What I Learned About Chicago 2016

I was unaware that Chicago 2016 puts insurance in place to protect the host city from unprecedented financial problems. I thought that if a city's financing fell through or construction was not completed on time, it would be the city's responsibility to cover those expenses. I did not know that there were options for that type of insurance. It is surprising to see all the layers of insurance that are created for the host city.

In the meeting, I learned that there is insurance in case the event is cancelled and if the city did not meet completion deadlines. The IOC provides some insurance in all those cases, in addition to the state and city. The federal government would also provide some money if Chicago received the 2016 Olympics.

It is beneficial that there is insurance in place to protect the taxpayers from covering financial problems that could arise from poor planning or unprecedented setbacks. Even though the committee for the 2016 bid says that this could all be done without an increase in taxes, many feel that is unrealistic. The insurance plans in place could prevent an even higher tax increase than one that may be necessary.

I was interested in the fact that there are so many agreements put in place, before Chicago even knows whether it will host the Olympic Games or not, regarding how labor will be distributed for the preparation for the Olympics. There are also agreements in place regarding what type of housing the structures created for the Olympics will be converted to. The labor is categorized by race, gender, and whether it is an apprenticeship position. The creation of housing is categorized by affordability.

It was very interesting to see the controversy regarding these agreements. There are arguments over whether the percentages for labor distribution are right and what affordability really means in the neighborhoods where the housing will later be created. Jay Travis and Alderman Toni Preckwinkle had very different views on affordability and whether that definition was even up for debate.

I think that meetings like these are needed now because this argument needs to be resolved soon. If Chicago gets the bid, construction will start shortly after and there will not be a lot of time for debate on labor distribution. The housing argument may take longer since that policy will ultimately not go into effect until after the games.

At this meeting, I was very surprised to learn that after October 2nd the public has very little say in Olympic planning. Although I knew that the Olympics is not publicly run, I thought that since public funds would probably be used, the citizens' opinion would matter. In the meeting, it seemed that the public opinion only mattered long enough to keep the citizens pacified until Chicago found out who received the opportunity to host the games.

I would have thought, especially in a democracy, that public