Listening to all sides of the Children's Museum controversy

Goodness Howard, where to begin?

How about the most important part:

The current Field House is 10,000 sq feet.

The CCM proposal requests a total of 120,000 square feet and the "right" to expand an area the size of 2 FOOTBALL FIELDS.

Is that a building for building replacement to you?

Also, the only way they'll be able to expand is UP - placing even more buildings in the park.

If you raise the gound level grade, put a building there and cover it with grass, you STILL have a building in the park.

How many grass covered buildings, multiple restaurants with multiple liquor licenses, is ok with you?

You can put lipstick on a pig too, but pretty much everyone will know it's still a pig.

We we at the same meeting?

Lots of press, no reports of booing or heckling.

Daley Bi IS part of protected Grant Park and has been for more than 100 years.

Do some research Mr. Rosenberg.

Looks like the Museum is getting a little testy......

Why thank you, Howard, for the unbiased and objective assessment of this issue.

One little detail (I'm sure you just forgot to mention it!)is that prior to your new position accepted on May 6, you represented financial services clients at DLA Piper US LLP, the world's largest law firm and the LAW FIRM REPRESENTING THE CHICAGO CHILDREN'S MUSEUM.

Guess who employs Mr Rosenberg's wife.

Oh please!! They are making this too easy....not the Chicago Children's Museum!

CHICAGO -- Chicago Investment Group (CIG) http://www.gocig.com , a privately held, full-service investment boutique - announced it recently hired Howard J. Rosenburg as its general counsel and chief regulatory officer.

In February 2008, Rosenburg was named an Illinois Rising Star by Illinois Super Lawyers. The search process was conducted by Law & Politics and Chicago magazines.

Mr. Rosenburg resides in Chicago with his two children, and his wife, who works for the Chicago Children's Museum.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! This is too funny!

I agree that Mr. Rosnburg should have included his professional and personal relationship to this projection his opinion letter here. I respect his opinion; and his right to it, but the reader should know that when considering his opinion to have a better understanding of any bias that exists.

In the same light; I also think that the posters to these comment sites should also have to identify themselves; and their place of residence, so that readers could also determine any inhereent bias in the comments they post here as well.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this would reveal to a greater extent what seems to be often reported; and that is that the "overwhelming opposition" to this project is being largely driven by the people that live acriss the street, that don't want the increased traffic and volume of people that the museum will bring to their corner of the park.

This would be good to know as well, so readers could form ther own opinions based on an un-baised, or at least a disclosed perspective.

Howard listens to both sides and he and his wife represent CCM.

This is exactly the deceit that's been evident since day one.

Objective. ROTFLMBO! Too funny.

A Concerned Citizen wrote:

CHICAGO -- Chicago Investment Group (CIG) http://www.gocig.com , a privately held, full-service investment boutique - announced it recently hired Howard J. Rosenburg as its general counsel and chief regulatory officer.
In February 2008, Rosenburg was named an Illinois Rising Star by Illinois Super Lawyers. The search process was conducted by Law & Politics and Chicago magazines.
Mr. Rosenburg resides in Chicago with his two children, and his wife, who works for the Chicago Children's Museum.

As the Chief Compliance Officer of a registered investment advisor, you would think that he would understand the need to disclose conflicts of interest. It is the biggest single issue in that industry. He should be embarrassed.

Really? In fact, Mr. Rosenburg, the fifth design was revealed to the public on Monday, May 12th at Daley Bi where several dozen opponents viewed the illustrations before and during a CCM press conference. Did you attend? Did a single Plan Commisioner? In the mere 72 hours still left until their May 15th vote, did they pour over this latest design in order to make the most informed decision possible? Or did the commissioners find it more important to spend their eleventh hour re-writing rules, forms and procedures? Mrs. Holleb and Mr. Richardson exempted from the last question.
Rosenburg: "Moreover, it seems that opposition to the proposal is being cultivated by misinforming the public about the museum's proposal."
Regarding misinforming the public - that CCM full page ad that ran in the papers this week includes a photo of the Randolph Street entrance to the East Monroe Garage that happens to contain a stairwell that leads to the BACK DOOR of the fieldhouse. Does anyone accept that as an accurate representation of Daley Bicentennial Plaza?
Sure, that garage entrance is unsightly, the fieldhouse is dilapidated and the plaza has too much hardscape. "They" dangle the carrot of a glorious renovation and have the audacity, no less, to threaten the tax paying public that it's the one and only chance for such. But, is that reason enough to give away control of this precious and irreplaceable public land -- just because "they" want it?
Time to let the winds of change blow thru the Chicago City Council.

Interesting that posters have chosen to attack the author rather than to address the facts listed in the letter. I know this post will not be popular, but am I the only one who is disturbed that the save grant park website contains objectively false information about the proposal?

Freddie M wrote:

Interesting that posters have chosen to attack the author rather than to address the facts listed in the letter. I know this post will not be popular, but am I the only one who is disturbed that the save grant park website contains objectively false information about the proposal?

What false information is contained on the Save Grant Park Website?

The people who were digging into the authors background and article information provided details to assist readers in interpreting what they read.

The Save Grant Park website among other things references articles both pro and con. And lists organizations that support protecting Grant Park.

So what information is inaccurate?

The CCM's graphics aren't updated??

Is that ALL you've got?

Chicagoans: go to www.savegrantpark.org and sign the online petition.

Call your alderman! Stop the insanity.

There is nothing wrong with obtaining information about an author's potential bias. But notice that the letter is more of a recital of facts as he percieved them than a statement of opinions. His letter did not say he thought the proposed building was beautiful, or that he thought that it would enhance the park. Rather, he listed what he believes to be factual assessments of what transpired at the plan commission meeting. If those assessments are false, then posters should refute them. If his facts are correct, it really doesn't make a difference how biased he might or might not be.

Specifically regarding the Save Grant Park web site, the page contains a link titled: "Museum Proposal - Graphics." That link takes the visitor to what appears to be a previous rendering of the proposal. It does not take the reader to the proposal that was submitted for approval.

Freddie M wrote:

Interesting that posters have chosen to attack the author rather than to address the facts listed in the letter. I know this post will not be popular, but am I the only one who is disturbed that the save grant park website contains objectively false information about the proposal?

I actually did think the Children's Museum ad being referred to in this post was an accurate rendering of Daley Bicentennial Plaza. Looking at the most recent renderings, I must agree that this proposal is an improvement on an otherwise bleak situation.

Freddie

The Graphics are incorrect because they are the 4th modification by the CCM. Had the CCM made the 5th revision which was made just days before the Plan commission public than they would be there. So the public did not have the oppertunity to look at the 5th revision before the planning commission nor was any public review made available. Sound familuar to the Lincolin Park Soccer field law suit.

The Tribune published the graphics before the plan commission meeting, so I don't understand why the save grant park folks could not do the same. And even if there was some kind of excuse for not posting the accurate proposal on its site in advance on the meeting, it is still inaccurate as of five minutes ago. Why is it still inaccurate???

This is not a small issue. The save grant park folks are trying to rally opposition to a proposal. But what they show as the proposal is not the actual proposal.

Freddie wrotes; "This is not a small issue. The save grant park folks are trying to rally opposition to a proposal. But what they show as the proposal is not the actual proposal."

This is a very small issue.

Freddie M wrote:

The Tribune published the graphics before the plan commission meeting, so I don't understand why the save grant park folks could not do the same. And even if there was some kind of excuse for not posting the accurate proposal on its site in advance on the meeting, it is still inaccurate as of five minutes ago. Why is it still inaccurate???
This is not a small issue. The save grant park folks are trying to rally opposition to a proposal. But what they show as the proposal is not the actual proposal.

Go to www.SaveGrantPark.org and then click on www.neweastside.org or go directly to the neweastside website and you will see the 5th version.

And they have been there for quite a while.