Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The rest of the story
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Quick remap update
Posted in:
* Recent Sun-Times editorial…
The proposed developer of One Central Chicago, the megaproject planned for the Metra property west of Soldier Field, seems to be papering the town as of late with new renderings of the planned initial phase of the $20 billion effort.
The images are impressive, depicting a transit and entertainment hub featuring a series of sleek indoor and outdoor spaces devoted to restaurants, gatherings and other assorted happenings — all teeming with people and built on a 32-acre rail yard between the stadium and the Central Station development.
We like the images. But here’s one thing we don’t like: The project’s developer, Landmark Development, wants state taxpayers to ultimately buy the transit portion of the facility for $6.5 billion in 20 years.
Given the state’s perpetual shaky fiscal climate, the notion of forking over that kind of cash should’ve been run out of town on one of those nearby Metra rails when the One Chicago proposal started making the rounds two years ago.
* And then this happened…
A good old fashioned “Springfield Surprise” greeted me this morning. I found language slipped into an amendment on a large bill that deals with the proposed #onecentral project. It essentially weakens the parameters and accountability for this $6.5B in state funding.
— Rep. Kam Buckner (@RepKamBuckner) October 28, 2021
Yep. It checks out.
* From the synopsis of Senate Amendment 3 to HB594…
Amends the Public-Private Partnership for Civic and Transit Infrastructure Project Act. Changes the definition of “public agency” to mean the Illinois Finance Authority (rather than the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget). Provides that the public agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, shall have the authority and shall take all necessary steps to enter into a public-private agreement with a private entity to develop, finance, construct, operate, and manage Civic and Transit Infrastructure Projects; provided that the final public-private agreement must be approved by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget prior to execution. Requires the public agency to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the public-private agreement is promptly negotiated with the private entity and that the public-private agreement is in substantially final form within 120 days following the effective date of the amendatory Act and to submit a report on the status of the public-private agreement to the General Assembly no later than 120 days following the effective date of the amendatory Act.
* Since Rep. Buckner’s tweet was sent, a brand new Senate Amendment 4 was filed. It’s identical to Senate Amendment 3, but without the One Central stuff.
…Adding… Greg Hinz…
A spokeswoman for Lightford said the clause was part of a larger omnibus bill that she agreed to carry but which was not the senator’s idea. The spokeswoman referred further calls to a spokesman for Senate President Don Harmon, who had no immediate comment.
* Landmark Development…
The original legislation contemplated that the P3 agreement would be handled by Governor’s office or Management and Budget or an agency designated by the State. The amendment does nothing more than assign the IFA as the agency to administer the development of the P3 Agreement and report to the legislature on the status in 120 days. The P3 Agreement will require approval of Governor’s Office of Management and Budget so if anything this heightens “transparency” by having a second agency working on the development of the agreement
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The rest of the story
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Quick remap update
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Scrutinized. Gotta love it. !
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:03 pm
I don’t begin to pretend I understand how all this is done, but can we know who slipped that in?
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:11 pm
They must not think they can make a profit.
Comment by All this Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:22 pm
===The project’s developer, Landmark Development, wants state taxpayers to ultimately buy the transit portion of the facility for $6.5 billion in 20 years.===
That’s not correct. The transit system would take ownership of the station and be responsible for its maintenance once it is paid off. So (a) not the State, and (b) not pay $6.5 billion.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:35 pm
Great work! Rep. Buckner!
Comment by Yossarian Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:37 pm
=So (a) not the State, and (b) not pay $6.5 billion.=
Who securitizes the debt to pay for the project? The state. Dunn has been clear he needs the state sales tax to be able to fund the project. So it is in fact a major liability of the state’s.
Comment by Adroit Opiner Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:41 pm
Transit system gets 50% of their operating revenue from state taxes.
Comment by James the Intolerant Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:46 pm
==all teeming with people and built on a 32-acre rail yard between the stadium and the Central Station development.==
Probably not as many people as expected if and when the Bears move to Arlington Heights.
Comment by NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:01 pm
It’s good to see that at least one legislator reads the bills.
Comment by Nick Nombre Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:14 pm
The state simply cannot afford this. Moreover, Dunn keeps talking about how wonderful this would be for south aide residents. That is total nonsense.
Dunn cares about making big profits, not the south side.
Comment by low level Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:16 pm
==The state simply cannot afford this. Moreover, Dunn keeps talking about how wonderful this would be for south aide residents. That is total nonsense.==
Agreed. And not one transit authority asked for a transportation hub in this location.
Comment by South Looper Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:28 pm
Still think of a development in Aurora that was going to be housing and small professional offices that showed Porsches, Mercedes, and BMWs all parked at the offices.
Suffice to say 10 years later the thing is about 25% developed and has no professional offices and no Porsches.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:38 pm
This smells of Jim Reilly.
Comment by Chicago 20 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:48 pm
-I don’t begin to pretend I understand how all this is done, but can we know who slipped that in?-
Sen. Lightford is the listed sponsor of Senate Floor Amendments 2-4 for HB594. Take that as you will.
Comment by AnonymousFool Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:54 pm
If you search for “LANDMARK VI, LLC AND ITS AFFILIATES” and look at their entry on the SoS lobbyist registration database, you could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Dunn doesn’t retain any contract lobbying firms.
However, if you peruse the full list of registered lobbyists, you’ll find that no fewer than three firms list Landmark VI as a client. Mr. Dunn just never bothered to list them.
Comment by The Opinions Bureau Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:00 pm
It truly is a miracle of our system how language like this just makes its way into bills, but no one ever seems to have put it in there.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:05 pm
==Probably not as many people as expected if and when the Bears move to Arlington Heights.==
The Bears play nine home games each year…many of the attendees drive so they can tailgate before and going straight home after. The presence or absence of the Bears is likely a minor consideration.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:10 pm
=== . So it is in fact a major liability of the state’s ===
While that may be true, that is not the accusation that Buckner made.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:17 pm
== you’ll find that no fewer than three firms list Landmark VI as a client.==
No question, this is Dunn’s lobbyist hiring program.
On another note, local legislators and others need to understand that South Loop residents are active and taking notice. One thing about the South Loop: they vote. In high percentages. Big time.
Comment by low level Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:22 pm
===One thing about the South Loop: they vote. In high percentages. Big time.===
If we always bowed down to the nimby crowd then nothing would ever get built. If they really oppose this project they need to advocate on policy and zoning issues why, not just because they don’t want their views and suburban-like feel while living in a downtown neighborhood altered.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:40 pm
Harmon is sounding to me like he’s pretty much in thrall to someone other than the people who voted for him…just sayin.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:03 pm
=Sen. Lightford is the listed sponsor of Senate Floor Amendments 2-4=
Color me shocked that the Vice Chair of Loretto Hospital is doing a hand wave on how the language got in there…
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:07 pm
==It truly is a miracle of our system how language like this just makes its way into bills, but no one ever seems to have put it in there.==
It’s true. Whenever a legislator gets caught trying to pull a fast one like this, they are never held accountable. They seem to think this is just how the game is meant to be played.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:11 pm
== not just because they don’t want their views and suburban-like feel while living in a downtown neighborhood altered==
Are you familiar with the neighborhood? It’s hardly a suburban feel compared to the tree lined streets in Lakeview, Wicker Park and the Gold Coast.
Comment by South Looper Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:00 pm
Follow the cash flows on this and any other “public private partnership” deal. It’s worthless to have a goose laying golden eggs when one has contracted to give away the eggs (or sell this at a deep discount). Look at the Chicago parking meter deal.
Comment by Ares Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:15 pm
== not just because they don’t want their views and suburban-like feel while living in a downtown neighborhood altered==
The One Central development would wall off our community and bring commercial & commuter foot traffic into a residential neighborhood. An urban planning architect looking to create a commuter hub would NOT choose South Loop. If it has to be next to the lake, put the HUB at McCormick place. It would make more sense to put a Hub central in the city to allow the diversity of commuters access to anywhere they need to be in the city.
Comment by SlooperTRK Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:23 pm
Asking taxpayers to pay $6.5 billion for a transit center based on transit study done by the developer AND NEVER PUBLICLY RELEASED is nothing less than attempted theft. Kuddos to Buckner for catching the thieves in one piece of the heist.
Comment by Ben Tre Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:33 pm
== If they really oppose this project they need to advocate on policy and zoning issues ==
They have been doing that for two years. Now, as sponsor of the amendment, perhaps Senator Lightford can advocate on policy and zoning issues and tell us why this is a good use of state funds.
Comment by low level Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:42 pm
Fantastic work. Rep. Buckner! Reminder. No transit agency in the state identified a needed project at this location prior to the developer coming forward and proposing taxpayers pay for decking so they could build a host of skyscrapers on top. At $6.5 billion, this would be the biggest corporate welfare project in the history of the nation according to Good Jobs First.
Comment by bmcosti Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 5:08 pm
This transit hub is not needed. The Metra and South Shore lines are flag stops in this area. $6.5 billion state tax dollars for an unnecessary transit hub that very few will actually use. This is a complete WASTE of taxpayer dollars. Spend the money to improve current infrastructure that’s crumbling.
Comment by AnonymousSlooper Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 5:19 pm
Someday they will use this project as a textbook example of the shady, last minute, underhanded lawmaking of this era. Hopefully it won’t be sitting, half built, for decades when they do.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 6:22 pm
I love the people complaining about this minor change that makes absolute sense if you actually read the language, but have absolutely no qualms about the way we pass new legislative maps. #hypocrisy
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 8:36 pm
//- Just Me 2 - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 8:36 pm:
I love the people complaining about this minor change that makes absolute sense if you actually read the language, but have absolutely no qualms about the way we pass new legislative maps. #hypocrisy//
I do have qualms about that too, but this convo is about the shady deals monied interests with Landmark almost got a away with and still may if we don’t keep fighting. There are so many priorities that can use $6.5 Billion and a transport hub that nobody wants here is not one of them.
Comment by SloopTRK Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:13 pm