|
Dear Neighbors,
This week, I voted against the proposal to build a casino on the Chicago River. Fundamentally, the city is placing a bet, under very rushed circumstances, on a proposal that creates concrete problems but promises only uncertain returns.
The Proposed Location
The Bally’s proposed site at Chicago and Halsted is in a rapidly growing residential area, across from already-developed condominium communities. Most disturbing to me, however, is its location on the Chicago River. As you can see from the attached picture, Bally’s plans to include an outdoor entertainment venue (see the outdoor video/stage shown above).
Last week, we discovered that the City had proposed a new license category – a “large outdoor venue” – that would allow 3,000+ seat capacity venues that serve liquor and operate with amplified sound along the river. Venues with this license would be exempt from the city’s noise ordinance from 10:00 am to 10:00 pm every day of the week. The proposal came up at a License Committee meeting to legalize a previously undisclosed use at the old Morton Salt warehouse, which was presented and approved by the Plan Commission and the Chicago Landmark Commission with only a large indoor venue shown.
I protested this ordinance because it runs counter to the 30-year plan for the restoration of the Chicago River, which calls for a “connected greenway along the river [with] . . . overlooks and public parks...natural habitats” for the river to offer a “peaceful, natural contrast to the urban environment.” (Chicago River Design Guidelines, 1999).
As the Chicago Tribune said, “the legislation permitted and encouraged two huge new outdoor entertainment venues, with booze, located in close proximity and both along the Chicago River. All competing with existing music venues like, for example, the still-unrestored Uptown Theatre, which the city long ago committed to restoring.”
This license was created with no input from any affected stakeholders, including Friends of the Chicago River. Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times have editorialized against it:
A temporary casino. Outdoor music venues by the Chicago River. Aldermen are rightly steamed.
Chicago shouldn’t rush to become Din City: The hurried ordinance allowing outdoor amplified entertainment events without oversight is a bad idea.
During the casino hearings, Deputy Mayor Samir Mayekar said the Chicago/Halsted location was preferred because there was a, “robust development plan” for the North Branch of the Chicago River that anticipated a “new entertainment district along the River.” This is not true.
Since 2016, our community led the way in fighting the so-called North Branch Framework plan because it did not include public parks and open space. Never was there a word about a "new outdoor entertainment district" being in the plan for the North Branch. In fact, our community successfully rebuffed efforts by Sterling Bay to include a stadium for soccer and outdoor concerts along the Chicago River in its planned development.
We continue to fight for the North Branch Park and Preserve, an entirely public park and nature sanctuary along the Chicago River. We have just won a feasibility study for this park; however, the ordinance just passed would provide the casino and Sterling Bay with the legal path to build very large outdoor concert venues along the Chicago River – with no public input.
I could not vote for that law, and I could not vote for a casino that permanently destroys the public use and enjoyment of our river for which generations of Chicagoans have fought.
The Proper Location
Lakeside Center at McCormick Place remains the best location for the casino regardless of the operator – its location is easy to access, it has has excellent transportation connections and infrastructure for large crowds is already built. Plus, its location would not burden otherwise vibrant neighborhoods.
Moreover, the Lakeside Center is widely acknowledged to be in bad condition with about $400 million in deferred maintenance and would benefit from outside capital improvements. The City admitted that it hosts only 18 events a year at Lakeside Center. McCormick Place has been losing conventions to other venues even before the pandemic and attendance at trade shows has been declining in the last decade nationwide, a trend that will not reverse due to virtual options.
In 2016, Mayor Emanuel offered to tear down the Lakeside Center to draw the Lucas Museum to Chicago, and as recently as 2019, the Chicago Federation of Labor introduced a bill to demolish it and replace it with a new building. But now, suddenly, the city cannot be without it.
Yet the casino evaluation report rejected it on the fairly weak ground that “Losing even one convention due to a casino could have significant adverse impacts on city and state revenues and jobs." Just plain incredible was the claim that a casino close to the convention center is distracting. McCormick Place’s biggest competitors are – Las Vegas and Orlando. Enough said.
Moreover, as reported in Crain’s, the agency that runs McCormick Place is now preparing to seek its own bidders to repurpose the very same Lakeside Center for “entertainment or other use.”
It strikes me as incredible that a building so long criticized for its declining use is not usable for the casino. The speedy delivery time along with substantially lower infrastructure costs compared to the other competing sites, make Lakeside Center by far the most attractive venue for the new Chicago casino.
The Temporary Casino
Each casino bidder was evaluated on their proposed location for a temporary casino to offer gambling beginning next year. In the end, however, the City chose as the temporary site, the currently vacant Medinah Temple at 600 N. Wabash (last used as a Bloomingdale’s Home Store). The Medinah Temple's location is in the midst of the River North Area, which is now experiencing the highest crime in the 18th District. As my colleague Ald. Reilly (42nd) said, putting an establishment with a 20 hour liquor license in an area that struggles with after hours crime will inevitably lead to more crime as gamblers leave to go to surface parking lots and people leaving the 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. bars will have yet another place to go drink.
Defenders of the casino location have said that Bally’s will pay $2 million a year for “community benefits” that could be used for additional police in the 18th District. To be clear, $2 million dollars will pay for fewer than 25 police officers – that’s eight officers per eight hour shift at best.
The Finances
For decades, the driving reason to have a casino in Chicago has been the belief that special tax revenue from a casino was the key to finally fully fund our police and fire pensions. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today.
Bally’s won the bid, in part, because they promised a non-refundable, upfront payment of $40 million to help the 2023 budget. The City Council Casino committee, of which I was a member, demanded that the $40 million be earmarked for pension payments.
I’ve been advocating for pension reform since I became your alderman in 2011 (see my website for the newsletters I have written on the topic). After the Illinois Supreme Court in 2015 struck down the pension reform law crafted under Governor Pat Quinn, the City was forced to seek new revenue to pay for the long-underfunded pensions. After seven years of effort, for the first time, the city’s 2022 payments for all four of our pension plans will equal the actuarially required contribution that might finally start restoring the plans to fiscal health.
To accomplish this, the City contributed $329 million to pay for pensions above and beyond the property tax, the water and sewer tax (to fund municipal employees pensions), 911 surcharge, library fund and contributions from the enterprise funds. The gambling tax revenues are required by state law to go for pensions. However, the state law’s tax rate of 33 1/3% will not generate enough cash, even based on Bally’s projections, to fill the future pension hole. Chief Financial Officer Jennie Bennett forecast that by 2028, the city would be $40 million short per year based on inflation and raises given to police and firefighters.
As the Sun-Times just observed, “Now you tell us.”
Some of my colleagues voted in favor of the Bally’s casino because, “it’s better than nothing.” As your alderman, it was my duty to seek the best alternative, not just the “better than nothing” alternative. Unfortunately, the process of decision-making, the actual plan presented to us, and the location selected required me to vote No.
| 
