It is certainly evident to the Bears that any number of opportunists will emerge from the city’s depths to tie them up in court for years if they propose demolishing or transforming Soldier Field into a world-class, 21st-century sports venue. Friends of the Parks chased away the Lucas Museum and Protect Our Parks has consistenly opposed siting the Obama Presidential Center at Jackson Park, despite every government body supporting both of those projects as priceless endowments, not horrific defacements, to our public parks.
Chicago needs the Bears more than the Bears need Chicago. But without a powerful group of officials, businesses and public supporters, it is not worth the Bears’ time and money to forever swat the buzzing flies of groups who will surely try to stop any efforts to put the kind of entertainment and sports venue Chicago needs and deserves anywhere near the lakefront. Mayor Lori Lightfoot is certainly not the determined, decisive, forceful person who can lead that effort or make that happen, and it is clear that the Bears have already recognized that.
—Doug Hurdelbrink, Chicago
Chicago Bears’ ransom
After the Bears took advantage of millions of taxpayer dollars and then still threatened to flee the city, all Chicagoans ought to boycott the team. Our city struggles to fund schools and first responders. A football franchise looting public coffers and then opting to leave once the ransom is paid is highly immoral.
–Paul Cronkhite, Chicago
Midway monstrosity
If the Bears want to move to Arlington Heights, that’s fine — provided they pay $655 million (or whatever it may cost) to repair all the damage done by ‘remodeling’ Soldier Field two decades ago. That act of architectural vandalism led directly to the revocation of Soldier Field’s status as a National Historic Landmark — not to mention, the loss of any semblance of being a war memorial. Granted, the city of Chicago is responsible for allowing private enterprise to usurp the public interest.
But avarice is one thing; sacrilege is another. Both are reprehensible. One or both should be severely penalized. If the Bears are planning to leave the Midway, then they must suffer the consequences of creating a monstrosity.
—Dennis Rohatyn, San Diego, California
Art Institute defense
I’ve read your editorial and listened to the WBEZ segment on the subject of Art Institute docents. I was sorry you included no perspective from the museum itself on why this two years in coming change is a good idea. Please note, the docents have not been fired. They were never employees. They could individually go ahead and provide tours even now, just not under the aegis of the Art Institute. Any member of the public could gather a group of people and conduct a tour.
The Art Institute representative said they welcome the volunteers to help construct a new model, one that includes paid docents rather than the 19th-century model of those wealthy enough to work without pay. Would we expect our teachers elsewhere to work without pay? Despite the invitation, these docents refuse to be involved with anything other than their own way. Isn’t it time for more people to be involved? Having a variety of ages, ethnicities, cultures and economic statuses might better mirror our population and encourage more attendance at this jewel of Chicago.
—Marilyn Mayer Wiedemann, Glen Ellyn
The Fourth Estate
In his closing entreaty to a recent column on the R. Kelly verdict (“The R. Kelly verdict: Yes, Black girls’ lives matter too,” Sept. 29), columnist Clarence Page writes that matters of law should be left to the courts, not the court of public opinion. What about cases where the courts have a vested interest in the outcome? Page neglects to take into account the long, historical role the media have had in balancing the powers and prerogatives of government in matters of public concern, public good and public security. Giving voice to the voiceless has been a vital function of journalism, which is why this duty is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
Historical as well as current events speak to the important role of journalism serving as one of the checks and balances on which our democratic system is built. Yes, matters of law belong in a court of law. But when questions of concern about constitutionally guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties are in peril of large and powerful institutions — such as government, and sometimes the courts themselves — the court of public opinion provides a crucial forum for informing and reaching consensus on such issues. The media have an enshrined role as gatekeepers of that public forum. So goes the arc of justice.
—Muriel Jackson, Chicago
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
