CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[ardecila]

^ The Mayor sets the agenda for City Council and submits the budget and most important legislation, true. But why are you in favor of giving more power to aldermen when they abuse the little power they have (to oversee zoning changes in their wards) over BS reasons like congestion, too much affordable housing (like Napolitano) or too little (like Rosa)?

You have to have a guy at the top who can see the big picture and make tough decisions. The demands of voters are not necessarily what will bring the greatest prosperity and quality of life to the city as a whole; sometimes you need a little authoritarianism within limits.

[tjp]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ Nor can the mayor address a gun-violence problem that really needs gun control to solve. Supreme Court won't allow cities or states to infringe on the Second Amendment. Heck, they might not allow Congress to infringe.

I don’t know if I agree with this. Other cities, namely NY and LA, have been much more successful in reducing gun violence despite the country’s gun laws.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I really don't think stuff like the Van Dyke case has much political traction. Yes it's a problem and some people are worked up about it, but at the end of the day it's something happening all over the country and not just in Chicago. It's also a very abstract problem with few obvious direct solutions.

blatant cover ups of police misconduct to aid a re-election campaign isnt something worth getting worked up over?

Yeah and the Near North has 6 homicides while your "ghetto" Little Village has 3 and is a much larger area. Check your own ignorance, I love how those who are first to claim "liberal" also love to brag about how "ghetto" their neighborhood is. Little Village is not ghetto, it is not full of vacant lots and trash strewn streets, it it full of tidy kept up two flats with neatly shorn parkway lawns all the way to Cicero. Stop trying to play up how "ghetto" your neighborhood is to win internet points, it's unbecoming and wildly hypocritical.

Ghetto is a place like Austin where crime of all stripes is rampant and half the buildings are gone on major retail strips replaced by vacant lots full of fly dumped tires. Little Village is a textbook working class immigrant neighborhood and, like all similar neighborhoods, has some crime and gang activity. I'm down there almost every day and have not once heard gunshots despite hearing them several times in Pilsen and literally being shot at (I was dealing with a gangbanger tenant in a building I managed when someone started shooting at him) within 1 block of Milwaukee and Diversey.

lol, youre being disingenuous and you know it, considering the amount of time you spend down here. shootings are FAR more common in a place like LV compared to near north (you know this, hence why youre buying properties at a discount). a month ago an innocent man got shot in the head while he was sleeping on my block because the bullets went through his front door. ive had kids on dirt bikes try to intimidate me by charging at me on the sidewalk at 40mph. there is a constant violent gang presence and the OP was complaining about Doritos bags on his lawn (which despite your proclamations, there is more than enough careless behavior and trash here to fill a few landfills, certainly picking it up every day)...im sorry, but thats quaint. maybe you just need to get out of "Lagunitasville". come over to St Louis and 24th and we'll talk.

want to know the funny thing though? when i lived in edgewater i had a cruiser coming down my street practically once an hour. when ive called the cops about shit happening down here guess what...zero response. and then 3 days later someone gets shot at a corner thats been an issue for years. this is the type of shit people are fed up with.

Your graph shows that the poor have not actually gotten poorer, their wages have continued to slowly rise, but at a lower pace. This isn't a "rich stealing from the poor" situation, this is a "rich getting richer at a wildly faster rate" situation.

it dosent matter if they "slowly continue to rise" if things like inflation and higher COL (including radically higher education and housing costs) eats away at those meager gains. most workers are making LESS in real world terms today, than their counterparts 30 years ago. especially when factoring in massive productivity gains

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by aaron38

30 years ago in 1988 we had good private sector union jobs with the industrial base to support them (and the public sector unions). No NAFTA, no WTO. No low cost overseas design centers. No massive influx of H1B visas. Those were the systemic policy decisions.

But we’re told that supporting tariffs and slashing immigration is alt-right; racist white supremacy. So we’ll just keep doing more of the same globalism.

This belief would require you to ignore all of the countries who have immigration and low tariffs along with private sector unions and an industrial base (nevermind the fact the US makes more stuff now than we ever have). Canada and Australia immediately come to mind.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ The Mayor sets the agenda for City Council and submits the budget and most important legislation, true. But why are you in favor of giving more power to aldermen when they abuse the little power they have (to oversee zoning changes in their wards) over BS reasons like congestion, too much affordable housing (like Napolitano) or too little (like Rosa)?

You have to have a guy at the top who can see the big picture and make tough decisions. The demands of voters are not necessarily what will bring the greatest prosperity and quality of life to the city as a whole; sometimes you need a little authoritarianism within limits.

The Chicago City Council is just too big. 15 members like LA has would be great.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Anybody who thinks that Chicago is screwed without Rahm obviously has no clue what tremendous assets the city has. I mean, didn’t you expect he would be gone at some point?

The city has some of the best workforce, one of the best built environments, and cultural institutions in North America.

Hell, in a tragic twist of fate, Chicago is a gangland Capital, and hence a center of so much drug related violence, precisely because of the prodigious infrastructure (location, transportation) that made the city vital to America’s growth to begin with. This is a marvelous place to traffic drugs and guns through and out towards the interior of the nation, and vice versa.

One man has little to do with this. The cake is baked—global forces shrunk the manufacturing workforce, but the new economy long ago took hold. Tech jobs are flowing in, companies are flowing in, and gentrification will continue like a freight train. These are forces largely beyond one man’s control. And if anything, Chicago would benefit more and more from a less strong-armed Mayor, so that the city won’t sway back and forth between politically connected power brokers every time there is a newly elected Mayor.

It may be generally true that no one person is truly that important. But perceptions matter. And for a lot of people, Rahm represented a strong, no bullshit charismatic leader. I think that makes some difference, especially as it relates to people on the fence as to whether to set up shop in the city or not.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by tjp

I don’t know if I agree with this. Other cities, namely NY and LA, have been much more successful in reducing gun violence despite the country’s gun laws.

What did they do, and why doesn't Chicago do the same then?

[tjp]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

What did they do, and why doesn't Chicago do the same then?

Beats me! I was just making the observation that the issue isn't limited to gun control.

[Via Chicago]

didnt people freak out the exact same way when Daley left (feel free to pick one)

change isnt a bad thing, and fresh perspectives are healthy. the sooner we can start getting away from this notion that chicago has to have an entrenched political dynasty to be successful is the sooner we can start realizing that A) the assets that make this city attractive are not tied to one man, and B) new blood and shaking things up can be a positive. id be completely fine with term limits for elected city positions. 3 terms seems like plenty.

byrne/washington were good mayors in their own rights and decent human beings. blandic was a dysfunctional mayor. what can you do.

rahm was a PR mayor. he could get in front of a camera and boost the city as well as anyone on this board. that helped a lot with boosting the tourism industry. i give him credit for continuing to support a lot of the arts initiatives that started under Daley, and for doing a far better job than Daley at transportation projects (both bike infrastructure and public transit). i would hope a new mayor continues those, and sees the value in continuing to fund them adequately. but there are lots of areas where rahm also failed, and i think we need someone who understands that they cant just govern this city by touting successes in trendy areas and the loop. (i also think we give rahm too much credit even on that point, as he entetered office right as the national trend towards "back to the city" was really hitting full swing, and the country was fully emerging from the depths of the recession. while some of his zoning changes ushered in the development we see today, im also pretty confident most of these big projects would have happened regardless of if he was at the helm. why? because younger people no longer value suburbia the way they once did, and corporations needed to react to that one way or another. its happening in every city in the United States and isnt unique to Chicago). no 24 year old is relocating to Chicago because of their perception of Rahm Emmanuel. theyre relocating here because they want to live in Wicker Park. on the flip side, the city has bled population on the south side because of his inability to make those residents feel safe and resulting disinvestment...he has to answer to those communities all the same, and as much as people here try to act otherwise, those neighborhoods are still part of chicago and the mayor should be accountable for them.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

on the flip side, the city has bled population on the south side because of his inability to make those residents feel safe and resulting disinvestment...he has to answer to those communities all the same, and as much as people here try to act otherwise, those neighborhoods are still part of chicago and the mayor should be accountable for them.

i agree that the violence issue is a stain on rahm.

but it's also a stain on daley II, sawyer, washington, byrne, bilandic, and daley I.

no one in the past half century has come up with anything to meaningfully reduce chicago's atrociously high levels of gun violence.

despite the national media's new-found hysterical alarm, it's actually a really old, intractable problem that no one has been able to tackle, not even washington.

annual homicide tallies were in the 800's (!) every year of washington's 5-year tenure, he must have been a failure of a mayor as well, i guess.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by tjp

Beats me! I was just making the observation that the issue isn't limited to gun control.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i agree that that the violence issue is a stain on rahm.

but it's also a stain on daley II, sawyer, washington, byrne, bilandic, and daley I.

no one in the past half century has come up with anything to meaningfully reduce chicago's atriociously high levels of gun violence.

despite the nation media's new-found hysterical alarm, it's a really old, intractable problem that no one has been able to tackle, not even washington.

annual homicide tallies were in the 800's (!) every year of washington's 5-year tenure, he must have been a failure of a mayor as well, i guess.

Agreed, the answer must be out there. LA and NYC seem to have found it. I've heard that both CA and NY have much stricter gun sentences than IL. Seems like an easy place to start if true.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Agreed, the answer must be out there. LA and NYC seem to have found it.

I suspect CPD is a big part of the problem.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I suspect CPD is a big part of the problem.

How so?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Agreed, the answer must be out there. LA and NYC seem to have found it.

They didn't find diddly shit.

All they did was gentrify the problem away, plus it's pretty well known that most of these murders are related to drug wars. And Chicago processes a lot of drugs that flow into the country.

Hell, Chicago has had a history of nationally famous drug wars going back to the 1920s. Lets not forget about Capone and Banion

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i agree that the violence issue is a stain on rahm.

but it's also a stain on daley II, sawyer, washington, byrne, bilandic, and daley I.

no one in the past half century has come up with anything to meaningfully reduce chicago's atrociously high levels of gun violence.

despite the national media's new-found hysterical alarm, it's actually a really old, intractable problem that no one has been able to tackle, not even washington.

annual homicide tallies were in the 800's (!) every year of washington's 5-year tenure, he must have been a failure of a mayor as well, i guess.

Thank you for saying this. Via Chicago doesn't want to credit Rahm for anything good that happened in Chicago (fine, I accept that argument--these were larger trends), but then using that logic, he cannot be blamed for the bad things either (gun control, gang warfare, international drug cartels are also trends beyond his power).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

They didn't find diddly shit.

All they did was gentrify the problem away, plus it's pretty well known that most of these murders are related to drug wars. And Chicago processes a lot of drugs that flow into the country.

Hell, Chicago has had a history of nationally famous drug wars going back to the 1920s. Lets not forget about Capone and Banion

I think you're onto something. That and not playing patty cakes with violent criminals will do it.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i agree that the violence issue is a stain on rahm.

but it's also a stain on daley II, sawyer, washington, byrne, bilandic, and daley I.

no one in the past half century has come up with anything to meaningfully reduce chicago's atrociously high levels of gun violence.

despite the national media's new-found hysterical alarm, it's actually a really old, intractable problem that no one has been able to tackle, not even washington.

annual homicide tallies were in the 800's (!) every year of washington's 5-year tenure, he must have been a failure of a mayor as well, i guess.

the CPD was openly hostile towards washington, not to mention the red squad

[Chisouthside]

Disinvestment and economic inequality is probably the biggest reason,
also the entrenched gang culture.
And also the geography of Chicago is a major reason, as Chicago's murder clusters are far away from the core where most of the development is going on. The crunch for housing in LA and NYC probably has a spatial influence on formerly high murder areas where housing needs dictate investment and development in those areas. And unlike Chicago, alot of those areas in NYC have been redeveloped without a huge overall population loss of black residents (most likely a modest growth of between 50 to 100k) since 2010.
While Rahm did a good job in growing the economic base of the city, entire neighborhoods have been neglected.

Also as a previous post mentioned the infrastructure of the city, that has contributed to Chicago becoming a main hub for opiate distribution.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mexi...market-2016-12
https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...al_10.6.16.pdf

And if you look at the murder numbesr from like 2004 to 2015, the numbers stayed in the 400s and the ride followed Chicago becoming a main opiate hub.
That also coincides with a rising number in opiate related hospital visits/overdoses/deaths in Chicago. When there aren't jobs and then cheap opiates flood the streets you'll probably see the rise in violence you saw in 2016 to now.

Just my two cents.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

not playing patty cakes with violent criminals will do it.

How racist! Criminals deserve rights too. We need to understand them better. They are such delicate souls, like children, crying for help.

Next time some poor little fella knocks an old lady down a set of stairs to her death from a CTA platform to steal her cell phone, don't become indignant. Instead you should stop, reflect, and give that person a hug. Ask them, "what pains you? What did we as a society do to wrong you? What can I do to make it better for you? Don't have her cell phone, have mine!"

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Thank you for saying this. Via Chicago doesn't want to credit Rahm for anything good that happened in Chicago (fine, I accept that argument--these were larger trends), but then using that logic, he cannot be blamed for the bad things either (gun control, gang warfare, international drug cartels are also trends beyond his power).

i never said he didnt do anything good. i said i think transportation expansion will be his lasting legacy, as far as what he did well...modernization of red/brown/blue lines, new stations at Morgan/Motor Row/United Center/95th/Wabash etc, GPS tracking/train tracker, refurbished stations across the entire system, the 606/riverwalk (I consider those transit projects and were funded as such), hugely expanded bike lanes (on the north side anyway, bike infrastructure is still awful on the S.S.)...these were absolutely badly needed and would not have happened without him making it a priority. and i think those investments are quite consequential and will have a long lasting impact. he also cared about design and got rid of the awful Daley prefab libraries in favor of centerpiece designs like the one in Chinatown, the mixed use version coming to River North, etc. He also ushered in Fulton Market as an office district. But theres no way the citywide violence dosent overshadow his legacy. It was obv bad in the 90s too and Daley did grapple with it, but most of the country was dealing with similar issues around urban decay and as others have mentioned, those cities have mostly pulled out of those death spirals. The question is why Chicago hasnt, and unfortunately that negative trend was on his watch.