Interesting meeting..

A couple quick highlights.

Reilly noted that although the CCM thought their original plan was not illegal, they claimed each of their subsequent our plans were "less illegal" essentially admitting the illegality of the proposed site. The plan to move the Children's Museum to Grant Park is ill-conceived and illegal and violates four Illinois Supreme Court decisions.

The latest plan uses language such as rooftops, skylights, and terraces. Reilly said park do not have rooftops, skylights, and terraces... buildings do. The plan adds rooftops and "hardscape" to the park.

Reilly mentioned the 24 suggestion he submitted to the CCM a couple months ago were not his suggestions, but rather suggestions by people from all over Chicago which his staff compiled.

He says the CCM suffers an acute case of tunnel vision in not considering other sites. The Chicago Tribune has done features on seven alternative sites so far, three of which are in downtown Chicago. (My favorite, and it sounded like Reilly might have liked this idea as well, would be for them to relocate to the Chicago riverwalk, possibly in front of the Hyatt.)

Every major newspaper in Chicago has editorialized against the proposed move to Grant Park.

Radio shows are buzzing with opposition to the plan.

Reilly also says hundreds of kids from all over the city enjoy the park daily now (I can attest to that.. we had friends from Burr Ridge with their two young daughters there just this past Sunday and the park was packed), it doesn't take the CCM to move into Grant park for the kids to enjoy the open green space of Grant Park.

He said this is an opportunity to help find a great, excellent place for the CCM to relocate.

There was a question about why CCM's narrow focus on covered vs. affordable parking.

One member stated "everyone knows" the mayor's purpose is to push cars back into the underutilized garage, clear off Navy Pier to make space for a city-owned casino, and crush the aldermanic prerogative now (where alderman don't override the local alderman's decisions on zoning and development within their ward) in order to make planning for the Olympics 2016 facilities and buildings easier... his question for Alderman Reilly was why other aldermen would agree with the mayor to effectively "neuter" their power over development in their wards.

Tom Figiel (sp? and I don't believe and relation to Peggy Figiel) asked if the CCM had done any financial comparisons to other potential sites.. I think he may have been getting at the $1M per year incentive from the Park District that is given to museums on Park District land, the cost of building an underground building, and he also mentioned the cost of litigation).

A flustered Farrington blurted out that it is "routine" not to do any such comparisons when planning for a development like this.. and Reilly mentioned that it sounds like they have not considered other locations.

There was no mention of the application for the liquor license.

Also, remind me to wear a tie and jacket next time I step into the Union League Club. At least I wore a button down shirt and black - not blue - jeans!