With the recent economic downtown, major public programs in music, art, and culture around the country risk funding cuts. The TOC blog recently reported, then confirmed the death of the Chicago Outdoor Film Festival. With Chicago City Council meeting this week to decipher the city’s budget for 2010, Chicagoans are wondering, what else is going to get cut?

The thought of not having Movies in the Park, or free concerts at Pritzker Pavilion in Millennium Park next summer is nothing short of heartbreaking. Besides adding to Chicago’s rich cultural diversity, these programs also create jobs and contribute to Chicago’s increasingly tourist-friendly climate. As a preemptive measure the Friends of Chicago Music have started an online petition against cuts to Chicago music, arts, and cultural programs. The petition currently has 750 but they are aiming for a 1000. You too can sign the Save Chicago Music petition.

But, do not run to the picket line just yet. The Department of Cultural Affairs, which takes care of programming at Millennium Park, among other things, received its budget hearing yesterday. As Chicago Sun Times reporter Fran Spielman reported, the Aldermen mostly argued over preferential seating at Millennium Park. But no budget decisions have been made, yet.

Today, I spoke to the Department of Cultural Affairs assistant commissioner Kimberly Costello and she pointed out that all City of Chicago programs, not just cultural programs, are receiving budget reductions. Each department has yet to determine, however, how it will redistribute its budget. In the DCA’s case, no major programs–like SummerDance or the World Music Festival–will be cut entirely, Costello made sure to add. That’s good news—but it doesn’t mean we won’t see some scaling back in 2010.

My first Critical Mass happened to be the Halloween ride, which typically is one of the largest of the year. Those who didn’t come dressed up were in the minority at Daley Plaza, where the group congregates on the last Friday of every month. Costumes ranged from simple masks and face paint to full-on bike-themed constructions complete with subwoofers or real car bumpers rigged to the front of bikes. I saw punks, skeletons, zombies, sharks, various fruits, even a swan that probably took days to create. The mood was very positive and energetic throughout the ride. Pedestrians, as well as trapped drivers, smiled and waved as I road by, and I frequently saw high-fives between drivers, bikers, even cabbies. The ride’s highlight was at the six-corner intersection of Ashland, Lincoln and Belmont, where instead of riding through the intersection, the leaders took the group round-and-round in a circle while blocking all lanes of traffic until bikes filled the entire intersection. Several bikers stopped in the very center of the rotating circle, lifted their bikes above their heads and screamed. It was exhilarating to be part of such a large, devoted group as it took over a massive intersection for a few minutes. I witnessed only a few stranded motorists lose their shit, yell, swear and honk…only to be met with the words that we were instructed to use when confronted: “Happy Friday!”

This morning, hundreds of demonstrators, many of them Service Employees International Union members and other labor reps, descended on the American Bankers Association (ABA) conference taking place at the downtown Sheraton Hotel & Towers to demand financial reform. Jesse Jackson, 49th Ward Ald. Joe Moore and various union leaders led the sign-toting masses up Michigan Avenue, a procession punctuated by snare drum beats and emphatic chants of “The banks got bailed out! We got sold out!”

Read more »

One of the perpetual gripes in this city concerns our politicians’ fiscal recklessness. Well, now 49th Ward Ald. Joe Moore is giving a significant part of his financial power to the people.

Moore announced today that his constituents will decide how his $1 million of “menu money,” the funds allotted annually to each alderman for ward infrastructure improvements, will be spent.

“Next year, I am ceding my decision-making authority to the residents of my ward through a process known as participatory budgeting in which all 49th Ward residents will be eligible to vote directly on the infrastructure projects that will be funded in our community,” Moore writes in an e-newsletter. “I’m not just asking for your opinion—I’m asking you to make real decisions about how we spend our money.”

“The 49th Ward will be the first political jurisdiction in the nation to try such an approach,” Moore writes. “If this process works, I will make it a permanent fixture in the ward and hopefully inspire other elected officials to do the same in their communities.”

Starting November 3, community meetings will be held over the next couple of months, which will culminate in a ward-wide assembly for residents to vote on where the money will go.

How do you think Moore’s million should be doled out?

Twenty years ago, in his first Reader article on the Area Two police torture allegations, John Conroy wondered whether “the behavior of the police was consistent with that of torturers, or if the city itself resembled the sort of society where torture might take place.”

The question returned on Monday night, when Conroy’s play My Kind of Town received a staged reading at the Theatre Building as part of the Writers Bloc festival of new plays. Read more »

Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s closest advisers and a key member of his Chicago-in-D.C. posse, got majorly played by the Chicago 2016 committee, the Chicago Tribune reports. Local Olympics boosters insisted the IOC city-selection vote was close, and they were so persuasive that Jarrett pressed the President to go and seal the deal. Of course, the vote was nowhere near close, and Obama got egg on his face during such a shaky moment for his administration that even SNL used last night’s opening sketch to list his fairly shocking lack of accomplishments nearly a year into his first term.

The big question locally has got to be this: After the Olympics debacle, will Obama go out of his way not to look like his administration is helping out Chicago? And if so, did Chicago 2016 in some significant sense screw Chicago (and likely other big cities that would benefit from national urban initiatives) out of future Obama administration assists?

If the administration is politically smart (which, surprisingly, is still an open question), the answer to that question, unfortunately, should be yes. If comprehensive health care reform goes through and Obama gets his groove back, he might have cover to help us out on mass transit, etc. But if not, there’s a logically persuasive argument to be made that Chicago 2016 may have helped alienate this city’s biggest political asset.

Here’s the kicker: The very existence of a Trib story in which Jarrett goes on the record to throw Chicago 2016 under the bus constitutes evidence that the city might be in the administration’s dog house for a while. Move over, Bo.

The Chicago Reader’s Ben Joravsky has been one of the media’s most outspoken critics of the city’s 2016 bid, so I gave him a ring this afternoon to talk about what was missing from Chicago’s plan, what Daley was thinking and whether community groups that organized against the plan will have any lasting effects on Chicago politics. It was dense, fruitful discussion, but Joravsky’s key point was that the city’s plan was fundamentally flawed. Joravsky went so far as to say that Chicago should have either had a more expensive plan that went much further (redeveloping old steelyards on the South Side for example) or a “green” plan that required less development and the use of more existing spaces—such as the Olympic-sized pool at Portage Park. If anyone is interested, I’ll post more next week. Here’s an excerpt from our conversation to ponder over the weekend.

Ben Joravsky: I have two thoughts on the subject of an Olympics for Chicago, actually three. But the first point is that we are such a corrupt and inefficiently run city, in which there is no legitimate public discourse that I truly don’t believe we’re capable of putting on a games. I take a look at how the city’s been run for  the last ten years, and it’s really distressing in terms of the lack of oversight and the lack of discourse and there’s sort of an attitude inherent in Chicago that the way to get things done is to have one powerful person and so we’ll have to live with it whatever  consequences comes from that. And I just don’t think that’s the model for good planning. I truly don’t believe that. Now, people may disagree with me on that and think “Oh, you need a tyrant to do anything these days.” I personally don’t believe that so it makes it difficult to imagine any good plan coming out of Chicago, but that’s said, the two thing I would have liked to have seen is number one—the obvious one, is, if you have a great expanse of undeveloped land in Chicago that is baffling all planners—like some of the old steel yards on the South Side, well why don’t you try to put that to use? Now, the comeback, John, is that that’s incredibly expensive, to which I say “Yes. You’re absolutely correct.” But if you’re going to make an investment of this kind, if you’re really going to use the Olympics as a spark or development, for economic development to change the city, to improve it than it’s not. Let’s spend the money, you get what I’m saying? I don’t have a problem with spending the money if I think it’s going to be a wise expenditure or a wise investment.

John Dugan: That’s the thing— in my ideal version of the Olympics there would be lasting infrastructure.

Ben Joravsky: You know, John, the thing that struck me about this, this Olympic plan from the get-go— I sound like a broken record—internally it’s a schizophrenic plan. On the one hand, they didn’t want to spend a lot of money buying land and having to clear away, or clear away toxins out of land, so in order to save money they went to public land which is parks, and they treated it like it’s undeveloped acreage that can be just easily developed, and they were proud of that. “Oh, our costs will be minimal, because we’re using park land.” Like that in itself is not a sacrifice that people are being asked to make. The second problem though, the inconsistency is that if they were going to take park land, than they have to convince the public that they were not going to deprive the public of a valuable piece of park land. So they would say, “Don’t worry. We’re going to start the construction very late in the process”—which of course no one really believed, “And when we’re done we’re gonna immediately take away most of what we built, so it’s just going to be temporary.” So there is no legacy. If you watched the show last night where Mayor Daley and the Obamas made the presentation to the IOC, one of the gentleman from the IOC asked the question, “What is your legacy?” It’s a fundamental inconsistency, but I think really the IOC agrees with you. They want to see something left over from the Olympics. So it’s sort of like a calling card, you know, a city can say, “Look what we have because of the great Olympics.” The Olympics can then use that as a promotional piece. Chicago wasn’t giving them that. Chicago was promising to get rid of just about everything they put down so they could reassure people that they weren’t gonna lose their parks.

In Daley Plaza, as in Copenhagen, gasps greeted the International Olympic Committee’s unexpected first-round dismissal of Chicago from the 2016 Summer Games bid. But among the two dozen Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization (KOCO) members gathered around a TV at Ain’t She Sweet (4532 S Cottage Grove Ave, 773-373-3530), a bright little café just a short drive from the proposed sites of the Olympic Stadium and Village, there was a collective sense of relief followed by talk of the future. “We’re not overjoyed, like, ‘Yea, we didn’t get it!’” said Shannon Bennett, KOCO’s lead organizer. “We’re decompressing.”

KOCO wasn’t anti-Games, though it was concerned that Olympics-related development would accelerate displacement. The group lobbied the City Council to pass an ordinance included in Chicago’s bid book that called for at least 30 percent of the Olympic Village—planned for the site of the defunct Michael Reese Hospital—to be devoted to affordable, post-Games housing. “We have to keep the momentum going because the spotlight is on these communities now,” Bennett said. “With or without the bid, Reese Hospital is going to be developed. So the fight continues.”

Not everyone at the café, however, was pleased by news of Chicago’s ouster. “I was disappointed,” said Linda Harper, 60, a retired city employee from Hyde Park. “I really would’ve hoped that at least we would’ve gone to the next level before they pushed us out the door altogether. [The Games] would’ve been right in my neighborhood and I wanted to see people get jobs and see if it would improve our city.”

In Outrage, an exhilarating new film from director Kirby Dick (This Film is Not Yet Rated, Twist of Faith), the lives of closeted gay politicians are brought to light. It points to a number of Washington lawmakers including Florida governor Charlie Grist and former New York City mayor Ed Koch among others as examples of how closeted politicians damage both their own lives as well as that of gay and lesbians Americans. We spoke with Dick about the film’s impact so far. Outrage debuts on HBO on October 5.

Some critics noted that the film sets out to expose closeted lawmakers, but that isn’t at all what Outrage is about, is it?
Not at all. I was reporting on the hypocrisy of closeted politicians who vote anti-gay. This is something the gay press has been reporting on for 20 years. In fact, this film is built in large part on the work of the gay press, and they’ve been making the case very persuasively that this kind of hypocrisy is really damaging to gays and lesbians throughout the country. Audiences were completely taken aback by this information—even a majority of gay audiences—because the mainstream media hasn’t reported on this. I think this film has already gone a long way toward changing how this issue is reported on by the mainstream media.

The film was released theatrically last spring. What have been some of the responses you’ve heard so far?
I expected some people to be opposed to this kind of reporting. I haven’t had that happen in one single Q&A, and I think it’s a testament to the fact that the film makes a very strong case for reporting on closeted politicians who vote anti-gay. Also, what I found is that audiences seem to be very grateful. I have people line up just to shake my hand and say, “Thank you so much for making this film.” I think there was a real feeling that this is a story that just absolutely wasn’t being covered. It’s a very important story, and audiences are very grateful that this film is out there.

Were you surprised by any of the politicians outed in the film?
I guess the surprise came right at the beginning when I was in Washington, D.C., and people just started rattling off names. I said, “But there’s been no mainstream coverage of this and this issue of hypocrisy?” and people said, “No,” so I thought this was a perfect opportunity to make a film.

Was there a specific incident that acted as the catalyst for making this film?
It was August 2006, this is before the Mark Foley scandal and before Larry Craig, I was in Washington, D.C., and somebody mentioned, just in passing, that Karl Rove [who is not mentioned in the movie] was gay, and I did a double take. That would make a great film. I just started probing and then everything else came out about the closet in politics, and it was really at that point that it had everything going for it as a film. It was an urgent political issue in the way that it affected policy, it was psychologically very complex, and it was something the mainstream media had avoided covering for two decades. I had been working on another film at that time, hadn’t started production, and just put that aside and decided this is the film I want to make.

What was it like then, in the middle of filming this, having the Mark Foley and Larry Craig scandals unfold around you?
It was definitely helpful. It put the story on the map so that when the film came out people were ready for a more in-depth look at it. It made the film seem extremely current.

Were there closeted politicians you were following that you would’ve like to have included but you just couldn’t get enough information on them to make a credible case?
There were a number of politicians that I’m aware of that I strongly believe are closeted, that do vote anti-gay; I just didn’t feel like I had enough information to conclusively report on them in my film. What’s interesting is that people really keep these secrets for a long time. I’d talk to people who would have information and be very supportive of the film, seem to want to go on camera, and then when I’d get back in touch with them a few days later they’d had second thoughts. People were very afraid that either personally or in terms of their business, there’d be very serious repercussions. These politicians are very powerful, certainly within their district, and certainly within D.C., and people are very careful. Careers could be destroyed if people come forward and tell the truth.

Any response from people inside Washington about the film?
No. Classically, the way that politicians have dealt with this reporting is to ignore it. And this was for the most part no different. Ed Koch did come forward and say that he was outraged by Outrage. I have to say I appreciated the fact that he mentioned the title of the film twice in his comment.

Why does the media tacitly go along with this?
There’s a number of reasons. I think reporters, over the last decade in particularly, have wanted to report on this and the decisions have been made higher up not to report on this. Some of these journalistic outfits are afraid of turning off or offending readership by reporting in detail on issues that have to deal with homosexuality. Other [media outlets] have close relationships with these politicians and they feel like, why should they anger them or jeopardize their access to politicians by doing this kind of reporting. It’s the responsibility of the press to report on hypocrisy wherever they find it; they shouldn’t in any way limit or censor themselves.

Will this film really enact a change in dialogue among the public or will we let this tacit agreement of not talking about the issue continue?
No single film can really change things. It has influenced the press, and the press has influence over the public. But in another way, I think it influences people going into politics and people in politics. Many, many people who are gay and young and going into politics are going to see this film and they’re going to realize that it’s the wrong decision and very destructive personally and politically, and I think this film is going to influence that group of people. As a result of this, I think you’re going to see more people running as out politicians over the next generation.

Today, Chicago lost its bid for the 2016 Olympic Games—which resulted in a sigh of relief for those who felt the Olympics would bankrupt the fiscally challenged city and a shocking disappointment for the city’s optimistic boosters—as well as its fervent handball community. We’ll be posting reactions from Chicagoans all day long—so check back for updates.

“I’m disappointed, but we’re very proud of our efforts. We’ve been able to compete. It’s been a great honor to participate. We competed against the other cities. We congratulate Rio. With the bid, we’re pleased that we had the chance to highlight the city: the architecture, the spirit of the people and the friendliness, hospitality. The things that [global media] consistently commented on include the beautiful waterfront, the city’s accessibility and how easy it is to get around—that it’s clean, beautiful and that people are friendly and helpful. The momentum that the bid has given us is fantastic; we’ve seen a growth in tourism. Travel has increased 47% over five years—that’s a very positive trend we hope to continue. Just in 2007 and 2008, international travel was up 19%.”—Dorothy Coyle, the director of the Chicago Office of Tourism

“We are disappointed that Chicago was not selected for the 2016 games, but we are also proud to have had the opportunity to showcase our world-class city on an international level. We extend our best to Rio de Janeiro and will continue to support the Olympic spirit as the leading provider of sports and recreation in the City of Chicago.”—statement from the office of General Superintendent and CEO of the Chicago Park District Timothy J. Mitchell

More to come.