In a Chicago Sun-Times column today, Neil Steinberg reported that Chicago Police Supt. Phil Cline may be tapped to be head planner in charge of drawing up the Chicago 2016 security plans.

Steinberg writes:

I’m all for that. Cline is only 57, with plenty of good years left in him. Why bring in some perfumed security analyst from France who’ll have us all prisoners in our own city, squatting in the sun, our fingers laced behind our necks? A Chicago Olympics should be protected by a Chicago cop, and Phil Cline, for good and ill, is exactly that.

Isn’t this the same guy who just resigned as superintendent? (Cline is serving in the post only until a replacement is found.) In a department where corruption and brutality are almost a welcome part of the work environment (cough, Anthony Abbate) Cline was the great enabler, turning a deaf ear to what went on.

While Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley doesn’t believe the video hurt the city’s chances of getting the Olympics, bringing him on the Chicago 2016 campaign would. Phil Cline doesn’t belong in the mix.

Toni Preckwinkle is no fan of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill these days.

An article in today’s Chicago Sun-Times, reported by City Hall Reporter Fran Spielman, cites 4th Ward Alderman Preckwinkle’s furor over plans for the $1.1 million Olympic Village, slated to be built over a truck staging area at McCormick Place.

Said Preckwinkle, the proposed Village “looks like something dropped from outer space.”

Ouch. All joking aside, though, the alderman questioned the basic motivation of the architects, and in my opinion took a well-deserved shot at Chicago 2016 planners.

“I want it to be like a neighborhood. [What they've proposed] is sort of architectural egotism as opposed to a real neighborhood.”

Architectural egotism…sounds like a trend in Chicago these days…

(NOTE: Check out this graphic listing the proposed Olympic sites.)

Hosting the Olympics in Chicago may not be the best idea

The U.S. Olympic Committee announced today Chicago as its lone bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics in what U.S.O.C. Chairman Peter V. Ueberroth called “a very tough decision.” (Listen to the U.S.O.C. announcement here).

Chicago will be up against a formidable slate of cities rumored to be Madrid, Tokyo, Rome and Rio de Janeiro.

But so far, with a projected price tag well over $1 billion, the question to me still remains: Would having the Olympics in Chicago be a good thing? Already the City of Chicago and State of Illinois have pledged to throw in some dough – $500 million and $150 million respectively – in case the Games were to lose money.

Pardon me, but isn’t this what’s called an investment? Already, the city’s Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority is slated to transfer $125 million from the sale of public air rights and some land near McCormick Place to the Olympic efforts.

Chicago has also unveiled plans to build a $366 million, 80,000-seat temporary stadium in Washington Park and a $1.1 billion lakefront athletes’ village. (Check out a January 2007 Sun-Times article on this risky move.)

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ALERT: Here is the City Council’s authorization for Mayor Daley and Lori Healey, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development to do whatever it takes to make the Games happen, regardless of whether the investment stream dries up. (Check out Section Two of the ordinance.) This means that more money can – and will – be taken from the city and state if (when, really) construction runs over budget.

Listen, folks. New Yorkers didn’t want the Olympics. Do Chicagoans really want it? Will hosting the Games suddenly make Chicago a better city? Let’s be serious.

But then again, if Atlanta can have one… (cough)

NOTE: In case you forgot, here’s why the Chicago 2016 committee thinks you should support the Games.