CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Mr Downtown]

Who is "they?" The Obama Center will have its own restaurant in the building. They're not going to be subsidizing some rival across the street. And where would a new restaurant even go? In front of the high school? Tear down the subsidized senior housing?

I want to imagine a better city 20 years from now, but I can't really absorb the idea that families from out of town are going to be persuaded by some Yelp review to—after visiting the OPC—go have a meal at some restaurant on 71st St.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Who is "they?" The Obama Center will have its own restaurant in the building. They're not going to be subsidizing some rival across the street. And where would a new restaurant even go? In front of the high school? Tear down the subsidized senior housing?

I want to imagine a better city 20 years from now, but I can't really absorb the idea that families from out of town are going to be persuaded by some Yelp review to—after visiting the OPC—go have a meal at some restaurant on 71st St.

Who said anything about subsidizing? I never mentioned anything of the sort, and it would also be stupid. All I meant was that if a developer decided to open up something near there, it would persuade some people to spend a little money nearby. I never said it would change a neighborhood nor lead to a big influx of money. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

[Mr Downtown]

We've certainly seen the large number of restaurants that have thrived near the Museum of Science & Industry. Even during the decades when admission was free, and you could easily leave for lunch and come back.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

We've certainly seen the large number of restaurants that have thrived near the Museum of Science & Industry. Even during the decades when admission was free, and you could easily leave for lunch and come back.

Not sure if this was sarcastic.

MSI’s campus-like setting obviously puts it at a distance from Hyde Park’s restaurant scene. I once walked from MSI into Hyde Park and it was lengthy and terrible (partly because it was pretty cold that day), and that was me alone. Imagine a family with little kids.

Let’s not kid ourselves, the OCS will hardly drive up business to local shops. If Obama actually cared to achieve that (his actions suggest that he doesn’t), he would’ve found space in an existing commercial strip and created his self-monument there.

Instead, he’s going to have a Tower in a Park. People will go there, check it out, then get back in their cars (or the bus) and leave.

[SIGSEGV]

Here's an example of something that is partially driven by the OPL:

https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/5/12...ersity-chicago

I haven't followed the project at all though so maybe it's super defunct now.

[lakeshoredrive]

Does anyone know if there is a planning meeting that is coming up soon for this?

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Not sure if this was sarcastic.

MSI’s campus-like setting obviously puts it at a distance from Hyde Park’s restaurant scene. I once walked from MSI into Hyde Park and it was lengthy and terrible (partly because it was pretty cold that day), and that was me alone. Imagine a family with little kids.

.....

Easiest from MSI is probably to walk up to 55th. But I generally agree. People without a specific plan to spend time in the area are more likely to venture out if they land at a commercial street rather than a park. And the location of the Metra or bus stop don't force visitors to walk past a commercial area. That said, some people who visit MSI do make plans to spend time in HP (Oriental Institute, Chicago campus, etc). I suspect the Obama visitors might skew more toward such people - e.g., less family focused, I would imagine. And MSI is an all-day visit for many so doesn't lend itself to multiple stop trips to the area. The Library could also try some area promotion that encourages visitors to spend more time

[bnk]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/nonpr...ackson-park-10


September 18, 2018 12:07 PM |UPDATED 3 hours ago


City to offer Obama Center 99 years in Jackson Park for $10



The proposed ordinance gets the center one step closer to becoming a reality in the historic park.

...

[chrisvfr800i]

City to offer Obama Center 99 years in Jackson Park for $10

Sickening.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

Sickening.

How so? This is very common practice for Chicago, and really across the nation.

[Notyrview]

Honestly, let's dispatch the firing squad on the Protect Our Parks people. They are the absolute worst.

They cost the city who knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars by cock blocking the lucas museum, for an effing parking lot. And now they want to derail this monument to American achievement, one that will also generate who know how many hundreds of millions of dollars???? Die.

[Mr Downtown]

Ah, the time-honored Chicago no-snitching code. When the mayor is suspected of violating the law, the immediate reaction is to attack those who called the police.

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Ah, the time-honored Chicago no-snitching code. When the mayor is suspected of violating the law, the immediate reaction is to attack those who called the police.

Lol nice try, bucko, but your sloppy mixed metaphor is way off the mark. This has nothing to do with policing or ferreting out corruption and everything to do with very small group of irrational naysayers preventing boatloads of progress for the rest of this fair city. So we get a tailgating parking lot instead of a world class tourist attraction; and for sure let's prevent the first black president from honoring his legacy of being the least corrupt politician we've seen in our lifetime. The group and the law it's cloaking itself suck.

[Mr Downtown]

So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?

Sounds like American politics

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?

I think you can admit that there are Permit Pattys out there who will use the law as a tool for harassment or simply to make life difficult for the other side in order to get what they want. We can all agree that the law needs to be respected; but a blind appeal to the law--without regard for the underlying justification for it or the context--is just legalism.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So you're only in favor of the rule of law when you agree with the verdict?

You are like some kind of weird urban planning patent troll.

Just because something can be found to be "the law" in a court doesn't mean it is right or the best course of action. And yes, the State and City could have just changed the law to correct the loophole the parking lot fiends used, but how great would that have been, to break a policy designed to protect the public way just because some group of nitwits decided to abuse it to push their troll agenda?

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

the State and City could have just changed the law to correct the loophole the parking lot fiends used

Yeah, you'll probably want to do further research before filing your amicus brief.

The Public Trust Doctrine is federal common law. It's doubtful that even Congress could change it.

[Laife Fulk]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, you'll probably want to do further research before filing your amicus brief.

The Public Trust Doctrine is federal common law. It's doubtful that even Congress could change it.

By definition of it being common law, any new statue passed by Congress and signed by the President immediately supersedes common law. The courts have the right to judicial review and could find the law to be unconstitutional, but common law exists only in the absence of statutory law. Since The Public Trust Doctrine comes from Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and was ratified in Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee years later, Congress absolutely has the ability to enact new legislation to create new, superseding federal law.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Laife Fulk

By definition of it being common law, any new statue passed by Congress and signed by the President immediately supersedes common law. The courts have the right to judicial review and could find the law to be unconstitutional, but common law exists only in the absence of statutory law. Since The Public Trust Doctrine comes from Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) and was ratified in Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee years later, Congress absolutely has the ability to enact new legislation to create new, superseding federal law.

Welcome to the forum!