Backers of the proposed $987 million expansion of McCormick Place may have new seatmates for the ride they have booked through the General Assembly this session: 2,500 Downstate coal miners.
In the traditional late-session deal-making in the Capitol, lawmakers now are talking about linking Chicago`s so-called McPlace project with a bill intended to preserve thousands of coal-related jobs threatened by the restrictive federal Clean Air Act amendments passed by Congress last year.
That bill would ensure the continued use of high-sulfur southern Illinois coal by requiring Commonwealth Edison and another utility to build smokestack pollution scrubbers. Edison officials say the measure would raise rates.
Both bills have stumbled so far, mostly because Downstate lawmakers said they have little reason to support a bill to float bonds for the McCormick Place expansion, and some Chicago legislators feel likewise about the coal bill.
Also, some Chicago legislators do not want to appear to support a project involving Commonwealth Edison as its Chicago franchise is being renegotiated. Linking the two issues, either into one bill or consecutive bills with a structured vote, would encourage the two camps to approve both measures.
In one sense, a ”McCoal” project would have lawmakers trading 10,000 coal-related jobs for 7,600 Chicago jobs expected to be created if the McCormick Place bill goes through.
James Reilly, chief operating officer of the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, acknowledged that the link has been discussed among lawmakers but refused to comment on whether it would help or hinder the expansion`s chances.
”There may be pressures like that,” said Reilly, who has been camping out in the Capitol. ”It`s not my idea. There`s just been people talking about it.”
Legislators say there could be other issues attached to the McCormick Place project as well, such as property-tax breaks for Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights. That and dozens of Downstate water projects were attached to the McCormick Place bill when it was voted down in the Senate in June.
Both sides of each issue have concerns about the linkage. In regard to the coal bill, consumer advocates worry that cost-containing details will not be addressed in a vote exchange, while all parties fear someone else`s bill would drag theirs down in flames.
”We`d prefer that it be left intact, that it be voted on its own merits and then that we vote for McCormick Place on its own merits,” said Rep. David Phelps (D-Eldorado), a House sponsor of the coal bill.
So far, however, there is only one thing for sure about the McCormick project: It will be on hold until legislative leaders settle the budget situation.
