If enough people FLAG her origonal video on youtube as being inappropriate, as Ive just done, her videos will be pulled down. Select the option "video filled with hate spek or action" As this is true, Helen hates Uptown. (loves her salary though)
This is yet another example where a King Richard gets what King Richard wants - the public be damned.
And, our "independent" alderman is more than happy to carry his water.
Granted, she did make a few points that I'd not considered, previously - ie, how the CCM will take over the space of the existing parking garage (which softens the blow a bit, I guess); but, generally speaking she was simply performing a soft shoe act to rationalize her agreement with the mayor.
Puppet on a string.
Not that I don't think the CCM will be quite lovely, and profitable; but to take an axe to one of the pillars of Chicago's spirit for a "Children's Museum" doesn't pass the the cost/benefit ratio test.
I understand Daley's desire to centralize attractions into downtown; but, honestly, isn't that a bit short-sighted, and not just a little bit unbalanced, from an economic stand-point?
Not to brand myself as Uptown-centric; but, c'mon. Wilson Yard?
I think the economy of the city, as a whole, would benefit by spreading some of the wealth instead of giving downtown all of the cash (not to mention that downtown on a weekend is entirely too congested).
And we've got a perfectly good plot of land, right here.
As Helen herself said, Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. The plan should be to highlight that, in my opinion, and give visitors a reason to get into those neighborhoods and give the merchants across the city some of that sweet, sweet tourist money.
The CCM could have been a crown jewel in this ward and lead to the kind of economic foundation upon which we can build a healthy state of diversity.
Instead, we don't know what we're getting at WY, and it may very well be a redux of what history has already declared a failed plan.
And once again, we are shown an example where our elected officials indicate that they'd rather side with Daley than their constituents.
Someone needs to remind Daley that he works for us, and the city is our's - not his.
(and once again, billyjoe gets his doller per posts repayment for trying to derail the topic).
I just started laughing when I recv'd my first "Helen Update" via email since I signed up for her "newsletter" updates. (I want to keep track as to how many times that Socialist *(&%^ contacts us.)
I couldn't believe it, the first email blast I get is about a museum. NOTHING about Wilson Yards, the crime, the garbage, blah blah blah.
Let it stay and spread the "truth" to the unschooled masses.
Which everyone has missed so far, and what I am going to point out as a public service, is that Shiller felt the need to post this video.
What does that tell us?
1. Last videos she posted were during the election when she feared the forces aligned with the Capplemaniac. She even violated the rules of the League of Woman Voters debate to post some vids. Why? Because she was scared.
2. She must be scared that this vote may hurt her in the future. Which means she is likely planning to run again for office. Why give up that 100 grand plus gig when except around election time you really don't work very hard.
3. Yep, she be scared and likely plans to run agin'. Methinks the Uptown Update, the rally and everything else going on is making her nervous.
Keep it up. Man the ramparts. Hold the Line. Prepare to yell "fire in the hole" during the inevitable Billy Joe or Couraj counterattacks. Protect your wives and children. Forget your wives. Send your children away and save your hookers.
I hadn't thought of that IrishPirate. Why would she put so much time and attention into justifying her Children's Museum vote? There is a Q & A and photos and everything on her website. I am sure they are prepared "talking points" from the PR firm but why even bother? And why was the slant a technical justification for her vote rather than a predictable "I won one for the children against the evil forces of this city that want to exclude poor children from everything...yada yada yada..."
On that note I am really pleased to see that she didn't trump out all of Daley's rhetoric on that one today. To me it least shows that she has some respect for the fact that truly poor children living in Chicago have MUCH BIGGER issues that the City isn't addressing than whether or not this museum is in the exact most centrally located place. Kudos to her on that count.
I got Alderman Shiller's newsletter today too. Here's what she wrote:
1. Does it violate the Burnham Plan and the establishment of Grant Park as public space for perpetuity? No. The plan specifically calls for open public space, without tall building structures for people to gather within. Since the new museuem is entirely underground, it is well within the planʼs parameters.
2. Why canʼt the Childrenʼs Museum stay at Navy Pier? The museum is simply so popular with so many people visiting it that there is no room to expand at Navy Pier. Relocation was truly the last option.
3. What about the law suit I keep hearing about? The threatened law suit by opponents to the museum relocation is based on a 20 year law suit brought in the early 20th century against the placing of the Field Museum in Grant Park. That law suit was brought by A. Montgomery Ward against the Field family and the Illinois Supreme Court did rule that a structure the size of the Field Museum was so tall that it would obstruct the vista provided by Grant Park. The highest structure being built as part of the Childrenʼs Museum is 20 feet, well below other already existing structures. Additionally, new green vistas will be created by the museum.
4. Is it a land grab by private interests? The Childrenʼs Museum is a privately owned not-for-profit. The project is a public-private partnership on the order of the Field Museum, Art Museum and Adler Planetarium. There is nothing new or different regarding this development. In fact, private money will pay for new green space, replace a blighted parking structure and provide a new fieldhouse for the Chicago Park, all without public funds.
5. Will green space be destroyed or in any way compromised? Absolutely not. There will be new, open green space where there is now concrete. No current green space will be touched.
6. Will the relocation of the Museum open the floodgates for future private development? No. There is nothing in the ordinance that allows for future development independent of Chicago City Council action.
Here's my response:
1. Residents of the 46th Ward are smart enough to understand that the museum can't both be "entirely underground" as Alderman Shiller claims in her e-mail and 20 feet tall as she explains later on, and the courts will see through that charade as well.
2. CCM rejected the option to exercise a clause in their contract that would have provided an additional 20,000 sq. feet at Navy Pier, and they rejected attempts by Navy Pier to renegotiate their contract providing them with all the space they needed. The negotiations fell apart not because of the lack of space, but because CCM demanded a $10 million kickback from Navy Pier to stay. The museum may want to expand, and they may want their own stand-alone building, but there is certainly no public necessity for locating the museum in Grant Park, nor providing them with $539 million in taxpayer subsidies to sweeten the deal.
3. If Alderman Shiller had read the four Montgomery Ward cases, she would know that the Supreme Court's rejection of the Field Museum and more than four dozen other buildings in Grant Park had nothing to do with their height. Here's what the Supreme Court said in the Third Ward decision:
"The question in the former cases was not whether park buildings, museums, or any particular kind of building could be erected on the premises, but whether a building of any kind could be so erected."
4. Alderman Shiller is incorrect that there is nothing new or different about this project. First of all, the Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, as well as the Shedd Aquarium are located outside of the original Grant Park that is protected by the 1836 covenants, which ends at 11th Street. Again, something she would know if she read the court decisions. She'd also know that the Art Institute was only exempted because Ward decided not to challenge it, and no one has since. Ward later said he regretted that decision because he feared it would be used in the future to justify more development on Grant Park. Alderman Shiller has proved him right.
5. Alderman Shiller is incorrect about the loss of public green space. The museum's agreement with the park district not only gives them exclusive use of the building, but also grants them control of the surrounding park land whenever they wish for private events and activities, similar to the Latin School soccer field deal, and subject only to park district approval.
6. The plan Shiller voted for rezones the entire quadrant of the park the size of 1 1/2 football fields, and changes to the design of the building, or the addition of new buildings are allowed as long as they are within the broad parameters set by the zoning application, and will only require the approval on Mayor Daley's Planning Department.
Yellow Dog. I’d add these items to your info-packed post:
1. Not only does it violate the Burnham Plan, it runs a foul of four Illinois Supreme Court decisions. So do Millennium Park, the Harris Theater etc. but whatever. This isn’t about the merits of any argument or any well-managed process. This is about memorial-making, money (lots of it) and the Mayor’s connected pals.
2. The Children’s Museum can’t stay at Navy Pier because that’s where the casino is going.
3. I don’t know whether or not the Alderman read the court opinions or if she cares what they say. What I do know is the Mayor has more control over TIF dollars than she does ergo Shiller cares about what the Mayor thinks of her. She wants to cut the ribbon on Wilson Yards. I scratch your memorial; you scratch mine.
4. The Art Institute, although it occupies space within the boundaries, has honored, to some degree, part of the covenant by providing free admission on various days and times. Will the Children’s museum do the same?
5. Don’t forget those liquor licenses! Boozy adults, schlepping their kids around an underground bunker. That's what I call an education.
6. Alderman Shiller didn’t vote the way she did because she’s concerned about re-election. That’s three years from now. Politically, that’s a lifetime. No, this was all about Wilson Yards and Shiller’s own bit of memorial-making. Joravsky was spot on.
I don't know about #5 Suzanne. I might be able to handle a trip to the Children's Museum a little bit better after a few vodka tonics. I have one active little tyke! Seriously, though I appreciate your and yellow dog's posts. We'll be following this one in the courts for sure.
It would be funny if you were right Uptown dad, but I'm not putting any money on it. Although, he does like to stick up for Shiller and Joe Moore quite a bit. (two different votes on the Children's Mausoleum BTW!)
love in the 48th ward: I gotta admit, as I sit typing this reply and sipping on a cocktail now that my lovely, hand-standing, cartwheeling, ever chatty curious child is finally asleep, you have a point; a LOL funny one. Thanks.
The Art Institute ISN'T honoring the Montgomery Ward decisions. The agreement spelled out in the Ward Decisions calls for the museum to provide free admission all day Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, as well as free admission for all school teachers, community college instructors, and university instructors at institutions within Chicago.
Here's what the 1897 Ward Decision says:
"On March 30 1891, an ordinance was passed giving the right of the World’s Columbian Exposition to construct and maintain the building known as the “Art Institute” on the lake front, the title of the building to vest in the city, but the right to use and occupy the same to vest in the Art Institute as long as it should comply with the terms and conditions in the ordinance, which required free admission to the public on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, with the right to charge admission at other times, though professors and teachers in the public schools and other institutions of learning in Chicago should be admitted free at all times."
And here is the court order:
"the injunction of May 25, 1890, be made perpetual; that the Illinois Central Railroad Company and the city and its officers desist and refrain from occupying any buildings or structure, except such as described In the ordinance of October 21, 1895 upon the tract of land known as “Lake Park”; that they refrain from placing or causing to be placed thereon anything, except for park purposes, and from using, and permitting the use of, any portion thereof for railroad tracks, or such circuses or exhibitions to which the public will not be admitted free; that nothing in the decree shall be held to impair or diminish the rights, etc. of the Illinois Central Railroad Company under the ordinance of October 21, 1895; that the Art Institute, and all necessary improvements thereon, so long as it shall be used in accordance with the terms of the ordinance authorizing its construction, shall be excluded from the operation of the decree."
You're right and well read. All I meant to point out is that the Art Institute at least provides SOME free admission (Thursdays and Fridays from Memorial Day to Labor Day, 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. and all day any day with a passport from any public library).
The Harris Theater, on the other hand, provides none. It does provide subsidized space and services to other orgs. which comports some of the spirit but not to regular tax-paying citizens.
Maybe we should print out that bit of the court's decision, laminate it, and present it to the clerk when we want to visit the museum or when we want to attend a performance at the Harris Theater?
An aside: I haven't examined the fine print in a while but it used to be the museum requested "donations" on paid days, not an admission fee, so one was free not to donate and still gain admission. Of course, no one wanted to be the heal that didn't pay so people did.
If enough people FLAG her origonal video on youtube as being inappropriate, as Ive just done, her videos will be pulled down.
ReplyDeleteSelect the option "video filled with hate spek or action"
As this is true, Helen hates Uptown.
(loves her salary though)
To paraphrase the late, great comic Richard Pryor, when "crime" occurs in poor inner-city neighborhoods, it's a "shame" or a "pity."
ReplyDeleteWhen crime occurs in gentrifying neighborhoods that are not turning around fast enough for their new middle-income condo owners, "IT'S AN EPIDEMIC!"
(For an additional allegorical reference, see the classic children's story "Chicken Little.")
It ain't the "what" it's the "how".
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another example where a King Richard gets what King Richard wants - the public be damned.
And, our "independent" alderman is more than happy to carry his water.
Granted, she did make a few points that I'd not considered, previously - ie, how the CCM will take over the space of the existing parking garage (which softens the blow a bit, I guess); but, generally speaking she was simply performing a soft shoe act to rationalize her agreement with the mayor.
Puppet on a string.
Not that I don't think the CCM will be quite lovely, and profitable; but to take an axe to one of the pillars of Chicago's spirit for a "Children's Museum" doesn't pass the the cost/benefit ratio test.
I understand Daley's desire to centralize attractions into downtown; but, honestly, isn't that a bit short-sighted, and not just a little bit unbalanced, from an economic stand-point?
Not to brand myself as Uptown-centric; but, c'mon. Wilson Yard?
I think the economy of the city, as a whole, would benefit by spreading some of the wealth instead of giving downtown all of the cash (not to mention that downtown on a weekend is entirely too congested).
And we've got a perfectly good plot of land, right here.
As Helen herself said, Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. The plan should be to highlight that, in my opinion, and give visitors a reason to get into those neighborhoods and give the merchants across the city some of that sweet, sweet tourist money.
The CCM could have been a crown jewel in this ward and lead to the kind of economic foundation upon which we can build a healthy state of diversity.
Instead, we don't know what we're getting at WY, and it may very well be a redux of what history has already declared a failed plan.
And once again, we are shown an example where our elected officials indicate that they'd rather side with Daley than their constituents.
Someone needs to remind Daley that he works for us, and the city is our's - not his.
(and once again, billyjoe gets his doller per posts repayment for trying to derail the topic).
To paraphrase Schiller:
ReplyDelete"let them eat Popeyes"
why flag her video some of us in Uptown are glad to see she is still in the City.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously as bad as she is you want her to listen to you so why flag her video.
Besides by the time stuff gets to a vote all this has been done in back room and been decided.
What did Daley give her to vote for it?
"What did Daley give her to vote for it?"
ReplyDeleteA blind eye to the 46th ward.
Does she always fumble her speaches like this? Wow I thought I was listenting to Porky Pig and Popeye at the same time.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know of a local "Toastmaters" for Miss Shiller?
I just started laughing when I recv'd my first "Helen Update" via email since I signed up for her "newsletter" updates. (I want to keep track as to how many times that Socialist *(&%^ contacts us.)
ReplyDeleteI couldn't believe it, the first email blast I get is about a museum. NOTHING about Wilson Yards, the crime, the garbage, blah blah blah.
I WILL flag her videos on youtube, great idea.
Ok Billie Joe. You got me! Wow I messed up a word. You and Shiller messed up a whole "Speech"
ReplyDeleteShe sounded like Rain Man watching Wapner giving that "Speech"
It's a ppppparking ggggrrraaage..ppparking garage. Fumble Fumble. Way to go Helen! You had me at hello. You had me at hello.
"Flagging" her video would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteLet it stay and spread the "truth" to the unschooled masses.
Which everyone has missed so far, and what I am going to point out as a public service, is that Shiller felt the need to post this video.
What does that tell us?
1. Last videos she posted were during the election when she feared the forces aligned with the Capplemaniac. She even violated the rules of the League of Woman Voters debate to post some vids. Why? Because she was scared.
2. She must be scared that this vote may hurt her in the future. Which means she is likely planning to run again for office. Why give up that 100 grand plus gig when except around election time you really don't work very hard.
3. Yep, she be scared and likely plans to run agin'. Methinks the Uptown Update, the rally and everything else going on is making her nervous.
Keep it up. Man the ramparts. Hold the Line. Prepare to yell "fire in the hole" during the inevitable Billy Joe or Couraj counterattacks. Protect your wives and children. Forget your wives. Send your children away and save your hookers.
ARRRRRRRRGH.
Vive La Resistance!
Know Hope!
I hadn't thought of that IrishPirate. Why would she put so much time and attention into justifying her Children's Museum vote? There is a Q & A and photos and everything on her website. I am sure they are prepared "talking points" from the PR firm but why even bother? And why was the slant a technical justification for her vote rather than a predictable "I won one for the children against the evil forces of this city that want to exclude poor children from everything...yada yada yada..."
ReplyDeleteOn that note I am really pleased to see that she didn't trump out all of Daley's rhetoric on that one today. To me it least shows that she has some respect for the fact that truly poor children living in Chicago have MUCH BIGGER issues that the City isn't addressing than whether or not this museum is in the exact most centrally located place. Kudos to her on that count.
I got Alderman Shiller's newsletter today too. Here's what she wrote:
ReplyDelete1. Does it violate the Burnham Plan and the establishment of Grant Park as public space for perpetuity? No. The plan specifically calls for open public space, without tall building structures for people to gather within. Since the new museuem is entirely underground, it is well within the planʼs parameters.
2. Why canʼt the Childrenʼs Museum stay at Navy Pier? The museum is simply so popular with so many people visiting it that there is no room to expand at Navy Pier. Relocation was truly the last option.
3. What about the law suit I keep hearing about? The threatened law suit by opponents to the museum relocation is based on a 20 year law suit brought in the early 20th century against the placing of the Field Museum in Grant Park. That law suit was brought by A. Montgomery Ward against the Field family and the Illinois Supreme Court did rule that a structure the size of the Field Museum was so tall that it would obstruct the vista provided by Grant Park. The highest structure being built as part of the Childrenʼs Museum is 20 feet, well below other already existing structures. Additionally, new green vistas will be created by the museum.
4. Is it a land grab by private interests? The Childrenʼs Museum is a privately owned not-for-profit. The project is a public-private partnership on the order of the Field Museum, Art Museum and Adler Planetarium. There is nothing new or different regarding this development. In fact, private money will pay for new green space, replace a blighted parking structure and provide a new fieldhouse for the Chicago Park, all without public funds.
5. Will green space be destroyed or in any way compromised? Absolutely not. There will be new, open green space where there is now concrete. No current green space will be touched.
6. Will the relocation of the Museum open the floodgates for future private development? No. There is nothing in the ordinance that allows for future development independent of Chicago City Council action.
Here's my response:
1. Residents of the 46th Ward are smart enough to understand that the museum can't both be "entirely underground" as Alderman Shiller claims in her e-mail and 20 feet tall as she explains later on, and the courts will see through that charade as well.
2. CCM rejected the option to exercise a clause in their contract that would have provided an additional 20,000 sq. feet at Navy Pier, and they rejected attempts by Navy Pier to renegotiate their contract providing them with all the space they needed. The negotiations fell apart not because of the lack of space, but because CCM demanded a $10 million kickback from Navy Pier to stay. The museum may want to expand, and they may want their own stand-alone building, but there is certainly no public necessity for locating the museum in Grant Park, nor providing them with $539 million in taxpayer subsidies to sweeten the deal.
3. If Alderman Shiller had read the four Montgomery Ward cases, she would know that the Supreme Court's rejection of the Field Museum and more than four dozen other buildings in Grant Park had nothing to do with their height. Here's what the Supreme Court said in the Third Ward decision:
"The question in the former cases was not whether park buildings, museums, or any particular kind of building could be erected on the premises, but whether a building of any kind could be so erected."
4. Alderman Shiller is incorrect that there is nothing new or different about this project. First of all, the Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, as well as the Shedd Aquarium are located outside of the original Grant Park that is protected by the 1836 covenants, which ends at 11th Street. Again, something she would know if she read the court decisions. She'd also know that the Art Institute was only exempted because Ward decided not to challenge it, and no one has since. Ward later said he regretted that decision because he feared it would be used in the future to justify more development on Grant Park. Alderman Shiller has proved him right.
5. Alderman Shiller is incorrect about the loss of public green space. The museum's agreement with the park district not only gives them exclusive use of the building, but also grants them control of the surrounding park land whenever they wish for private events and activities, similar to the Latin School soccer field deal, and subject only to park district approval.
6. The plan Shiller voted for rezones the entire quadrant of the park the size of 1 1/2 football fields, and changes to the design of the building, or the addition of new buildings are allowed as long as they are within the broad parameters set by the zoning application, and will only require the approval on Mayor Daley's Planning Department.
Yellow Dog. I’d add these items to your info-packed post:
ReplyDelete1. Not only does it violate the Burnham Plan, it runs a foul of four Illinois Supreme Court decisions. So do Millennium Park, the Harris Theater etc. but whatever. This isn’t about the merits of any argument or any well-managed process. This is about memorial-making, money (lots of it) and the Mayor’s connected pals.
2. The Children’s Museum can’t stay at Navy Pier because that’s where the casino is going.
3. I don’t know whether or not the Alderman read the court opinions or if she cares what they say. What I do know is the Mayor has more control over TIF dollars than she does ergo Shiller cares about what the Mayor thinks of her. She wants to cut the ribbon on Wilson Yards. I scratch your memorial; you scratch mine.
4. The Art Institute, although it occupies space within the boundaries, has honored, to some degree, part of the covenant by providing free admission on various days and times. Will the Children’s museum do the same?
5. Don’t forget those liquor licenses! Boozy adults, schlepping their kids around an underground bunker. That's what I call an education.
6. Alderman Shiller didn’t vote the way she did because she’s concerned about re-election. That’s three years from now. Politically, that’s a lifetime. No, this was all about Wilson Yards and Shiller’s own bit of memorial-making. Joravsky was spot on.
I don't know about #5 Suzanne. I might be able to handle a trip to the Children's Museum a little bit better after a few vodka tonics. I have one active little tyke! Seriously, though I appreciate your and yellow dog's posts. We'll be following this one in the courts for sure.
ReplyDeleteIt would be funny if you were right Uptown dad, but I'm not putting any money on it. Although, he does like to stick up for Shiller and Joe Moore quite a bit. (two different votes on the Children's Mausoleum BTW!)
ReplyDeletelove in the 48th ward: I gotta admit, as I sit typing this reply and sipping on a cocktail now that my lovely, hand-standing, cartwheeling, ever chatty curious child is finally asleep, you have a point; a LOL funny one. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteSuzanne -
ReplyDeleteHere's where things get interesting.
The Art Institute ISN'T honoring the Montgomery Ward decisions. The agreement spelled out in the Ward Decisions calls for the museum to provide free admission all day Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, as well as free admission for all school teachers, community college instructors, and university instructors at institutions within Chicago.
Here's what the 1897 Ward Decision says:
"On March 30 1891, an ordinance was passed giving the right of the World’s Columbian Exposition to construct and maintain the building known as the “Art Institute” on the lake front, the title of the building to vest in the city, but the right to use and occupy the same to vest in the Art Institute as long as it should comply with the terms and conditions in the ordinance, which required free admission to the public on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, with the right to charge admission at other times, though professors and teachers in the public schools and other institutions of learning in Chicago should be admitted free at all times."
And here is the court order:
"the injunction of May 25, 1890, be made perpetual; that the Illinois Central Railroad Company and the city and its officers desist and refrain from occupying any buildings or structure, except such as described In the ordinance of October 21, 1895 upon the tract of land known as “Lake Park”; that they refrain from placing or causing to be placed thereon anything, except for park purposes, and from using, and permitting the use of, any portion thereof for railroad tracks, or such circuses or exhibitions to which the public will not be admitted free; that nothing in the decree shall be held to impair or diminish the rights, etc. of the Illinois Central Railroad Company under the ordinance of October 21, 1895; that the Art Institute, and all necessary improvements thereon, so long as it shall be used in accordance with the terms of the ordinance authorizing its construction, shall be excluded from the operation of the decree."
Sounds like it is probably time to hold the Art Institute to their obligations.
ReplyDeleteYou're right and well read. All I meant to point out is that the Art Institute at least provides SOME free admission (Thursdays and Fridays from Memorial Day to Labor Day, 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. and all day any day with a passport from any public library).
ReplyDeleteThe Harris Theater, on the other hand, provides none. It does provide subsidized space and services to other orgs. which comports some of the spirit but not to regular tax-paying citizens.
Maybe we should print out that bit of the court's decision, laminate it, and present it to the clerk when we want to visit the museum or when we want to attend a performance at the Harris Theater?
An aside: I haven't examined the fine print in a while but it used to be the museum requested "donations" on paid days, not an admission fee, so one was free not to donate and still gain admission. Of course, no one wanted to be the heal that didn't pay so people did.
Alderman Smith just issued a statement about her vote to the Tribune. Here is the link.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-vp0617lettersbriefs0jun17,0,5997500.story
this video raises an important issue:
ReplyDeletefrom the stationary camera angle it is clearly an excerpt from the online City Council video cast, which is not archived for the general public
so an elected official has access to the tape for self-promotional purposes, but the taxpayers who pay for it do not