Quote:A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group hoping to halt construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential center on Chicago's South Side can proceed.

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey, who was nominated to the federal bench by Obama in 2014, ruled that Protect Our Parks has standing to sue the city because it represents taxpayers with concerns that providing land in Jackson Park to the Obama center violates their due process rights. The judge indicated that he doesn't want the litigation to drag on, and that he'll limit any fact-gathering before the trial to 45 days.

The proposed Jackson Park site is seven miles from downtown Chicago, is near low-income neighborhoods where Obama worked as a community organizer, and lies just blocks from the University of Chicago, where Obama was a law professor. It is also close to the home where the Obamas lived until he won the presidency in 2008.

The center would comprise 20 acres of the 500-acre park. Its centerpiece would be a 225-foot museum tower, surrounded by a cluster of smaller buildings, including a 300-seat auditorium. Supporters estimate the project would create 5,000 jobs during construction and over 2,500 permanent jobs. An estimated 760,000 people could visit each year.

Protect Our Parks has accused the city of illegally transferring parkland to the private Obama Foundation, effectively "gifting" prized land to a Chicago favorite son. The group said city officials manipulated the approval process and tinkered with legislation to skirt longstanding laws designed to ensure residents have unobstructed access to lakeside parks.

"Defendants have chosen to deal with it in a classic Chicago political way ... to deceive and seemingly legitimize an illegal land grab," the lawsuit says.

To make the park available for the project, the Chicago Park District first sold the land to the city for $1. Illinois legislators amended the state's Illinois Aquarium and Museum Act to include presidential libraries as an exception to the no-development rules if there's a compelling public interest. The Chicago City Council approved the project by a 47-to-1 vote last May.

The Obama Foundation would pay $10 to the city for use of the parkland for 99 years, cover the costs of building the complex and be responsible for covering operating costs for 99 years. Once built, the Obama Presidential Center's physical structures would be transferred to the city for free, meaning the city would formally own the center but not control what happens there.

"They are essentially giving [property] to Obama ... for 10 cents a year for 99 years," parks advocacy lawyer Mark Roth said Thursday.

In his ruling Tuesday, Blakey threw out a claim that taxpayers' First Amendment rights would be infringed upon because tax money would be spent to reconfigure roads and traffic. The suit argued that taxpayers would thus subsidize any partisan political activity by Obama at the center.

City lawyers conceded Thursday that Chicago would pay an estimated $175 million to reconfigure roads to manage traffic around the center, but they also argued that Protect Our Parks misread the law, misrepresented how the approval process played out and exaggerated potential environmental disruptions.

The center was originally slated to open in 2021, though ground hasn't yet broken because of the lingering litigation. Some supporters of the project fear that ongoing litigation might lead Obama to decide to build the center somewhere else.

Link

What a waste of a lawsuit. If they don't build it there, the University of Chicago will find a way to put it on its campus just like George H.W. Bush (Texas A&M) and George W. Bush (SMU) did. Clinton's library is pretty much in a city park too in Little Rock (although a much less visited park - I've driven past that area maybe a hundred times and never once thought of stopping). Jackson Park is actually a phenomenal place for a presidential museum. It's minutes away from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and adding a presidential museum would be a natural way to ease the congestion of that museum (which I went to two years ago and hated because it was like being in rush hour in the NYC subways).

(02-20-2019 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What a waste of a lawsuit. If they don't build it there, the University of Chicago will find a way to put it on its campus just like George H.W. Bush (Texas A&M) and George W. Bush (SMU) did. Clinton's library is pretty much in a city park too in Little Rock (although a much less visited park - I've driven past that area maybe a hundred times and never once thought of stopping). Jackson Park is actually a phenomenal place for a presidential museum. It's minutes away from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and adding a presidential museum would be a natural way to ease the congestion of that museum (which I went to two years ago and hated because it was like being in rush hour in the NYC subways).

And if it was a Republican library you would be all in favor of the lawsuit.

Maybe they like their park. Let U of Chicago put it on their own land.

I read where it is nothing more than a temple to Obama. They wobt even have his archives there. I guess worst sitting President isnt enough, he also wants to be worst ex president

(02-20-2019 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What a waste of a lawsuit. If they don't build it there, the University of Chicago will find a way to put it on its campus just like George H.W. Bush (Texas A&M) and George W. Bush (SMU) did. Clinton's library is pretty much in a city park too in Little Rock (although a much less visited park - I've driven past that area maybe a hundred times and never once thought of stopping). Jackson Park is actually a phenomenal place for a presidential museum. It's minutes away from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and adding a presidential museum would be a natural way to ease the congestion of that museum (which I went to two years ago and hated because it was like being in rush hour in the NYC subways).

And if it was a Republican library you would be all in favor of the lawsuit.

Maybe they like their park. Let U of Chicago put it on their own land.

No I wouldn't. I was actually bummed when Rice didn't get either of the Bush libraries.

ETA - actually I don't think Houston was ever really in the running for Dubya's library. But the city of Houston absolutely was in the picture for H.W.'s library. Rice probably would have had to donate the land where the track stadium was (right near the Medical Center), and that would have been a great spot. But ultimately, I think the Bush family liked the fact that they could get much more land in College Station and that's where it ended up going.

I wonder how much good that $500,000,000.00 dollars would do if it was spend on the poor and suffering of Chicago instead of building a "Presidential Center".

The left always wants to talk about how they care about those suffering... and then want to spend half a billion dollars on a vanity project.

In other news this shows very clearly how rich people get from being in power. How does he have a foundation worth over half a billion? Before running for president he wasn't known by that many people... a decade later... half a billion dollar foundation.

put it in Hawai'i and it'll make money off tourists...

Quote:The eight-acre parcel of land is on the city's spectacular waterfront, looking out on Waikiki Beach and Oahu's iconic Diamond Head peak. Another perk, Ige noted, is that this slice of paradise is already owned by the state.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/politics/...index.html

(02-20-2019 06:31 PM)q5sys Wrote:  this shows very clearly how rich *Some* people get from being in power. How does he have a foundation worth over half a billion? Before running for president he wasn't known by that many people... a decade later... half a billion dollar foundation.

Edited (in bold).

Harry Truman was Senator, Vice President, and President for a combined 18 years. He was by no means impoverished after that experience, but neither was he wealthy. He was offered many financial opportunities after leaving office but declined all of them, except for selling his memoirs to Life magazine, which was a big part of 1950s-media. The price was huge, but also heavily taxed. By 1958 he couldn’t make ends meet and Eisenhower signed the Former Presidents Act of 1958 basically to provide Truman with a pension ($25,000 in 1958) and a secretary to help answer his mail.

(02-20-2019 06:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  put [Obama’s library] in Hawai'i and it'll make money off tourists...

I’m sure Hawaii would be happy to have it. But they’ve already maxed out on tourism.

(02-20-2019 07:15 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 06:31 PM)q5sys Wrote:  this shows very clearly how rich *Some* people get from being in power. How does he have a foundation worth over half a billion? Before running for president he wasn't known by that many people... a decade later... half a billion dollar foundation.

Edited (in bold).

Harry Truman was Senator, Vice President, and President for a combined 18 years. He was by no means impoverished after that experience, but neither was he wealthy. He was offered many financial opportunities after leaving office but declined all of them, except for selling his memoirs to Life magazine, which was a big part of 1950s-media. The price was huge, but also heavily taxed. By 1958 he couldn’t make ends meet and Eisenhower signed the Former Presidents Act of 1958 basically to provide Truman with a pension ($25,000 in 1958) and a secretary to help answer his mail.

I didnt mean to infer everyone, I thought it was obvious I was not speaking of 100% of people in power, since no human psychological behavior is present 100% of the time.
But your point stands, I could have been more clear about it.

Q5, I wasn’t trying to call you out. Didn’t mean it that way at all.

(02-20-2019 05:33 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group hoping to halt construction of former President Barack Obama's $500 million presidential center on Chicago's South Side can proceed.

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey, who was nominated to the federal bench by Obama in 2014, ruled that Protect Our Parks has standing to sue the city because it represents taxpayers with concerns that providing land in Jackson Park to the Obama center violates their due process rights. The judge indicated that he doesn't want the litigation to drag on, and that he'll limit any fact-gathering before the trial to 45 days.

The proposed Jackson Park site is seven miles from downtown Chicago, is near low-income neighborhoods where Obama worked as a community organizer, and lies just blocks from the University of Chicago, where Obama was a law professor. It is also close to the home where the Obamas lived until he won the presidency in 2008.

The center would comprise 20 acres of the 500-acre park. Its centerpiece would be a 225-foot museum tower, surrounded by a cluster of smaller buildings, including a 300-seat auditorium. Supporters estimate the project would create 5,000 jobs during construction and over 2,500 permanent jobs. An estimated 760,000 people could visit each year.

Protect Our Parks has accused the city of illegally transferring parkland to the private Obama Foundation, effectively "gifting" prized land to a Chicago favorite son. The group said city officials manipulated the approval process and tinkered with legislation to skirt longstanding laws designed to ensure residents have unobstructed access to lakeside parks.

"Defendants have chosen to deal with it in a classic Chicago political way ... to deceive and seemingly legitimize an illegal land grab," the lawsuit says.

To make the park available for the project, the Chicago Park District first sold the land to the city for $1. Illinois legislators amended the state's Illinois Aquarium and Museum Act to include presidential libraries as an exception to the no-development rules if there's a compelling public interest. The Chicago City Council approved the project by a 47-to-1 vote last May.

The Obama Foundation would pay $10 to the city for use of the parkland for 99 years, cover the costs of building the complex and be responsible for covering operating costs for 99 years. Once built, the Obama Presidential Center's physical structures would be transferred to the city for free, meaning the city would formally own the center but not control what happens there.

"They are essentially giving [property] to Obama ... for 10 cents a year for 99 years," parks advocacy lawyer Mark Roth said Thursday.

In his ruling Tuesday, Blakey threw out a claim that taxpayers' First Amendment rights would be infringed upon because tax money would be spent to reconfigure roads and traffic. The suit argued that taxpayers would thus subsidize any partisan political activity by Obama at the center.

City lawyers conceded Thursday that Chicago would pay an estimated $175 million to reconfigure roads to manage traffic around the center, but they also argued that Protect Our Parks misread the law, misrepresented how the approval process played out and exaggerated potential environmental disruptions.

The center was originally slated to open in 2021, though ground hasn't yet broken because of the lingering litigation. Some supporters of the project fear that ongoing litigation might lead Obama to decide to build the center somewhere else.

Link

The center was originally slated to open in 2021, though ground hasn't yet broken because of the lingering litigation. Some supporters of the project fear that ongoing litigation might lead Obama to decide to build the center somewhere else.[/quote]


I'd say build it in Kenya for Kenya's favorite son.

These things aren't huge tourist draws. They are usually good for researchers.

I was at UT for 4 years and never once felt the urge to go into the LBJ library right there on campus. I still haven't been to Jimmy Carter and its here in Atlanta. I drive by it all the time.

(02-20-2019 07:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Q5, I wasn’t trying to call you out. Didn’t mean it that way at all.

Nah its cool. I didn't take it that way. I should have been more specific, im just tired so im being a bit less strict in my elocution habits. lol

(02-20-2019 07:15 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 06:31 PM)q5sys Wrote:  this shows very clearly how rich *Some* people get from being in power. How does he have a foundation worth over half a billion? Before running for president he wasn't known by that many people... a decade later... half a billion dollar foundation.

Edited (in bold).

Harry Truman was Senator, Vice President, and President for a combined 18 years. He was by no means impoverished after that experience, but neither was he wealthy. He was offered many financial opportunities after leaving office but declined all of them, except for selling his memoirs to Life magazine, which was a big part of 1950s-media. The price was huge, but also heavily taxed. By 1958 he couldn’t make ends meet and Eisenhower signed the Former Presidents Act of 1958 basically to provide Truman with a pension ($25,000 in 1958) and a secretary to help answer his mail.

(02-20-2019 06:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  put [Obama’s library] in Hawai'i and it'll make money off tourists...

I’m sure Hawaii would be happy to have it. But they’ve already maxed out on tourism.

Maybe Kenya will build it.....

(02-20-2019 06:07 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What a waste of a lawsuit. If they don't build it there, the University of Chicago will find a way to put it on its campus just like George H.W. Bush (Texas A&M) and George W. Bush (SMU) did. Clinton's library is pretty much in a city park too in Little Rock (although a much less visited park - I've driven past that area maybe a hundred times and never once thought of stopping). Jackson Park is actually a phenomenal place for a presidential museum. It's minutes away from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and adding a presidential museum would be a natural way to ease the congestion of that museum (which I went to two years ago and hated because it was like being in rush hour in the NYC subways).

And if it was a Republican library you would be all in favor of the lawsuit.

Maybe they like their park. Let U of Chicago put it on their own land.

No I wouldn't. I was actually bummed when Rice didn't get either of the Bush libraries.

ETA - actually I don't think Houston was ever really in the running for Dubya's library. But the city of Houston absolutely was in the picture for H.W.'s library. Rice probably would have had to donate the land where the track stadium was (right near the Medical Center), and that would have been a great spot. But ultimately, I think the Bush family liked the fact that they could get much more land in College Station and that's where it ended up going.

Not only that but Papa Bush was an associate professor at Rice with the Jones Business School from 1977 to 1980.

[i]

(02-20-2019 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What a waste of a lawsuit. If they don't build it there, the University of Chicago will find a way to put it on its campus just like George H.W. Bush (Texas A&M) and George W. Bush (SMU) did. Clinton's library is pretty much in a city park too in Little Rock (although a much less visited park - I've driven past that area maybe a hundred times and never once thought of stopping). Jackson Park is actually a phenomenal place for a presidential museum. It's minutes away from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and adding a presidential museum would be a natural way to ease the congestion of that museum (which I went to two years ago and hated because it was like being in rush hour in the NYC subways).

Is the Clinton Library in the red light district?

(02-20-2019 05:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What a waste of a lawsuit. If they don't build it there, the University of Chicago will find a way to put it on its campus just like George H.W. Bush (Texas A&M) and George W. Bush (SMU) did. Clinton's library is pretty much in a city park too in Little Rock (although a much less visited park - I've driven past that area maybe a hundred times and never once thought of stopping). Jackson Park is actually a phenomenal place for a presidential museum. It's minutes away from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and adding a presidential museum would be a natural way to ease the congestion of that museum (which I went to two years ago and hated because it was like being in rush hour in the NYC subways).

It seems like the issue is putting it in a park vs in U. of Chicago.

In a crowded city like Chicago, I think it's a legit lawsuit. Any land in Chicago is expensive; buying 19 contiguous acres is phenomenally expensive and time consuming. If U. of Chicago really wants the center, let them put it on their own campus. Or they can buy land at market value from their neighbors.

Big organizations look at parks as easy pickings. The result is fewer and fewer parks over time. $10 for a 99-year lease on 19 acres? That's a HUGE subsidy from the city.

Even in the much smaller city of Cincinnati, residents are super-protective of the 89 acre park adjacent to the University of Cincinnati campus. If the university tried to take 19 acres for ANY reason (like U. of Chicago is trying to do for Obama), residents would fight tooth-and-nail.