CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[the urban politician]

^ HELL YEAH!

That was a great read. I'm rooting for her. Chicago needs this, badly

[tjp]

I'm so excited to watch Lori lead after reading that!

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I remember one answer about affordable housing where Preckwinkle was basically like "we are going to make affordable housing like I did in Hyde Park when I was alderman".

Where did she say this? She's the reason there was no development here for her entire tenure, good fucking riddance.

[Steely Dan]

Go get 'em, Lori!!!

Send all of these crooked corrupt-ass alder-vermin up the river, or better yet, to the bottom of the lake.

[Tom In Chicago]

She plans to issue an executive order on May 20 — inauguration day — ending aldermanic privilege and establishing a two-term limit for the mayor and committee chairmen.

If these are her only achievements, then her tenure will be a resounding success. . .

. . .

[harryc]

Client and lawyer, a 'willful enabler,' sanctioned over $1M for 'simply obscene' condo litigation

Judge Margaret Ann Brennan said litigant Marshall Spiegel and his
“willful enabler” lawyer John Xydakis had brought claims with “no basis in law
or fact” and had “shown complete disregard for the judicial process through
their egregious conduct.”

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wouldn't the present black Superintendent of Police share the same "skin in the game"?

Sorry, I don't really accept this line of thinking.

Originally Posted by moorhosj

The notable difference being that the Police Superintendent is not the Mayor. One is a high ranking cop the other signs legislation and directs budgets.

Not only that, but multiple studies have shown that black cops usually - not always, but usually - are blue first and black second, so they caught up in the same culture as white cops do.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

Not only that, but multiple studies have shown that black cops usually - not always, but usually - are blue first and black second,

^ I'm sorry, but what is wrong with that?

We aren't going to create a better society if we put our race first, and other things after. I'm sure if you were in court against another person, you wouldn't want the judge to have a "I'll put my race first" mentality. I'm sure you wouldn't want your doctor, or firefighters, or bus drivers to think that way.

If that's what you're suggesting that we should have people do, then I guess we have very different visions of a better society.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by emathias

Not only that, but multiple studies have shown that black cops usually - not always, but usually - are blue first and black second, so they caught up in the same culture as white cops do.

So your in favor of reverse racism? If a white cop is racist he should be held accountable, but if a black cop is racist he's just supporting his people and it's all good?

[the urban politician]

^ I'm sure that black cops aren't out there thinking "blue first" just to be assholes.

The reality is much simpler. They deal with tough members of society and are doing their jobs. And that's what public wants and needs them to do, whether some members of the public will admit it or not.

The notion that they should give "special treatment" to people of their own race is preposterous nonsense from liberals behind a desktop who've obviously NEVER had to arrest a violent 19 year old who could be kicking, threatening, or cursing him out. I am wagering that if any of you textbook policy wonk types spent 1 month as a cop working in a gang-infested neighborhood you'd quickly come around to the fact that yeah--this job is dangerous and skin color really is not what's important. Maybe that explains why white and black cops on the same force seem to get along perfectly fine with each other for the most part.

[amfleisch]

Prosecutor in Foxx's office speaks out: Criticism "is not an attack on Ms Foxx’s race, it is an attack on her ethics and her efficacy as State’s Attorney"
http://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/04/pr...peaks-out.html

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

So your in favor of reverse racism? If a white cop is racist he should be held accountable, but if a black cop is racist he's just supporting his people and it's all good?

I think you're reading my intent exactly wrong, so wrong, in fact, it feels intentional.

First of all, I wasn't describing what I think should be the case, I was describing what *is* the case.

Second of all, see the first of all.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm sure that black cops aren't out there thinking "blue first" just to be assholes.

The reality is much simpler. They deal with tough members of society and are doing their jobs. And that's what public wants and needs them to do, whether some members of the public will admit it or not.

The notion that they should give "special treatment" to people of their own race is preposterous nonsense from liberals behind a desktop who've obviously NEVER had to arrest a violent 19 year old who could be kicking, threatening, or cursing him out. I am wagering that if any of you textbook policy wonk types spent 1 month as a cop working in a gang-infested neighborhood you'd quickly come around to the fact that yeah--this job is dangerous and skin color really is not what's important. Maybe that explains why white and black cops on the same force seem to get along perfectly fine with each other for the most part.

Your right, I've never been a cop.

I have been a parole officer. I have worked with inner-city youth. I grew up in a very hard-scrabble town in rural Oregon which, if you don't think is relevant, you don't have any right lecturing me on knowing culture because some of the kids I grew up with went to prison for murder, armed robbery, and drug crimes just like inner city kids. Some who weren't arrested, still did things like beat an old man almost to death for no reason, and beat up a tourist so badly that the tourist was "kicked until his ribs stopped breaking." More than once, my high school football games turned into riots that required police response.

These weren't people I "heard about," these were my friends and people I socialized with daily. While I'm pretty quiet and mild-mannered myself, I grew up with these people and avoided trouble myself by knowing how to keep my mouth shut, make a persuasive argument to angry, violent peers, and read the crowd. I think these are skills inner city kids learn to survive, too, and that cops use on a daily basis.

Is all that a replacement for being a cop? No. But it's certainly a far cry from some kid who grew up in an upper-middle-class gated community going to private school whose only view of the streets was through the windows of a Range Rover and now writes your mythical policy papers.

FINALLY,

I'm not advocating that different cops treat different races differently. I'm advocating that ALL cops treat all people they interact with equally fairly and respectfully. The fact that you started talking about angry, violent kids when I mentioned police shootings of innocent, unarmed children is your own racist bullshit, not mine.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

I think you're reading my intent exactly wrong, so wrong, in fact, it feels intentional.

First of all, I wasn't describing what I think should be the case, I was describing what *is* the case.

Second of all, see the first of all.

And you are reading a black cop's intent wrong as well when you accuse them of being "blue first, black second". What that means is that you expect a black person to be tribal. It means that, according to you, if a black person is not being tribal, that they are not acting in accordance of what you expect of them.

I could see someone viewing your position as racist.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And you are reading a black cop's intent wrong as well when you accuse them of being "blue first, black second". What that means is that you expect a black person to be tribal. It means that, according to you, if a black person is not being tribal, that they are not acting in accordance of what you expect of them.

I could see someone viewing your position as racist.

Denying racism within police culture is absurd. I can't even comment on someone who has the balls to claim it doesn't exist. Do all departments have it? No. But many do, and in large departments such as the CPD absolutely some factions so. If it makes you more comfortable we call call it clasist, but I think that would be a misreading of the reality.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ No, all departments have racism. The question is whether or not it manifests itself in destructive ways. Human beings are inherently racist, the second someone tells you they are not you know they are probably more racist than most.

This is why police training is critical, the police are going to be racist, you can't stop people from having prejudices. The police are going to be "blue first, everyone else second", you can't stop people with things in common (particularly when its a job that requires putting your life at risk) from banding together. When you can do is train the police to recognize and resist acting on prejudice. You can train the police to still have their "brotherhood", but make sure that part of that "brotherhood" means absolute moral authority by all members of the clan. In other words, instill a culture where the brotherhood comes before the individual and the values they are upholding come first. If someone is corrupt, they are traitors to the cause. If someone commits a heinous unjustified act, they are traitors to the brotherhood.

You both are talking past each other right now. TUP is correct to observe that we don't want police to be "black first, blue second", that would be no better than a white cop being "white first, blue second". However you are correct in that the definition of "blue first" has meant far too much of "let's cover up this unjustified killing" or "I'm not going to snitch on my partner when he steals cash from this drug bust". We need to change the definition of blue first, not eliminate it.

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Less because they can't strong arm their local alderman into making poor planning choices. The city planning department would ideally be given wide latitude to approve things that fit inside good planning parameters.

Well that is amazing!!!!!!!!!!! Cant wait for Day1 Lori!

[10023]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

Well that is amazing!!!!!!!!!!! Cant wait for Day1 Lori!

Don’t get too excited. We don’t know yet whether her administration will make good planning choices or not.

Here in London, the administration of Sadiq Khan (Labour) has emphasised creating new “affordable” housing units above all else. So far the results haven’t been obviously negative, like the Labour governments of the 1950s (which basically ruined large parts of the city and scarred it all over with hideous, cheap social housing projects).

But we don’t know yet whether an administration that counts on the poor and disenfranchised for votes will make development less attractive for developers. What tends to happen indirectly is a decline in quality (and particularly aesthetic quality), because building “affordable” (subsidized) housing costs money and reduces margins, developers have to cut corners elsewhere in order to earn a return on investment.

[the urban politician]

^ The good news for LL is that she didn’t win off of the votes of the “poor and disenfranchised”. She built a coalition of people from all walks of life—wealthy, middle class, and yes probably some poor. She didn’t necessarily win big with the anti-Rahm zealots as much as Preckwinkle did.

Tying that into this thread, I don’t see her standing to gain votes politically by trying to force developers to create massive amounts of subsidized housing. She may push for it for other reasons, but I don’t see votes being a big driver. So I’m keeping my fingers crossed that her policies won’t curtail our high rise boom by much.

[10023]

^ That’s fair enough. Between the two of them she seemed to be the more centrist. But still not a Daley or a Rahm. A Chicago mayor does need to have a realization that the moneyed downtown is what separates Chicago from Detroit, and work to preserve and enhance that.