Alderman Brendan Reilly

One of nine freshman alderman elected to the City Council earlier this year, Brendan Reilly moved into a ward where it would have been impossible to keep a low profile, even if he had not defeated 36-year incumbent Burton Natarus. The 42nd Ward's boundaries  enclose some of the city's most prestigious real estate, including the Gold Coast andMagnificent Mile, as well as some of its most committed resident groups.

Even so, Reilly's debut was pointedly controversial. When Reilly staked out his opposition to the Chicago Children's Museum's proposed move to Grant Park, he found himself on the wrong side of a powerful mayor used to getting his way. Reilly however, says tradition and law require that the park stay "open, clear and free" of further development. 

Aliki Marinos recently sat down with Reilly at his City Hall office to elaborate on his views.

Q. Generally, are you pro or con as far as development issues are concerned around the city?

A. I support continued development in downtown Chicago, but I also believe very strongly in soliciting public input, and providing an open, and transparent decision-making process. Especially on big projects that have a lasting impact on the neighborhood.

Q. Do you believe that there is a greed factor that has arisen from the Children's Museum debate?

A. I hope not. To me, this is a debate over the future of Grant Park. It's not about the Chicago Children's Museum. It's not about the Pritzker family, or Mayor Daley, or me.

This has been a 171-year long debate. Thanks to Montgomery Ward, this park has been forever open, clear and free for the past 150 years. A number of other prominent institutions have sought out their own space on Grant Park, but our forefathers were smart enough to deny those requests. Each of those institutions had powerful people on their boards of directors, they were well-respected institutions, but because we said no to all of those institutions, we have Grant Park today.

Q. Is there any other reason that you oppose the proposed site?

A. It's really steeped in the history of the fight to protect the Grant Park. Montgomery Ward spent 20 years of his life and a small fortune fighting against development in that park, and four Illinois Supreme Court decisions agreed with Mr. Ward that we need to protect this park.

Q. If the Children's Museum were to move, and not necessarily to Grant Park, where would you suggest it could move to?

A. There are a number of great alternative locations for the Museum. The Museum can expand on its current location, which is in my Ward. [Or] Northerly Island, there are some parking lots, basically slabs of concrete adjacent to the Northerly Island which would make an excellent location. Museum Campus, which has worked out very well for other respected museums, and why not one more? But Grant Park is special, and we need to protect it.

Q. Do you think that your position on this debate might affect future campaign contributions?

A. I couldn't care less. I'm doing my job, this is based on principle. I think it's the right decision for the city of Chicago, I think its the right decision for Grant Park. And, my experience has been that there is overwhelming opposition to move the Museum to Grant Park. So I think my constituents have appreciate the position that I've taken. In the last two weeks, and I'm not kidding, we have gotten hundreds upon hundreds of upon hundreds of letters, phone calls and e-mails, from people that live far outside my ward, encouraging me to hang in there and keep up the good fight. So, I think in the court of public opinion, the Museum has lost... If in three years people think I've done a good job and worked hard, they'll re-elect me."

Q. For those who see you as a "gutsy freshman" what do you have to say to them?

A. I was elected to do a job. No one ever said it was easy. But I can tell you often times doing the right thing is hard.  I firmly believe in the position that I've taken and I believe it's the right one for the city, and I'm not going to back down because I've got some conviction on the issue.

I've made it quite clear that I've done a tremendous amount of research about the history of Grant Park. I appreciate the hard work that people long before me did to protect it, and I think we need to respect it for future generations."

Q. How do you think your approach to development issues differs from your predecessors?

A. On the campaign trail, I talked a lot about the public process and how important it is to share information about pending development with residents of the impacted neighborhood.

My predecessor sometimes would host community meetings on projects, sometimes he would make the decisions on his own. I favor a more inclusive, open process that brings residents together with the developer and the architect, to bring everyone to the table, so there can be some give and take, so the residents and the alderman's office can work with the developer and the architect to help shape a plan.

Maybe there are some small adjustments that can be made to make it a better project for the neighborhood. So, we're making an extra effort to bring folks together to review these plans, before I say yes, or no."

Q. Lastly, how do you feel about racial comments tied to the debate?

A. We hosted nine public meetings over the last three months. I attended every single one. [Chicago Children's Museum board president] Gigi Pritzker attended zero. Yet, she's speaking with some degree of authority about the racial make-up of this neighborhood - comments that may have or have not been said.

If anyone had made any kind of racial comment, I would've been the first person to stand up and protest. That did not occur.

If Museum officials like Ms. Pritzker had been present in every meeting, they would be the first to admit, that these meetings were extremely diverse. Every ethnicity was represented in these meetings. One thing these folks had in common, was their opposition to putting the Museum in Grant Park.

We've got a number of fixed-income residents, a lot of senior citizens that have lived in this neighborhood for a long time that would never qualify for the definition of 'elitist' or 'snob.' This is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the city of Chicago, and to suggest otherwise I think is unfair.

Some people in the neighborhood have local quality of life concerns about the project, just as many people in that neighborhood believe Grant Park needs to be protected- purely based on the principle that Grant Park has been protected for 171 years. So, the residents of the neighborhood have different reasons for opposing the park.

Obviously Museum officials are focusing in on those who have focused on quality of life, because it makes it seem like its more of a selfish argument. But the bottom line is, there's many people in the neighborhood that are being talked about that oppose it purely on principle. For me, it's based on the history.