credit for one bit of honesty – he says he’s hoping that the national Republican organizations will see his campaign and flood his coffers with so much cash that he could compete with Emanuel’s millions.

ADMITTEDLY, THERE ARE GOP political interests that would like to see Emanuel suffer a political humiliation. Then again, when they tried to beat him when he ran for Congress and for mayor the first time, their efforts just weren’t all that successful.

I suspect they’ll conclude that Kelly is too insignificant on his own to warrant their help. Besides, I suspect they like the idea of gaining political majorities in other places to try to drown out the influence of Illinois and Chicago led by Democrats.

Which may well be the reason that our local people should focus on being as strong as they possibly can be. And why the upcoming elections for state offices are probably way more important than anything that happens at City Hall beginning next May.

  -30-

When will we start hearing demands for a new stadium on the South Side?

Perhaps it’s just because I’m desperate to ignore the first snowfall that hit Chicago on Monday – more than a month before the official start of winter.

Already obsolete?

 

But I couldn’t help but be shaken up by wire service reports emanating from Atlanta; where the Braves plan to move their ball club from their city-based stadium to one based in the suburbs in just a couple of years.

THE EXISTING BALLPARK – Turner Field – came about in the wake of the 1996 Olympic Games staged in that southern city, then reconstructed into a modern ballpark beginning with the 1997 season.

Turner Field might not be among the stadia that gets people’s hearts all atwitter (like the ballparks in Baltimore and Pittsburgh). But it is among the modern round of construction – sports teams that saw themselves get new buildings in the 1990s and early 2000s that were meant to be more than just a place to sit while a ballgame is played in front of you.

There’s nothing structurally wrong with the current Braves’ building. It’s just that the officials in suburban Cobb County are willing to give more amenities to the ball club, if they can steal away some baseball business for themselves.

Now why should I care about this southern politicking taking place? It’s because these stadiums always seem to get built in groups. Which means that now that the current set-up of stadia can start to be thought of as obsolete, it makes me wonder how many more ball clubs are going to start screaming for new facilities from their home communities.

How soon will calls for "the Cell's" replacement start?

 

EVEN IF, IN some cases, those current facilities aren’t fully paid for yet.

And if that happens, how long will it be until our own city’s ball clubs start screaming.

Renovate Wrigley? This action by the Braves may convince the Cubs they’d be better off at a location in suburban Rosemont (since the Cubs could claim the same line of logic that the Braves are using to justify their move – it puts them closer to the geographic center of their fan base).

In need of replacement before it's rebuilt?

 

Or what about the White Sox? The building now known as U.S. Cellular Field cropped up in 1991. Making it possibly the oldest of these new-style ballparks.

BY THE BRAVES’ line of logic (Turner Field’s stint as a major league stadium will last exactly 20 years), the White Sox ballpark is an antique.

It’s also an antique that has never gotten much love from amateur architectural aficionados.

Will the White Sox get it into their heads that it’s time for them to get a building that will gain admiration – instead of mere functionality – from outsiders?

Now I realize the political reality locally is that the process leading to the construction of U.S. Cellular Field ate up a lot of political goodwill. There are people who are still bitter that the building was ever constructed and that they were unable to kill the bill that back in 1988 ensured that the 2005 World Series was played on the South Side – and NOT in St. Petersburg, Fla.!

BUT THE BUILDING is now part of an era that is being replaced. It’s just a matter of time before officials want to start talking up the replacement of “the Cell.”

I recently read an essay written by someone trying to have some fun – speculating about what professional baseball would be like in the year 2114. He guessed that the White Sox would have a new stadium by then – perhaps built across the street on the site of the old Comiskey Park – because the new building would last the same 80-year stint as the old.

Will the "Old Roman's" statue gather pigeon poop at another ballpark?

I doubt it! The cycle of replacement of the current stadia has now begun.

My guess is that U.S. Cellular will see its demise some time around the year 2030. By then, the demands to replace it with something “more modern” will just be too intense.

THE 2033 MAJOR League Baseball All-Star Game (the 100^th anniversary of the original All-Star game played at Comiskey Park) could well be the first moment of glory for a new White Sox stadium somewhere.

The real question is will 2005 be the only World Series championship won in the current building, or will there be a few more before its demise? A part of me thinks that is more likely than a championship at Wrigley any time soon!

  -30-