Last month, the City Council signed off on an ordinance endorsing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Chicago's Olympic bid committee and its own "outreach advisory committee."  At the time, we highlighted city officials' claims that the document would guarantee local jobs, affordable housing, and minority contracts should the city win its 2016 Olympic bid. While the mainstream media took the bait, we pointed out that the enthusiasm for the watered-down community benefits agreement (CBA) fell short of local activists' expectations by not including the City of Chicago as a legally binding party.

To its credit, the Hyde Park Herald opted to take another look at the issue now that the dust has settled. Reporter Sam Cholke found that, while supporters of the Olympic bid argue that the document is indeed binding, there's grounds for skepticism.  "I'm pretty sure there are no ways to enforce this legally," University of Chicago law professor Omri Ben-Shahar told Cholke, describing it as more of "a political document."

Referred by Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th Ward), Cholke then went straight to the source -- the city's Law Department -- for an opinion on the matter.  Here's what they told him:

"The city was not party to the Memorandum of Understanding. That agreement was between Chicago 2016 and the community," said Jenny Hoyle a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Law in an e-mail.

Hoyle said that the city had reviewed the document but did not have concerns about the legally binding nature of the document. 

"We saw the MOU before the vote because it was attached to a City Council ordinance,." Hoyle said. "However we did not draft or negotiate the MOU and did not conduct the kind of review we would do if we were engaged in those activities on behalf of a client. 

The coalition of community groups and labor unions organized under Communities for an Equitable Olympics (CEO 2016) will continue to push for the city to become an official party to the CBA. But writing on Mechanics yesterday, Jacob Lesniewski argues that the legal issue should be secondary:

What makes CBAs work is the power of the mobilization behind them. They require a broad moblization [sic] of neighborhood residents and city-wide groups to pressure developers and city governments into accepting the terms of the agreement as a condition for the development's construction. In other words, the best CBAs are forced upon city governments who fear the ruin of their plans if they don't acede [sic] to community demands.

This mobilization works on the implementation end as well. CBAs require enforcement language and a moblized [sic] community to enforce their standards. Specific enforcement language means more than just Bush-esque benchmarks. Rather penalties for non-compliance and plans for moblization around implementation issues are necessary.

Which is why it doesn't matter that the Olympics CBA isn't 100% legally enforceable. What matters is the strength of the movement behind it and the pressure the mayor and the City Council feel from that movement. 

Meanwhile, the wheels of Olympic development continue to turn. This afternoon, the city's Community Development Commission is scheduled to authorize Planning Department staffers to create a feasibility and housing study for the proposed Washington Park Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, which borders the site of the proposed Olympic Stadium. We'll be following those plans closely.