CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

I spoke to someone involved with this project today. Apparently, there is an 11% "LGBTQX+..." participation quota on this project, but so far they've found no one to do the work. This frustration has actually has driven one of the top tier Chicago-area trade contractors away from the job and with them, their Minority subcontractor who was lined up to get millions worth of work. I am told this is one of the major factors in the delay of groundbreaking. What an ass-backwards way of doing business.

So, any gay or lesbian SSP-ers who'd like to start a construction group; you'll be automatically handed $55 million worth of work, if interested!

Everyone has a story.... and the guy telling you this story sounds like a first class bullshit artist. Something along the lines of sour grapes and fabrication of stories to drive a narrative.
.

[LouisVanDerWright]

My issue with this is how do you even qualify the subcontractor? How do you know what someone's sexual orientation is? I could literally be like "yeah I'm married to a woman, but I'm bisexual". How do they even determine I'm telling the truth? Do I need to make out with a dude in front of them or something? Same goes for trans, what stops a guy from changing his gender to female on his driver's license and then being like "I'm a transwoman lesbian married to another woman"...

[Fvn]

I thought the overall diverse business' requirement for the whole project was:

35% MBE
10% WBE
5% BEPD/VBE/SDBE/LGBTQ
7% Local

?

EDIT: or is it 11% of the workers need to be LGBTQ?

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

My issue with this is how do you even qualify the subcontractor? How do you know what someone's sexual orientation is? I could literally be like "yeah I'm married to a woman, but I'm bisexual". How do they even determine I'm telling the truth? Do I need to make out with a dude in front of them or something? Same goes for trans, what stops a guy from changing his gender to female on his driver's license and then being like "I'm a transwoman lesbian married to another woman"...

Would I have to shave my beard to say that I identify as a woman in order to bid for this work?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

My issue with this is how do you even qualify the subcontractor? How do you know what someone's sexual orientation is? I could literally be like "yeah I'm married to a woman, but I'm bisexual". How do they even determine I'm telling the truth? Do I need to make out with a dude in front of them or something? Same goes for trans, what stops a guy from changing his gender to female on his driver's license and then being like "I'm a transwoman lesbian married to another woman"...

The certification process varies by who is running the project. IDOT, City of Chicago, etc. The Obama Foundation's project is a private one, so they can set up their own rules for qualifying applicants. They may also decide to piggyback on the City's existing DBE program and limit to the city's pre-certified contractor list. The easiest way (in theory) to verify the LGBTE status is to use the existing program run by the National Gay/Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, which depends on an existing member to write a recommendation letter verifying the status of the applicant.

There's also IDOT and city contracts associated with the library, to widen roads, upgrade intersections, and make changes in Jackson Park outside of the immediate Obama site. Those would follow the DBE procedures for those agencies.

[Skyguy_7]

The absurdity that there’s a “Chamber of Commerce” in place to “verify” sexual orientation. What if the applicant has a husband but kissed a girl and she liked it? It’s professional discrimination. I’d digress, but this issue is not off topic, as it’s a core belief of this project’s construction team.

About 25 years ago, there was this brand new HVAC firm, owned by a Middle Eastern woman. We issued the company their first subcontract ever. They were good, capable people and had a professional crew lined up, who we knew could get the job done. Didn’t realize it at the time, but we were “M/WBE participating“!

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

The absurdity that there’s a “Chamber of Commerce” in place to “verify” sexual orientation. What if the applicant has a husband but kissed a girl and she liked it? It’s professional discrimination. I’d digress, but this issue is not off topic, as it’s a core belief of this project’s construction team.

About 25 years ago, there was this brand new HVAC firm, owned by a Middle Eastern woman. We issued the company their first subcontract ever. They were good, capable people and had a professional crew lined up, who we knew could get the job done. Didn’t realize it at the time, but we were “M/WBE participating“!

"We require that 11% of the people working on this project to like having sex with people who have the same genitals as themselves." is beyond dumb and it's a shame if this project was held up over something so ridiculous.

[ChiTownWonder]

Agree. LGBT business owners should be included in WBE or MBE in this case at least.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

The absurdity that there’s a “Chamber of Commerce” in place to “verify” sexual orientation.

Any private company or government agency can choose how they want to verify, they don't necessarily have to use the NGLCC process. It's just the easiest way since it already exists.

Of course, like any set-aside program, it offers the possibility for favoritism and abuse. The question is whether the benefit to disadvantaged communities outweighs the potential for abuse. Certainly there are a lot of DBE firms out there doing good work hiring and training from minority communities. There are others that have a "disadvantaged" owner but otherwise don't do jack-squat to improve justice outcomes in the city.

I've also worked with several subs who qualified as DBE or could qualify (several woman-owned, one lesbian woman-owned, many Latino-owned, etc) but were hired purely because they were price-competitive and did great work. The projects in question did not have any requirements to satisfy.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

The absurdity that there’s a “Chamber of Commerce” in place to “verify” sexual orientation. What if the applicant has a husband but kissed a girl and she liked it? It’s professional discrimination. I’d digress, but this issue is not off topic, as it’s a core belief of this project’s construction team.

About 25 years ago, there was this brand new HVAC firm, owned by a Middle Eastern woman. We issued the company their first subcontract ever. They were good, capable people and had a professional crew lined up, who we knew could get the job done. Didn’t realize it at the time, but we were “M/WBE participating“!

We are living in times where equity is more important than equality, regardless of what that means in terms of quality. Equality of outcome and not opportunity could very well be something we look back upon and laugh at(and mock rightfully so) in the future

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

Everyone has a story.... and the guy telling you this story sounds like a first class bullshit artist. Something along the lines of sour grapes and fabrication of stories to drive a narrative.
.

I agree. This smells like a fake story to me. I will save my outrage.

[CrazyCres]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...k4y-story.html

The Seventh Circuit will release a written ruling at a later date hopefully soon

So far its looking good for the Obama foundation

[Chi-Sky21]

I bet Trump tries to block this somehow....just seems like something he would do. Or is this already past federal review stage?

[Mr Downtown]

No, the federal historic landscape review has dragged on and on.

If it drags on long enough, the Obama Foundation wouldn't be expected to invite Trump to the opening ceremony.

Here's a rather oddly worded report on this week's hearing, that takes the plaintiff's position as its starting point.

[Skyguy_7]

The article makes quite a few damn good points. It would make for much better optics, and make much more sense, if the library were to take up a few vacant, decrepit lots nearby or adjacent to the park; there are plenty of them.

[blacktrojan3921]

https://news.wttw.com/2020/05/27/are...center-lawsuit

In the latest twist to the Obama Presidential Center saga, appeals court judges are questioning whether a lawsuit against the center’s construction in Jackson Park has any standing in federal court — a query they made after they’d already heard oral arguments in the appeal last week.

Following the hearing, the plaintiff, Protect Our Parks, and defendant, the Chicago Park District, received an order to file supplemental briefs addressing whether they have standing to bring their public trust doctrine claim in federal court. The parties were given until June 4 to comply.

The formal order was a surprise request, said Herbert Caplan, founder of the advocacy group Protect Our Parks, particularly considering that not even the defendant had previously challenged the matter of standing.

Judge Amy Barrett, a 2017 appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, broached the question of jurisdiction during oral arguments, which Caplan said he thought attorney Richard Epstein, arguing the case on behalf of Protect Our Parks, adequately affirmed. Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for the appeals division of the City of Chicago Law Department, concurred that the case had federal standing.

“It was sort of a clue that at least one and maybe the entire panel (Judges Barrett, Daniel Manion and Michael Brennan) is looking for a way to just kind of duck making a decision on the case,” Caplan said. “I think they’re going through the same kind of anxiety that a lot of people have because former President (Barack) Obama is the central figure, even though he’s not a party to the lawsuit, and I think the judges don’t want to get into the middle of anything that smacks of a political dispute, or could turn into a political dispute. I think their desire and their intention is to get rid of this case fast. That’s why I think they’re looking for ways to get rid of it even faster.”

Kind of surprising Barrett would make this kind of ruling, especially since she's a Trump appointee.

In any case, the center should just be built already. I still stand by the notion that groups like 'Protect the Parks' are nothing more than mostly high class, faux progressive NIMBYISTS who don't even live in the South Side and only care about making the parks postcard friendly, regardless of the fact that they are often underused.

[CrazyCres]

^ NIMBYS took out the George Lucas museum, they ain't gonna take this one either!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

https://news.wttw.com/2020/05/27/are...center-lawsuit

Kind of surprising Barrett would make this kind of ruling, especially since she's a Trump appointee.

It's not that simple, judges aren't like executive branch officials that the president can hire and fire at will. Only Congress can remove a judge via impeachment, and given the realities of the impeachment process there has to be a very good reason, not just the president's petty scheming.

Barrett has no reason to act like a toady for Trump, unless she thinks she's a contender for Ginsberg's seat on the Supreme Court AND she thinks Trump will win in the fall... but even then, she has an interest in appearing fair and impartial so she doesn't get trapped in the Senate confirmation process.

I agree with her, though, that this case has questionable standing in Federal court. What relationship does the case have to Federal law? The public trust doctrine is a matter of state law and should properly be heard in a state court. The fact that Jackson Park is a National Register property, or the impacts on Federally funded highway, are kind of a stretch reasoning. However, both plaintiff and defendant want the case in Federal court, but the judges have to decide if that's really appropriate.

[maru2501]

It wasn't a ruling. And that Caplan comment is spin

the panel's questions basically centered on why the opponents were treating federal court like the zoning board

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by maru2501

It wasn't a ruling. And that Caplan comment is spin

the panel's questions basically centered on why the opponents were treating federal court like the zoning board

You should check out Caplan's twitter account. He very clearly has an agenda, and it isn't to 'protect our parks.'