Jump to content

Chicago's Olympic Undertaking


simon

Recommended Posts

Yes I can create a website too..that doesn't mean that all the information is factual... "Dr." Jay Stone is a qwack and has a personal vendeta against Daley...Not that he shouldn't....but do some research and you'll see that he's creating conspiracy theories and stating them as fact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not doubting the document, as far as I can tell looks unaltered and true... my problem is the spin that is being played on the document. Cities, Municipalities, and entities lower that the State level may legally pass an ordinance where state law does not preempt the ordinance, where the ordinance is not in conflict or attempts to supersede any state law. The question underlying is the backing of a privately funded event backed by state funds... Since the Chicago bid is the only bid using majorily private financing the state technically can't support private industry. The city ordinance allows the city to back the funding to provide further security for the IOC by the city while still keeping it a privately funded and sponsored event.

This happens all the time and is not "the Daley Machine" at work...as the "Dr." states...There are numerous examples of ordinances the city has that differ from state law because as with most laws, they are not flexible enough to deal with the range of scenarios that can differ from the state to city level. Ordinances provide this flexibility...Examples: Gun laws, parking laws, residency laws..etc...

Believe what you want, thats why you're entitled to your opinion but at least do some research and make it educated... I'm not the biggest Daley supporter but most of the stuff No Games hands out is BS to scare people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the letter it's Daley himself who says it would violate state law to sign the Host City Contract.

The City Council action was great, but they can't overrule state statutes.

You haven't read the state statue have you? Put some leg work in bud.... rather than basing your entire argument on what the letter states. I have it's a matter of liability at the state level it's not overruling anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they've fixed it since the Olympic Undertaking was sent in, that would be great.

Which statute are you referring to?

They haven't fixed anything state wise nothings broken. Start reading through Chapter 65 of the Illinois Statues, and if you can't do your own research to prove a point then you have no point. Start reading it's some good bedtime material...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather have people who ask questions than just people that follow any day... this is why countries who hold the games loose money...They don't have people asking/allowed to ask the what if's... "There are no foolish questions and no man becomes a fool until he has stopped asking questions"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, looking at it:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/ilstatutes/65

I don't see anything that addresses Daley's three specific legal issues in his letter to the IOC.

There is a "2016 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES ACT." But that doesn't address Daley's three problems.

Actually the article you just stated is effective as of 4-3-09 and addresses everything olympic including most of the points in the letter.

Easier to read version of Chapter 65:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5...ic+Games+Act%2E

Ordinance passed:

http://www.chicityclerk.com/headlines/2009...r%20Olympic.pdf

Keep reading...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noncontroversial stuff in that law. Run of the mill Olympic tweaks every bid does.

If they had dealt with the controversial issue of government immunity, for example, it would have generated huge press clips. Like the Council's action did.

And that state law was passed long before Daley changed course and said he'd sign the standard contract. So the law that fixes the problems in Daley's letter to the IOC would need to be after June.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noncontroversial stuff in that law. Run of the mill Olympic tweaks every bid does.

If they had dealt with the controversial issue of government immunity, for example, it would have generated huge press clips. Like the Council's action did.

And that state law was passed long before Daley changed course and said he'd sign the standard contract. So the law that fixes the problems in Daley's letter to the IOC would need to be after June.

The problem is your taking the generalized languge to specifically... The letter was originally intended to show legal issues with the host city contract. Not to say that Chicago could not sign but to show full transparency in legal discrepancies. This is where the No Games site is incorrect which was originally in question. As stated on the no games site -"If Mayor Daley believed the city couldn’t sign a financial guarantee contract for the IOC, why was one proposed and passed by the Chicago City council? " (This is taken out of context) One was not proposed and passed it had already passed in the state amendment, what was passed by the city council was the ability for Daley to sign off on a guarantee..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, which state amendment addresses immunity etc.? I'm only seeing noncontroversial stuff in that law. Nothing that gets to the issues in the letter. And why should it? Daley was still assuming there would be amendments to the IOC's contract when this state law passed. He only changed course months later.

If I were the IOC and got a letter from the mayor saying a key section of my contract on immunity is, "under Illinois law ... unenforceable against this City" I'd want that law amended.

But maybe the IOC leaders are ok with a bit of a legal problem. And are content with the symbolism of the Council action. It's always better to have a bid win than to have the others lose. But then again maybe the IOC members look at it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, which state amendment addresses immunity etc.? I'm only seeing noncontroversial stuff in that law. Nothing that gets to the issues in the letter. And why should it? Daley was still assuming there would be amendments to the IOC's contract when this state law passed. He only changed course months later.

If I were the IOC and got a letter from the mayor saying a key section of my contract on immunity is, "under Illinois law ... unenforceable against this City" I'd want that law amended.

But maybe the IOC leaders are ok with a bit of a legal problem. And are content with the symbolism of the Council action. It's always better to have a bid win than to have the others lose. But then again maybe the IOC members look at it differently.

Okay Simon now you're just rambling...legal code and wording is different all over the world... good luck with that and the conspiracy theories buddy... I'll waive as I walk by you and the no games people who I'm sure make as great of points as you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has become pretty obvious now that the Nogameschicago group has sent out e-mails to their uneducated anti-anything-relating-to-daley-or-obama sheep with links to this forum.

I guess I'm just surprised it took them so long.

Given what I've seen, I don't see their participation here as having much impact - IOC members have enough to consider and likely wouldn't have much patience or time to pay attention to posters or an opposition group that departs so far from reality. It seems fairly easy to refute their points if they're out in the open - rather than bounced back and forth in meetings of their supporters and presented on deceptive fliers and web sites.

One of their supporters has also shown her cards as supporting another bid unconditionally (see the promoter of ChicagoansForRio.com) - despite not expressing any knowledge or awareness or reasons to support that bid - and provides another reason to disregard anything they say.

There is also significant cross-support between the NoGamesChicago group and this other bid's local supporters on this forum. This raises suspicions about deeper ties and other forms of support to NoGamesChicago. Should we start to inquire into the source of this group's funds? Or the motivations for their opposition?

I think the local press has done a very inadequate job of investigating this group. Although they provide a useful, constant counterpoint to the Chicago 2016 bid committee, their utility shouldn't discourage questions about their reliability or their motivations.

The Chicago 2016 bid isn't perfect. But it also has very little resemblance to the bid that NoGamesChicago claims to oppose (rather than, of course, the bid that they are now apparently supporting).

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just surprised it took them so long.

Given what I've seen, I don't see their participation here as having much impact - IOC members have enough to consider and likely wouldn't have much patience or time to pay attention to posters or an opposition group that departs so far from reality. It seems fairly easy to refute their points if they're out in the open - rather than bounced back and forth in meetings of their supporters and presented on deceptive fliers and web sites.

One of their supporters has also shown her cards as supporting another bid unconditionally (see the promoter of ChicagoansForRio.com) - despite not expressing any knowledge or awareness or reasons to support that bid - and provides another reason to disregard anything they say.

There is also significant cross-support between the NoGamesChicago group and this other bid's local supporters on this forum. This raises suspicions about deeper ties and other forms of support to NoGamesChicago. Should we start to inquire into the source of this group's funds? Or the motivations for their opposition?

I think the local press has done a very inadequate job of investigating this group. Although they provide a useful, constant counterpoint to the Chicago 2016 bid committee, their utility shouldn't discourage questions about their reliability or their motivations.

The Chicago 2016 bid isn't perfect. But it also has very little resemblance to the bid that NoGamesChicago claims to oppose (rather than, of course, the bid that they are now apparently supporting).

CHItown '16

Hint: Nuzman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...