CHICAGO | General Developments

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Look, I'm not excusing him knocking the house down without a permit, that was sleazy and wrong. I think the fine is fair and I am a "freemarketeers" as you say. I work in zoning ordinance enforcement and people do these things (work without a permit) every single day, on purpose or by accident. Most people don't get caught for years down the line.

If the fine should be $750,000 + jail time for this offender, then it should be the same for each offender even those who may have offended by mistake. I would be more agreeable to the public outrage if it just centered on him doing work without a permit and not just because it was some charming little house. If it were a 70's suburban house with vinyl siding no one would even be discussing this right now and they would be outraged he had to paid $7,500.

How many demolitions of entire structures without permits have we had recently? There's no reason why there shouldn't/couldn't be massive differences in fines and introduction of other criminal penalties for demolishing a structure - as opposed to, say, a minor alteration without proper permits.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

How many demolitions of entire structures without permits have we had recently? There's no reason why there shouldn't/couldn't be massive differences in fines and introduction of other criminal penalties for demolishing a structure - as opposed to, say, a minor alteration without proper permits.

Demolishing the structure without the proper permit was wrong, don't get me wrong. I don't know how many times this has happened in the past where a primary structure was demolished without a permit, its more likely to occur with accessory structures.

Even though I personally think it was done to subvert preservationists, lets just say for a moment the contractor made a mistake, should he still be subject jail time and a $750k fine. What if someone who wasn't wealth had done this, should they face the prospect of bankruptcy? If the developer had went through the proper channels, he probably would have gotten the permit anyways albeit with neighborhood/preservationists opposition.

I just don't agree with extreme/unfair penalties. The city already imposes an egregious amount of penalties and fines on everyday people. I just can't get behind that.

I just read a comment regarding the school conversion fire stating that the city should charge higher property taxes for vacant properties to discourage vacancy. I think this whole tax, penalize and fine mentality in this city is flawed and disgusting. Either way I know I won't change your opinion on this matter and I agree to disagree with you.

Edit: I just read up on the building code and it seems the highest penalty is $10,000 and six months in prison.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Even though I personally think it was done to subvert preservationists, lets just say for a moment the contractor made a mistake, should he still be subject jail time and a $750k fine. What if someone who wasn't wealth had done this, should they face the prospect of bankruptcy? If the developer had went through the proper channels, he probably would have gotten the permit anyways albeit with neighborhood/preservationists opposition.

I just don't agree with extreme/unfair penalties. The city already imposes an egregious amount of penalties and fines on everyday people. I just can't get behind that.

I am certainly no freemarketeer, by this groups standards, I am the prince of the NIMBYs.
I am also a staunch preservationist
Largely, I agree.
While it was the principal structure, it was a 750 sqft one story frame structure. with no basement and possibly no foundation.
It was not protected by landmarking, as such it was just an old building.

I disagree, however, that it was done to thwart the preservationists. Having not been landmarked or orange rated, they held no sway over the parcel, and the developers new permit for a frame and masonry 2 story structure, on the surface, seems no different from his original plan for additions, save the existence of the old cottage.

As such, I feel the $7500 fine is a reasonable one.

Now, for the guy whom, upon finishing a 5 story structure decided that he could make more money if, contrary to plans and zoning, he added a sixth floor....
My opinion is that any fine. less than the cost of removing the extra floor, is too small.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

Yeah, I have a Chilli's right down the street and I don't understand how that was overlooked!

The article states that 33 restaurants outside the City's limits were listed in last year's guide, including at least two (Sen in Oak Park and Found in Evanston) given the Bib Gourmand ranking. The absence of all 33--and any other restaurants outside Chicago proper--makes it pretty obvious that this isn't an issue of suburban entitlement.

It does explain a lot; the Bib Gourmand list this year was curiously shorter than what most people were expecting. But it leads to more questions, specifically: Why? The subtext is not enough funds, which is, to me, kind of mind-boggling when that wasn't an issue in years prior and when they don't include any kind of caveat at the beginning of their guide.

It's also incredibly frustrating. The guide for San Francisco is expansive, covering Sonoma County in the north all the way down to San Jose, well over 100 miles to the south. Chicago proper, by contrast, is only about 26 miles at its greatest extent. Of course, Chicago's hinterland may not have the same food culture as SF's, but, based on guides from past years, it's clear there are still restaurants out there that deserve to be acknowledged.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Even though I personally think it was done to subvert preservationists, lets just say for a moment the contractor made a mistake, should he still be subject jail time and a $750k fine. What if someone who wasn't wealth had done this, should they face the prospect of bankruptcy?

Yes, and yes.

I'm going to demolish a building today. Oh wait - do I have a permit to do this? A) Yes - okay, I'll proceed. B) No - to avoid a fine that will hurt, and jail time, I'll hold off until I have that permit.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Seriously Sam, enough with the irony. You literally bring up "randian adolescents" or some other non-sense like once a week out of the blue. It's like she was your mother and you are fighting an Oedipus complex. No one wants to hear it, it's obnoxious.

Is it just me, or do others also find that thin ideas quite often come wrapped in a thin skin?

Can't be just me.......

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Is it just me, or do others also find that thin ideas quite often come wrapped in a thin skin?

Can't be just me.......

Nope. You're just a blowhard.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

I just read a comment regarding the school conversion fire stating that the city should charge higher property taxes for vacant properties to discourage vacancy. I think this whole tax, penalize and fine mentality in this city is flawed and disgusting.

Rather than piling tax on penalty on fine, just pare it back - tax only land and not improvements, at a relatively high rate. Landowners are encouraged to seek highest and best use, and the city can't give handouts to businesses on the grounds the new construction will raise tax revenue.

[marothisu]

In other news - Englewood Square looks like it received a few building permits today

[UrbanLibertine]

So did the Wrigley Field office building

STREET
1101 W. WAVELAND

WORK_DESCRIPTION
WRIGLEY OFFICE BUILDING AND PLAZA BASEMENT- FOUNDATION AND ERS

Originally Posted by marothisu

In other news - Englewood Square looks like it received a few building permits today

[the urban politician]

^. I'm blanking in that project

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^. I'm blanking in that project

Englewood Square? That's where Whole Foods in Englewood at 63rd and Halsted is going.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Rather than piling tax on penalty on fine, just pare it back - tax only land and not improvements, at a relatively high rate. Landowners are encouraged to seek highest and best use, and the city can't give handouts to businesses on the grounds the new construction will raise tax revenue.

Now this I 100% agree with but I think the comment was to say that higher property taxes on vacant buildings would decrease vacancy somehow, which is ridiculous considering the building was under construction. Its more likely that people would get rid of property or abandon/foreclosure it if property taxes were unmanageable thereby exacerbating the problem and I'm not talking about mega developers.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Englewood Square? That's where Whole Foods in Englewood at 63rd and Halsted is going.

No, The Wrigley Field office building

[Randomguy34]

It's cool how we now have a name for the location rather than having to continue referring it to the Whole Foods lot.

[the urban politician]

^ Nah, nothing cool about it. It will be a giant suburban strip mall.

Of course, this is Englewood we are talking about here so beggars can't be choosers in regards to development. But too much of the south side is being condemned to this kind of development now. There is no "place making" happening. Just functional, auto-oriented crap that perpetuates auto dependence, and there is little hope for anything different unless the city changes its commercial zoning standards. 63rd and Halsted will never be anywhere near what it once was.

[Busy Bee]

63/Halsted along with Englewood in general has got to be one the saddest stories in American urban history.

1950s:

><><

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Nah, nothing cool about it. It will be a giant suburban strip mall.

Of course, this is Englewood we are talking about here so beggars can't be choosers in regards to development. But too much of the south side is being condemned to this kind of development now. There is no "place making" happening. Just functional, auto-oriented crap that perpetuates auto dependence, and there is little hope for anything different unless the city changes its commercial zoning standards. 63rd and Halsted will never be anywhere near what it once was.

The only time I'm okay with big parking lots is for grocery markets and not any other type of markets/malls, since there's no great solution to have grocery markets without some parking (the project would have been too cost prohibited if there was underground parking). Otherwise, they're a no go for me in any other scenario. I definitively agree with you about every other point you brought up and want there to be a change in the types of developments for the rest of the city as well. I wonder when the city zoning laws began being so anti-density and development?

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

63/Halsted along with Englewood in general has got to be one the saddest stories in American urban history.

1950s:

><><

I always get teary eyed whenever I see this picture.

[Rizzo]

Edit

[hawainpanda]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

63/Halsted along with Englewood in general has got to be one the saddest stories in American urban history.

1950s:

><><

wow...really sad...i sorta doubt even with whole foods englewood will ever change. Hyde Park has changed a lot but that's solely due to uchicago.