"No Games Chicago" Hosts Olympic Sceptic At Public Forum

Chicagoans can look forward to massive city debt, destruction of public parks, insider deals favoring real estate developers and a full frontal assault on civil liberties if we are awarded the 2016 Olympic Games, according to an expert anti-Olympic organizer in town to speak at a rally set for January 31.

A new grass roots group, "No Games Chicago," has brought Chris Shaw to Chicago to speak at a public forum on Saturday, January 31 at 6:00 p.m. at the University of Illinois Student Center at 750 S. Halsted (as a matter of full disclosure, I'm helping out in the production of this event).

Shaw is a professor in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia and is one of the organizers of and spokesperson for 2010 Watch and a member of the Olympics Resistance Network in Vancouver. He is the author of Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games.

I spoke to Shaw over the phone.

Tom: Why did you get involved in fighting the Olympic Games, which are scheduled to come to Vancouver in the Winter of 2010 .

Chris: "I saw what was happening in Vancouver, that the games would have a serious downside for our city. I'm a scientist. I can do the math and I saw that their economic impact study was a joke. It won't rain money. The Olympic Games always loose money for their host cities."

Tom: What, in your opinion is the real driver behind the effort to bring the games to Vancouver and to Chicago?

Chris: "The local real estate developers usually have their eyes on property they need for private development and use the games as a means to acquire property and subsidies to build on it. It's basically a money game."

Tom: So it's actually an effort to publicly subsidize private development?

Chris: "This is part of a larger privatization movement and a local version of a larger global trend - that is, the taking away of the commons and making the public pay for what was theirs. This is about putting the local community on the hook for private gain."

Tom: What about the verbiage about the games making Chicago a "world class city."

Chris: "Well, that's code for making the city over for rich tourists and average people having to move out. Olympic boosterism is like the Nigerian Bank Scam - where they try to hook you by first offering you the opportunity to make a lot of money, then they say you're doing someone a service so you'll feel real good and finally they ask you for your money and you get nothing. They're taking your stuff but they're throwing you a big party."

Tom: The officials of Chicago 2016 say that no public dollars will be spent and that the games will generate billions in economic returns.

Chris: "Mitt Romney, the CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Games, addressed the Vancouver Trade Council and told them something they didn't want to hear, namely that the Olympics generate no economic gains for a host city. He told them that there is no economic reason to hold the games - only patriotic reasons. He said that spikes in tourism are balanced by residents leaving the region for the duration of the games and a depression in tourism following the games."

Tom: So how have the games affected Vancouver so far?

Chris: "The costs have gone through the stratosphere. It's $7 billion so far - that we know about. The security costs alone will be $1 billion. We have taken on massive debt that will probably take 30 years to pay off. Montreal, which hosted the 1976 Summer Games, retired its debt in 2006. The environment has suffered - with over 100,000 tress cut down, mostly old growth and the games are estimated to pump out an overall increase in carbon dioxide of 5% over current levels. There will be 15,000 soldiers on our streets next year with massive surveillance programs already under way. There will be cameras on every street corner with face recognition software and voice recognition software for the phone lines. We are facing a freaking nightmare for civil rights." [Chris has written extensively about the criminalization of poverty and homelessness that has become a new policy for Vancouver]

Tom: So how would this play out for Chicago?

Chris: "The Winter games tend to come in at $10 billion and the Summer games should cost a total of $20 billion. I've heard laughable estimates of security for the Chicago bid at $45 million. Total security for the Vancouver games are at $1 billion, with the city's share at least $100 million. So look at the total costs you would be taking on. It took Montreal 30 years to pay off their Summer games. Can your city take on such a burden?" [Read the story in the Vancouver Sun: "Olympic bill tops $6 billion"]

Tom: So how can Chicagoans hope to stop this from happening to us?

Chris: "The only way to derail this freight train is to make the International Olympic Committee believe that it's a bad idea to give Chicago the games - that they're going to get more grief than joy if they come here. You have to show them that there is significant opposition to the games here. The IOC intensely dislikes this sort of controversy."

Chris Shaw will be the keynote speaker at a public forum, "Why We Should Say 'NO' to the Chicago 2016 Olympic Bid" at the University of Chicago Center, 750 E. Halsted Street, Room 605, on Saturday, January 31, starting at 6:00 p.m.

The other speakers will be:

- Deborah Taylor of Southside Together Organizing for Power (STOP) and Lake Park East Tenants Association
- Karen Lewis of the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE)
- Willie J.R. Fleming of the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and the Chicago Independent Human Rights Council.

Here is what Chris has to say to us regarding his overall experience in Vancouver.

Chicago Should Avoid Following in Vancouver's Olympic Missteps

I look back to 2003 and what is happening with Chicago's Olympic bid is eerily reminiscent of Vancouver's successful bid six years ago. Then, as now, bid boosters were promising local citizens the world: fame, wealth, and the host of goodies that would flow from a nod from the IOC. Vancouver's then mayor promised that the 2010 Games wouldn't cost the citizens 'one penny", that provincial and federal funds would be leveraged for local needs, and that the entire process would be completely transparent and accountable. Bid organizers promised a host of goodies including "the greenest Games ever", an arts legacy, and "social inclusivity" (short hand for social housing). It was a lovely dream and many Vancouverites bought into it. In a non-binding Vancouver plebiscite, some 64% of Vancouverites voted for the bid to go forward. The same question was not put to the rest of the province of British Columbia because the sitting Premier knew it would fail miserably.

Six years later, a majority of Vancouverites who supported Vancouver's bid are having serious second thoughts as the early predictions of the "nay sayers" and "party poopers" are turning out to be frighteningly accurate. Those who opposed bringing the Games to Vancouver, and I was one of them, noted that cost estimates for staging the Games were vastly underestimated while at the same time as the benefits were grotesquely overestimated.

We were right, and in spades. In the run up to the IOC's decision, Vancouver's mayor had said the Games wouldn't cost us one penny, but the reality was quite different: construction costs at city venues blossomed to finally approach a $100 million shortfall. Three hundred million dollars more were dumped into an ill-considered subway line that may have been influential for the bid but was not a solution for local transportation. Security costs to be born by Vancouver are still unknown, but could easily be $100 million for the city alone. Endless 'hidden" costs have also accumulated. Finally, as the final blow, Vancouver's choice of the developer for the Athletes' Village went insolvent forcing the city to take over the project and putting it on the hook for nearly $1 billion.

Taken all together, the city with an operating budget of under $900 million and a property endowment fund of about $1.4 billion found itself facing a nearly $2 billion dollar Olympic debt. In brief, with a combination of bad planning and an utter lack of due diligence, Olympic boosters had brought Vancouver to the brink of bankruptcy. The overall cost to all levels of government for the 2010 Games will likely come out at about $10 billion. London's 2012 Games, a likely harbinger for Chicago, is now, five years in advance, already at nearly $20 billion in projected costs.

The financial headaches are only part of the overall meltdown. Building the various venues and roads had not given us the greenest Games ever, but the opposite: over 100,000 trees cut down (much of it old growth), endangered species habitat destroyed or threatened, wetlands bulldozed, and a massive
3.5 megatons of carbon dioxide released before the Games are over.

Poverty continues to climb in Vancouver with an estimated 3,000 homeless on our streets. The best the city and provincial government can come up with so far is a plan to move these "eyesores" away from the city before the Olympics start in February 2010.

Civil liberties? Forget them. The security services have now concluded that the potential for domestic protests against the Games is a greater threat than Al Qaeda and legislation at all levels of government is aimed at suppressing legitimate dissent. Since those opposed to the 2010 Games don't plan to simply give up and lie down, we now face the prospects of preventative arrests and the widespread suppression of civil liberties. If the current trends continue, February 2010 will see massive clashes between protesters and police.

So if this is Vancouver's past, present, and future experience with the Olympics, what should Chicagoans think and do?

First, look at all the facts and the real history of the modern Games. Evaluate the bid organizers' claims with the greatest skepticism since just like those of the Vancouver boosters, they will turn out to be illusions if not complete lies. Determine what real estate projects the boosters want you, the taxpayer, to fund for their benefit using Olympic dollars. Consider the impact on the environment, the poor, and the democratic process. Consider the overall cost and don't be swayed by arguments that claim that hosting the Games will bring economic benefits. The latter is an utter falsehood at the best of times. In the current economic circumstances, it is criminally irresponsible. Finally, think what the billions of dollars wasted on a three week circus could actually do for your community.

For Vancouver, it's too late. The circus is coming to town, the money largely spend, the damage done. And the best we can do is to limit the fallout. Chicagoans still have a choice in the matter and have to show the IOC that the Games are not right for Chicago. The time to stop the bid is now, not after it has won. Look to Vancouver's experience and you will see your future. If you stop the Games from coming to Chicago now, those of us in Vancouver will know that we have saved at least one future city from the
Olympic machine.

For more information on No Games Chicago, contact [e-mail] or call Bob Quellos at 773-531-2341.

Comments

[Mahi Joe]

I don't understand this unholey alliance between Daley (Dem) and Ryan (staunch Rep).

[Tom Tresser]

It's about the money, Mahi Joe. Here's how Dr. Chris Shaw lays it out in his book, "Five Ring Circus - Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games." He describes how Jack Pole, the chairman of the Vancouver Olympics, and one of the wealthiest real estate developers in the province, addressed a room full of real estate developers in June of 2002: "If the Olympic bid wasn't happening we would have to invent something."

Don't be fooled by cliches like "The games will make Chicago a world class city!" or "It's for the kids!" or "The city will make billions in tourism!"

[47th]

Thanks Tom, for this article. I live in Chicago and see little support for the Olympics, and zero support for paying for the Olympics. If cost overruns are in the billions in Vancouver, can you imagine what will happen in Chicago? Scary.

[Tom Tresser - Huffpost Blogger]

Everything has a cost. Dr. Allen Sanderson, an economist at the University of Chicago, estimates that the 2016 Committee will spend about $100 million all in for the bid - win or loose. This sum includes money from our major foundations and corporate sponsors. What could have $100 million done for Chicago? How would have spent that money?

[Mahi Joe]

We also should remember Millenium Park as a good example of cost overruns. Millenium Park went way over budget and Daley had to get the additional money from private corporations. Many of these same corporations which donated to MP are either asking for Government bailout money or downsizing and it is doubtful that when time comes for Daley to put the squeeze on these corporations for additional money it won't be there, then what? Who pays then?

[ChiProgressive]

The consensus among fellow Chicagoans (roughly 70%) is that this is just a ploy by the Mayor without any concern for the city's future. When asked about his pimping (leasing) of city resources, he flat out stated that he is not thinking about the future. I know someone else who is cuckoo for cocoa puffs Mr. Daley.

[Tom Tresser - Huffpost Blogger]

I just came from the forum described in the article. Some 200 people filled up the meeting room and the speakers were passionate and well informed. I'll summarize the meeting in another post shortly. But suffice it to say the organizers have tapped into a deep wellspring of dissatisfaction with the way Chicago is financed and run. The moderator explained that the 2016 Committee was denied a request to have a seat on the panel as they have dominated all the meetings and pr efforts about the games to date. Instead, No Games Chicago invited the 2016 Committee to a public debate on TV or radio. There is a rumbling going on.

[Tom Tresser - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, you raise a very valid point. How many pr flacks does the city employ? How much money has the 2016 Committee spent on publicity? Has our local media been aggressive in questioning all the fluff put out by the Committee? For that matter - where has been our good government and community-oriented civic organizations on this issue?

Why don't folks call these organizations and ask them where they stand on the Olympics:

- Friends of the Parks
- OpenLands
- The Sierra Club
- Chicago Commons
- The urban League
- The NAACP
- The Heartland Alliance
- Chicago Rehab Network
- Better Government Association
- Metropolitan Planning Council
- The Civic Federation
- Landmarks Illinois

If they think the Olympics are good for Chicago, let them say and prove it.

[Mahi Joe]

Add one more to your list -The Average Chicagoan

[Kinker]

In a worldwide recession/depression, I'm all in favor of hosting the 2016 games. As a tradesman in Chicago, I think this is the best chance for myself and the fellow trades to keep working in this economy. When we work, it helps everyone. I'm crossing my fingers we get the games.

[47th]

I hope you are able to keep working in your trade. As a taxpayer in Chicago however, I don't want to see it at my expense! The potential for corruption and waste in this project make the Millenium Park and Soldier Field projects look like small potatoes. Go Rio! (or anywhere else besides Chicago.)

[Tom Tresser - Huffpost Blogger]

You have to ask yourself - what is the cost of providing a job? What are we building with our scarce dollars? Are we building something that will last and that will benefit ALL Chicagoans -- things like parks, clinics, schools and improved mass transit. Are the jobs long lasting and sustainable? Or do we throw billions at an event that lasts but two weeks and creates temporary jobs at huge cost and debt?
I vote for spending money on a very simple - yet tremendously difficult to achieve goal - getting every public school child in Chicago to read at or ABOVE grade level by 2016. Now that would TRULY make Chicago a world class city of citizens ready to compete on the world stage.

[ignoranceabliss]

This article just shows that Ophthalmologists can't count (that's right, Chris Shaw is an eye doctor - some fine credibility and expertise that is. Since when are eye doctors city planners, economists, social experts, or business people?). His figures are way, way off....in the absolutely worse case scenario, the Games will cost Canada $4-billion. There are many things he lists that are completely not true and incorrect or Olympic costs that would have been built or without or the Games, infrastructure that is needed for the future growth of the region. And at the same time, capital costs that are indeed Olympic costs will benefit the region long after the Games. Contrary to this article, Vancouver is perhaps the most post-Games legacy-oriented Olympics.

Every venue after the Games will be well-used, will hardly be white elephants, and the City of Vancouver certainly won't be in $2-billion in debt. Those numbers came out of nowhere.

I can only hope Chris Shaw is right about the circus coming to Vancouver, that way when the circus leaves it can take all the clowns with it.

If there is advice I can give to Chicago, build an Olympic and venue plan that focuses on the post-Games legacy. Do not strive to build white elephant starchitectures we saw at Athens and Beijing. In addition, I am sure that any transportation infrastructure built for the Chicago Games will benefit the region for generations to come.

[Tom Tresser - Huffpost Blogger]

- Why can't educators, scientists, writers and others who are concerned about an issue become involved in that issue? "city planners, economists, social experts and business people" - i would argue have made a long list of wrong decisions about city policy - about national fiscal policy and a long list of other policies. It was the "experts" who took us to war on a lie. It was the "experts" who sold junk bonds and created fantasy financial instruments that crashed and burned and that we "non-experts" willl now pay for. No, I say, we need many more such activists such as Prof. Shaw sticking their noses into the territory of the so-called "experts."

- Is hosting the Olympics is the only way to get much needed infrastructure for the city? Chicago tax-payers are the victims of a quadruple hit of incompetence and wrong-headed fiscal policy: (1) an over-militarized federal budget that drains billions of dollars from Chicago every year, (2) a wildly incompetent state government, (3) a clownish county government whose board president inherited his job and who has given us the biggest county tax in the U.S.A. while continuing to hire friends and relatives, and (4) a corrupt and secretive city government that drained over $550 million in property taxes away from needy city operating bodies (parks, schools, libraries, etc) via the Tax Increment Finance program. My point is - we are paying enough to get our infrastructure fixed.

[dragon2005]

After the olympics, to what uses do you envision for the the leftover village and stadiums? It seems like every sports team in town already has a home.

I think Chicago and most of it's non-real estate residents could pass on the games and put our tax dollars to better use.

[ignoranceabliss]

The venues can be modified not for sport teams, but for everyday community and recreational use for the general public to enjoy.

And in the case of the Summer Games, MANY venues can be temporary.