I wasn't aware of that. I'm not going to defend any sweetheart deals the MCA got. But government land and public land are not the same thing. Armories, like most government buildings are not open to the public for recreational use.
Should the armory land have been turned into parkland? Maybe. But it wasn't a park yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch
of course Lucas was serious, he was fighting the FotPL lawsuit, he had SCB working on construction documents and he had purchased a home in the city...
you have yet to really prove that all of the institutions in our parks throughout the city are in any way an actual detriment... they are all, almost without exception (not sure about the benefits of a NFL stadium to the park), rather a huge benefit to the city and to the activity in the parks in which they reside, which can be easily proved...
|
Suing for free parkland ($10 for 99 years) doesn't count as being serious.
I don't have to prove that buildings in parks are a detriment. Rather, those who want to seize parkland need to show that there is absolutely no other place those buildings could be built. And that these institutions that all charge admission are economically not viable if they have to pay for land like everyone else.
What if Amazon pulls a Lucas and says they'll bring 50,000 jobs to Chicago, but only if they can have a lakefront campus. In Lincoln Park. Wouldn't that be a benefit to the city and increase activity in the park?
This is a real question. Why should Lucas and Obama get Chicago parkland but not Jeff Bezos?