Does Chicago need 2016 Olympics?

The question of Chicago applying for the 2016 Olympic Games demands more answers than the questions it currently produces.

In order to adequately measure the value of this Olympic bid, one must know the true expectations of costs for the games.

The long-term impact for Chicago has to be simply more than the pride of having the games on our turf.

So far that vision for why the games are important beyond the pride of having them has not been articulated.

I have heard Mayor Daley say the pride in Chicago argument. But, then I have heard him pine for a domed stadium, a world's fair and a casino for Chicago. Those were pipe dreams that fortunately were not built. Those lost dreams saved Chicago taxpayers immense amounts of debt.

History shows awarding Olympic Games to cities having achieved something of note. Chicago has survived since 1833, but that hardly creates an argument for a "noteworthy" city applying for the 2016 games.

The city has 16 reasons the games will benefit Chicago. Most is a list of very weak reasons to expend the billions of dollars of public funds that will be necessary. The most dubious is who will live in the lakefront housing to be created for the short-term use by athletes and their handlers.

One aspect of analysis is to measure what would be gained long-term for the city because of the games?

Would there be new housing, employment, new technologies, public transportation, or health benefits for the 21st Century and beyond?

One thing apparent now is how inadequate the public transportation is. It's more than the occasional derailments on the more than 100-year-old transportation system. Or the fact that people still live in the open parts of Chicago's parks instead of adequate housing. Or the lack of inclusion in the job structure for Chicago's poorest residents. Or the inadequacy of our government in philosophy and operations to manage what they have now.

This letter should be seen as a wake-up call that what has been to date is totally inadequate planning, distribution of information and inclusion in decision making.

What will be the true costs and will we be better off after the two weeks of the games are completed? That doesn't seem too much to ask.

Doug Dobmeyer

Chicago