Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other supporters of the Lucas Museum may blame the Friends of the Parks for “losing” the museum, but let’s be honest, it wasn’t so much FOTP that made the decision but the taxpayers of Chicago. They are sick and tired of getting left holding the bag while the “1 percent” run to the bank with their billions.
FOTP’s demand that five percent of revenue from the museum go to neighborhood parks was not extortion; it was a just request. But Rahm and Lucas took the position of my way or no way. Friends of the Parks did not lose; the mayor and Lucas did by refusing to honestly negotiate.
Ann Gutierrez, Tinley Park
SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. Please include your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes.
Congratulations to Friends of the Parks on your win. We get to keep that beautiful asphalt truck park. Thank you, Friends of the Parking Lot.
Jim Damato, Lincoln Park
Daniel Burnham wins and so does Chicago. The iconic city planner’s vision a century ago was to keep Chicago’s magnificent natural resource, it lakefront, always free and open to the public. That noble vision has no place for bullying, cheating or disingenuous posturing. The exhausting, embarrassing Lucas Museum debacle has come to an overdue end. The only real matter here was whether Chicago and its leaders would value, respect and revere the original and continuing vision for our lakefront. Maintaining our lakefront’s superb openness is paramount. Thank you, Daniel Burnham, for setting the bar high for Chicago.
Leon J. Hoffman, Lincoln Park
Brexit mirrors America’ problems
The recent vote by the people of Great Britain to withdraw from the European Union has strong parallels to events in America. British residents were unhappy with uncontrolled immigration and unelected bureaucrats imposing rules on them. This mirrors America’s problem with an open border, uncontrolled immigration and NAFTA agreements weakening our national sovereignty.
These issues are center-stage in the 2016 presidential election. One side wants open borders, amnesty, a chaotic immigration system and transnational agreements; the other side wants to secure our borders, have an orderly system of legal immigration and re-negotiate NAFTA to benefit the US.
Paul Carrozzo, Algonquin
