Don’t yawn at link between One Central, Soldier Field proposals

Linking the proposed Soldier Field dome to the mega-development One Central is right on the money. Our money, that is. Because Illinois taxpayers are already on the hook for a $6.5 billion subsidy for One Central, with or without the Chicago Bears.

I’m especially glad to see the questions raised about the down-low relationship between One Central’s Landmark Development and City Hall in the Sun-Times’ Jan. 9 editorial.

Taxpayers across Illinois should be outraged over this potential public subsidy for a private developer’s One Central. Gov. J.B. Pritzker has ordered a feasibility study that could give him reason to refuse to write the check. But Sunday’s PR stunt — with the tacit approval of City Hall — seems to indicate a very real possibility that the funds could get the green light in some classic political deal.

What kind of game are we really playing with Soldier Field, and with our tax dollars? Money, by the way, the state doesn’t have and will have to borrow.

We sounded the alarm with an informal survey of friends, family, pols and media types over the weekend. The response to the glitzy video was mostly a big yawn: “Nothing new here.” “Never gonna happen.” “Not worth the time to oppose.” “Same old, same old.”

But to us, the members of One Community Near South, these are dangerous responses. We’ve been observers of Chicago and Illinois politics long enough to know that plenty of projects and proposals are ridiculous…until they become reality. If you “p’shaw” today, you can’t be surprised to find your pocket picked tomorrow.

Just think about the Lincoln Yards TIF, the downtown NASCAR deal and even the last Soldier Field renovation for which Chicago taxpayers still owe more than $640 million.

So, what will happen with One Central? It, too, can become reality, if we choose to yawn instead of acting in opposition. That’s why we’re urging taxpayers to call the governor and your state legislators today to tell them to stop this waste of tax dollars. If a private developer wants to build, he needs to do it without our money.

Marj Halperin, steering committee, One Community Near South

What 2nd Amendment really says

Those Republicans and others who already are claiming that the state’s new law banning assault weapons is unconstitutional need to acquire a better understanding of what the 2nd Amendment actually says. While the amendment — which is one simple sentence, by the way — gives the citizenry the right to bear arms, it doesn’t guarantee the right to specific types of weapons. Kudos to our legislators and governor for finally doing the right thing — and for understanding the U.S. Constitution.

Glenn Bischoff, Bartlett

In defense of guns

Regarding the letter by Jason Hartel published on Jan. 10, on blaming guns for society’s problems: I have 3 words for Mr. Hartel. “Finally, thank you!”

John LaBrant, Norwood Park