Read More

Read More

We’ve reached an “I told you so” moment, dear readers, where I get to say . . .

I told you so!

It was roughly one year ago that I predicted the Bears would probably call upon the good citizens of Arlington Heights to fork over a TIF handout to build their new football stadium on the site of the old race track.

And so it was that last week George Halas McCaskey, chairman of the Bears, held a dog and pony show at Hersey High School in Arlington Heights to say, “yeah, that hippie guy from the Reader had it right. We’re about to sock it to you.”

Okay, McCaskey’s far too smart to put it so bluntly. Instead, he said: “The Bears will seek no public funding for direct stadium structure construction. However . . .”

Get ready, Arlington Heights, cause what comes after “however” is never a joke.

“We will need help,” McCaskey continued. Just like I told you.

Now McCaskey has not mentioned exactly what kind or how much help they will need. But I  think we can all agree that before this is over the Bears will have stuck their big ol’ paw into that Tax Increment Financing honey pot. Courtesy of the Arlington Heights taxpayers.

As a tax paying resident of Chicago all I can say is . . . thank goodness it’s them and not me. For once.

By the way, I made that initial prediction a year ago after an unintentionally funny headline in Crain’s Chicago Business that said:  “A new Bears stadium: Who’d pay for it?”

Like there was any doubt as to the answer to that question.  

This year’s funny headline ran in the Sun-Times. It said:  “The Bears have had preliminary talks with [Governor] Pritzker, lawmakers about subsidies—and no one has slammed the door.”

You know, like the Bears are waiting with baited breath to see if they get what they want.

Call me jaded, people, but I do not believe the Bears would have gone this far—placing an option to buy the old race track and hiring consultants to do traffic surveys—if they weren’t reasonably assured that it was only a matter of time before the handout was theirs.

That means we’ve reached what I call the get-that-official-an-Oscar phase of TIF deals.

I call it that because public officials will conjure their inner Brando as they play the role of unbiased public servants, objectively sifting through the evidence to determine if, in fact, a handout is warranted.

As opposed to having already made up their minds to give the Bears what they want.

If Arlington Heights is anything like Chicago, its leaders will eventually find themselves reassuring taxpayers that, after carefully studying the matter, they’ve concluded that handing over public money to the Bears is in the public’s best interest. So it will be like the Bears are doing the taxpayers a favor, as opposed to the other way around. Along those lines . . .

At last week’s dog and pony presentation, the Bears promised that no public dollars will go to construct the football stadium.

Which is a distinction without much meaning to taxpayers. Since taxpayers will be shelling out money for other parts of the stadium project.

And, really, what difference does it make if public money goes for seats in the stadium, as opposed to the parking lot around the stadium, or the foundation on which the stadium rests, or the roads leading to the stadium and so forth?

It’s still public money helping the Bears pay for their stadium.

Curiously, McCaskey’s pledge undercuts the Bears’ argument that they need money at all. Because if they can afford to build a stadium without a subsidy, why take the subsidy at all?

I’ll say this for the Arlington Heights deal—at least it’s generated some resistance. This one from the right, which has been notoriously silent in regards to Chicago’s TIF scam.

Specifically, opposition comes from the Americans for Prosperity Illinois, a local affiliate of an outfit created by the Koch brothers, those far-right libertarians who’s policies I generally abhor.

But I agree with them here. They say they’re sick and tired of “corporate welfare”. And I say, right on to that.

For all these years, I’ve been watching Mayors Daley, Emanuel and Lightfoot doling out TIF money to wealthy developers on the grounds that it’s an “investment” in Chicago.

And then I watch them turn around and say we can’t afford mental health clinics in poor neighborhoods or librarians and nurses in public schools.

When they give money to rich people, it’s always an “investment”. But when they spend the money on people who really need it, it’s treated like a waste.

So, yes, I find myself in the unlikely position of cheering on the Koch brother bunch. In fact, Brian Costin, one of their leaders, will be a guest on my podcast.

Costin and his allies submitted to the Arlington Heights Village Board over 600 signatures from voters, asking the board to pass an “Anti-Corporate Welfare Ordinance” that would prohibit “offering or extending any financial incentive to any business or corporation to operate in the village”.

If board members vote down that ordinance—as I suspect they will—Costin and his allies will move to Plan B.

They will attempt to gather over 7,000 signatures to a petition that would put the issue on the ballot, probably in next April’s municipal election. In other words, let the voters decide if they want to give public dollars to the Bears.

It’s pretty exciting to watch democracy in action. 

On the other hand, there’s a chance—admittedly, very remote—that they might get their measure on the ballot. And that the voters of Arlington Heights might reject a Bears handout.

In which case, guess what?  The Bears will turn around and look to Chicago for a sweetheart deal, which knowing our mayors, they will probably get.

Just goes to show you, when it comes to TIFs, one way or another taxpayers in Chicago always stand a chance of losing. 

The Latest from the Ben Joravsky Show

Read More

We’ve reached an “I told you so” moment, dear readers, where I get to say . . .

I told you so!

It was roughly one year ago that I predicted the Bears would probably call upon the good citizens of Arlington Heights to fork over a TIF handout to build their new football stadium on the site of the old race track.

And so it was that last week George Halas McCaskey, chairman of the Bears, held a dog and pony show at Hersey High School in Arlington Heights to say, “yeah, that hippie guy from the Reader had it right. We’re about to sock it to you.”

Okay, McCaskey’s far too smart to put it so bluntly. Instead, he said: “The Bears will seek no public funding for direct stadium structure construction. However . . .”

Get ready, Arlington Heights, cause what comes after “however” is never a joke.

“We will need help,” McCaskey continued. Just like I told you.

Now McCaskey has not mentioned exactly what kind or how much help they will need. But I  think we can all agree that before this is over the Bears will have stuck their big ol’ paw into that Tax Increment Financing honey pot. Courtesy of the Arlington Heights taxpayers.

As a tax paying resident of Chicago all I can say is . . . thank goodness it’s them and not me. For once.

By the way, I made that initial prediction a year ago after an unintentionally funny headline in Crain’s Chicago Business that said:  “A new Bears stadium: Who’d pay for it?”

Like there was any doubt as to the answer to that question.  

This year’s funny headline ran in the Sun-Times. It said:  “The Bears have had preliminary talks with [Governor] Pritzker, lawmakers about subsidies—and no one has slammed the door.”

You know, like the Bears are waiting with baited breath to see if they get what they want.

Call me jaded, people, but I do not believe the Bears would have gone this far—placing an option to buy the old race track and hiring consultants to do traffic surveys—if they weren’t reasonably assured that it was only a matter of time before the handout was theirs.

That means we’ve reached what I call the get-that-official-an-Oscar phase of TIF deals.

I call it that because public officials will conjure their inner Brando as they play the role of unbiased public servants, objectively sifting through the evidence to determine if, in fact, a handout is warranted.

As opposed to having already made up their minds to give the Bears what they want.

If Arlington Heights is anything like Chicago, its leaders will eventually find themselves reassuring taxpayers that, after carefully studying the matter, they’ve concluded that handing over public money to the Bears is in the public’s best interest. So it will be like the Bears are doing the taxpayers a favor, as opposed to the other way around. Along those lines . . .

At last week’s dog and pony presentation, the Bears promised that no public dollars will go to construct the football stadium.

Which is a distinction without much meaning to taxpayers. Since taxpayers will be shelling out money for other parts of the stadium project.

And, really, what difference does it make if public money goes for seats in the stadium, as opposed to the parking lot around the stadium, or the foundation on which the stadium rests, or the roads leading to the stadium and so forth?

It’s still public money helping the Bears pay for their stadium.

Curiously, McCaskey’s pledge undercuts the Bears’ argument that they need money at all. Because if they can afford to build a stadium without a subsidy, why take the subsidy at all?

I’ll say this for the Arlington Heights deal—at least it’s generated some resistance. This one from the right, which has been notoriously silent in regards to Chicago’s TIF scam.

Specifically, opposition comes from the Americans for Prosperity Illinois, a local affiliate of an outfit created by the Koch brothers, those far-right libertarians who’s policies I generally abhor.

But I agree with them here. They say they’re sick and tired of “corporate welfare”. And I say, right on to that.

For all these years, I’ve been watching Mayors Daley, Emanuel and Lightfoot doling out TIF money to wealthy developers on the grounds that it’s an “investment” in Chicago.

And then I watch them turn around and say we can’t afford mental health clinics in poor neighborhoods or librarians and nurses in public schools.

When they give money to rich people, it’s always an “investment”. But when they spend the money on people who really need it, it’s treated like a waste.

So, yes, I find myself in the unlikely position of cheering on the Koch brother bunch. In fact, Brian Costin, one of their leaders, will be a guest on my podcast.

Costin and his allies submitted to the Arlington Heights Village Board over 600 signatures from voters, asking the board to pass an “Anti-Corporate Welfare Ordinance” that would prohibit “offering or extending any financial incentive to any business or corporation to operate in the village”.

If board members vote down that ordinance—as I suspect they will—Costin and his allies will move to Plan B.

They will attempt to gather over 7,000 signatures to a petition that would put the issue on the ballot, probably in next April’s municipal election. In other words, let the voters decide if they want to give public dollars to the Bears.

It’s pretty exciting to watch democracy in action. 

On the other hand, there’s a chance—admittedly, very remote—that they might get their measure on the ballot. And that the voters of Arlington Heights might reject a Bears handout.

In which case, guess what?  The Bears will turn around and look to Chicago for a sweetheart deal, which knowing our mayors, they will probably get.

Just goes to show you, when it comes to TIFs, one way or another taxpayers in Chicago always stand a chance of losing. 

The Latest from the Ben Joravsky Show

Read More

There is more to this week’s Savage Love. To read the entire column, go to Savage.Love. 

Q: At a party recently I was chatting with a parent who mentioned that he lets his (elementary school age) kids look at porn. He had a laissez-faire attitude about the whole thing, but I found it disturbing. Am I being a judgy childless witch?

A: There were no middle schools where I grew up, so an “elementary school age” child could be a six-year-old first grader or 14-year-old eighth grader. For the record: I obviously don’t think a six-year-old should view porn, and a responsible parent would not allow a young child to view pornography. I also know it’s almost impossible for a parent to stop a motivated 14-year-old kid from looking at porn. So, if this man’s children are older, perhaps he said, “lets his kids,” when he meant, “can’t stop his kids.” Whatever his kids’ ages, you can’t stop him from not stopping his kid from looking at porn, but you are free to offer him some unsolicited advice. (Is there anything parents enjoy more?) You could also send him the clip of Billie Eilish on Howard Stern talking about how watching porn at a young age really messed with her head.

Q: My husband likes to be naked all the time at home. I think he should cover up when he’s in front of the big window in our front room and can be seen from the street, but he says I am being body shame-y. What do you think?

A: I dated a guy who thought he should be able to walk around in front of his large picture windows at home, naked and sometimes hard (morning woody), and he was adamant about it. And then one day the police came and arrested him for indecent exposure. Anyway, you should put up curtains and/or plant some tall bushes in front of those picture windows.

Q: 44-year-old here who’s on the dating scene for the first time in 11 years. A few months ago, I hit it off with a hot, hot guy. Great! My problem/question is about distractions during sex, and I need a sanity check. Once during intercourse, Hot Guy called out an answer to an NPR news quiz that was playing in the background. Is this behavior rude? I’m operating under the assumption that if one’s mind wanders during sex, one should at least pretend to be focused.

A: “Maybe this letter writer should’ve chosen a more appropriate time for intimate relations—like when This American Life is playing,” said Peter Sagal, the host of Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!, National Public Radio’s long-running news quiz program. “Still, I completely understand why the letter writer would be offended by this man’s behavior. First, by thinking our show would be appropriate as an audio background for lovemaking—although Bill Kurtis is known, for good reason, as the Barry White of anchormen. And second, the fact that he actually answered questions out loud while in flagrante. But the letter writer shouldn’t think he was completely ignoring her to concentrate on us: our questions aren’t that hard.”

Follow Peter Sagal on Twitter @PeterSagal.

Q: Been playing with one of my fellow guys recently—I’m a gay guy—who says he’s into men, but who absolutely refuses to let me (or anyone else) touch his butt. What is this?

A: The Ass Ceiling. (It’s also a boundary of his, and one you must respect—but you’re free to ask him about it. Conversations, even follow-up conversations, about limits, boundaries, and reasonable expectations are not inherently coercive. Wanting to better understand a “no” doesn’t mean you didn’t hear it and don’t respect it. But at the start of a follow-up conversation like that, you need to emphasize that you did, indeed, hear that “no,” and will, of course, continue to respect it.)

Q: I’m a 40-year-old cis het man. For more than 20 years—most of my life so far—I’ve been obsessed with one woman. We were never a couple, and I haven’t had contact with her since my mid-20s. How to get past this? The easiest way would probably be to start a relationship with another woman. Or I could get therapy—but I don’t know if my insurance would cover it.

A: Some days my Instagram feed is mostly memes about how straight guys will do literally anything to avoid getting the therapy they clearly need . . . and your question brought every one of those memes to mind. I mean, you’ve been miserable for almost two decades and you can’t be bothered to check whether your health insurance covers the therapy you so clearly need? Jesus, dude. Make that phone call, get some therapy, don’t date anyone until you’ve been seeing your therapist for at least a year.

Q: My husband and I (bio female, newly transmasc) recently became poly. We have created a “closed kitchen table poly quad” with our two best friends. The breakdown is one older married couple, one younger engaged couple, and it’s getting serious. We are now talking about moving in together. Any tips on living together for poly newbies? I think we have a chance at making it work long-term, but I don’t want to add pressure.

A: Here’s a tip for poly newbies: don’t move in with other singles, couples, triads, battalions, etc., you just started dating. If moving in together is the right thing to do, moving in together will still be the right thing three years from now. If it’s the wrong thing to do, moving in together will be a disaster three months from now. Take it slow.

Q: A date recently tried acting out a Daddy Dom roleplay with me. I don’t want to judge, but . . .

Go to Savage.Love to read the rest.

Read More