CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Aldermen's absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge
Posted By Maya Dukmasova on 04.16.18 at 02:55 PM

GlenStar, the luxury developer at odds with 41st Ward alderman Anthony Napolitano over a proposed 299-unit apartment building near the Cumberland Blue Line, has sued the city in an attempt to secure the necessary zoning changes to proceed with construction. But buried in its demands that a judge find city officials' actions regarding its proposed building unlawful is a major legal challenge to the age-old practice of "aldermanic prerogative."

This tradition, while not articulated anywhere in city code, has historically given aldermen veto power over developments in their ward. As the case of GlenStar's proposal has shown, when Napolitano decided he didn't want its apartment building in his ward, the City Council's zoning committee complied and didn't grant the developer a hearing or vote on its proposal...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ourt-challenge

Maybe he blocked it because it has the design ascetic of an airport Hojo outside Cleveland.

[left of center]

The design isn't pushing any boundaries, but it *is* Jefferson Park after all. Anything remotely interesting being proposed there would probably ruffle even more feathers and add to the ranks of the zombie NIMBY horde.

Although if that surface parking lot is part of the development, then there goes my support for this project. They should at least spring for a garage of some sort.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Interesting, we were just discussing how aldermanic perogative is probably illegal at a policy event last week. No one has ever challenged it before and it is possible that the current practice is illegal. It's just hard to sue over it because it's not written down. You can't say that cities can't have the council vote on zoning matters and they all just decide to go along with it on their own volition, so how do you sue over it?

Originally Posted by Flaccer05

Depends on where you're going in the West Loop. Just take the Blue Line through the loop to UIC Halsted or Racine stop. Actually is quite accessible to southern half of West Loop. UIC Halsted stop is just a couple blocks from Greektown and 0.4 miles (~8 min walk) to Mary Bartelme Park. More of a jaunt to Randolph but within 15 min walk. But would need to transfer at Grand if you're going heart of Fulton Market where office demand is blowing up. In which case Pink Line is far superior as you highlight.

Yeah, but if you go through the loop on the Blue that basically doubles the travel distance and time from somewhere like Logan Square. That's like 5 more stops than just getting off at Grand.

The West Loop really is just poorly connected to other sides of the city just as pretty much every corner of the city is. Only certain lines cut through downtown each connecting only certain sides of the city. We are a hub and spoke city at the end of the day which means it's hard to go from one quadrant to the others. This is why I'm so bullish on that entire side of downtown. The forces of development have decided that, now that the north side and NW side are pretty much filled up, they will push West and SW.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by glowrock

While I do agree that price increases should be kept to a minimum when it comes to Chicago's major cultural facilities, especially its world-renowned museums, I'd still say that the Art Institute prices are amazingly inexpensive given the quality and quantity of art that is on display. Let's face it, we're talking about one of the world's great art museums, one with very, very few equivalents, not only in this country but throughout the world.

I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation.

Aaron (Glowrock)

How do you figure it's amazingly inexpensive? If anything it's pretty expensive. The Met in NY is way bigger and better, and it's free with a suggested donation.

The Louve is much bigger and better and is only 15 euros.
The 5 museums in Berlin on Museum Island together are only 18 euros.
My favorite museum The Prado in Madrid is only 15 euros.

I'm not interested in Asian art. Most of the contemporary art they buy is a huge rip off! Millions for a couple paint splatters on a huge canvas, a neon sign with a snarky comment, or some random photos that look like something any art student could come up with.

The Reina Sofia National Art museum in Madrid is my favorite modern art museum, It has a very excellent quality collection of Modern art. It's only 10 euro

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

^ Interesting... if this case works out in the favor of GlenStar, it could set a powerful precedent that aldermanic prerogative is no longer acceptable in Chicago... which would be absolutely fantastic!

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

[Vlajos]

^ it's not really fair to compare European art museums to US art museums in terms of cost. As we all know, Europe provides large subsidies to many things that US does not. It's like public transport there vs. the US. Just not comparable.

I personally think the Art Institute is one of the greatest art museums in the world. I love the Prado too, I honestly think AI is better though. Of course the Louvre is the best in the world to me.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

Though NYC has Community Boards screwing up basically everything they can get their hands on. I'll let the oversized city council live if that's an alternative.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

[Khantilever]

Let’s be careful with what we wish for. Aldermanic Privilege empowers NIMBYism in some cases, but also makes development easier in many cases. First of all, with a centralized process we run the risk of a more restrictive zoning map applied to the entire city and a much more difficult re-zoning process. Second, the highly non-compact Ward boundaries allow for Aldermen to approve developments in areas under their jurisdiction which are relatively far from their core constituencies - I think Hopkins Ward 2 is a prime example of this, and I’ve heard stories about how Luis Gutierrez intentionally focused development in such parts of his ward when he was an Alderman.

I’m a PhD candidate in economics and I have a paper where I used this feature of Chicago’s process to look at development in the city, trying to find this effect in the data. And I see it. Homeownership rates are the prime predictor of opposition to development. But what I find is that when I have two block groups with similar homeownership rates and other characteristics which only differ in terms of which Ward they’re associated with, the one in the relatively renter-dominated Ward experiences faster and larger re-zonings.

I’m currently working on a model that will allow for some counterfactual simulations where I can redraw Ward boundaries or change the number of wards or even dissolve city council. But my intuition based on my existing results is that Aldermanic Privilege May well be generally beneficial to development. In general, Aldermen probably have an incentive to approve developments, thanks to the contributions they get — perhaps an instance of what we sometimes call efficiency-improving corruption. So even though they’ll cater to NIMBYs quite often, they also play a role in redrawing wards in a way that makes future development easier. I can’t claim to be privy to the details of the last redrawing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the North Branch got lumped with a bunch of disparate areas. Obviously the big goal was to screw Fioretti, but it also gives surrounding Aldermen political cover to allow large-scale redevelopment to occur since its outside of their control.

And then of course we have the classic Tiebout sorting view that also suggests the system is better for us overall. You want low-density neighborhoods? There’s a ward for you. You want high density? We got you. If we were to instead create one standard for the city, because of their higher incomes and political participation the preferences of NIMBY homeowners are likely to be more influential than others’.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

I'd go with 10, but 25 is better than 50.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by glowrock

While I do agree that price increases should be kept to a minimum when it comes to Chicago's major cultural facilities, especially its world-renowned museums, I'd still say that the Art Institute prices are amazingly inexpensive given the quality and quantity of art that is on display. Let's face it, we're talking about one of the world's great art museums, one with very, very few equivalents, not only in this country but throughout the world.

I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Not that long ago, entry fees to the Art Institute were "suggested." It's relatively recent that they became "enforced."

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

Not that long ago, entry fees to the Art Institute were "suggested." It's relatively recent that they became "enforced."

I didn't realize they were enforced now. I've always paid either way so it never mattered to me anyway.

[left of center]

^ Same here, I was under the impression that the voluntary suggested donation was still in force. I haven't been to the AI for a number of years however... I really should reacquaint myself with the city's cultural institutions...

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

How do you figure it's amazingly inexpensive? If anything it's pretty expensive. The Met in NY is way bigger and better, and it's free with a suggested donation.

The Louve is much bigger and better and is only 15 euros.
The 5 museums in Berlin on Museum Island together are only 18 euros.
My favorite museum The Prado in Madrid is only 15 euros.

I'm not interested in Asian art. Most of the contemporary art they buy is a huge rip off! Millions for a couple paint splatters on a huge canvas, a neon sign with a snarky comment, or some random photos that look like something any art student could come up with.

The Reina Sofia National Art museum in Madrid is my favorite modern art museum, It has a very excellent quality collection of Modern art. It's only 10 euro

Just checked on admissions policies at the Met, and yes, NY, CT, NJ residents are still suggested donation only. Non-residents of these three states are $25 admission. And again, I think this is a very fair price for such a ridiculously prestigious museum.

As for the specific artworks in the AIC's (or Met's, or Louvre's, etc...) collections, well, different strokes for different folks, right? I'm a huge fan of relatively contemporary pieces, plus impressionism. Give me Monet, give me Van Gogh, give me some Picasso, give me something like American Gothic, give me some Lautrec, etc., I'm a happy boy. I do happen to also like the more historical stuff like Asian, African, Oceanic, etc... etc... Not everything needs to be a bunch of Renaissance works.

Regardless, my point is that on nearly every world rankings list, the AIC is definitely right up there with the world's great art museums. And I don't think $20 is unfair in terms of admissions cost, especially when there are so many free and reduced-fee days for Chicago/Illinois residents.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by emathias

Not that long ago, entry fees to the Art Institute were "suggested." It's relatively recent that they became "enforced."

Fair enough. And many museums have done exactly that in the last decade or so. I remember when many museums I would visit in cities I've lived in had suggested admissions but weren't really enforced. Of course that was when artworks/artifacts could be acquired for far less than they generally can nowadays. My point is that I really don't see the admission at the AIC as being excessive, especially when anyone who wants to visit more than a few times in a year should really get a membership anyhow, as it's far less expensive. For example, it's what I did at the Shedd Aquarium, and just the lack of having to wait in those horrible lines is worth it for me, yet alone free admission!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Just checked on admissions policies at the Met, and yes, NY, CT, NJ residents are still suggested donation only. Non-residents of these three states are $25 admission. And again, I think this is a very fair price for such a ridiculously prestigious museum.

As for the specific artworks in the AIC's (or Met's, or Louvre's, etc...) collections, well, different strokes for different folks, right? I'm a huge fan of relatively contemporary pieces, plus impressionism. Give me Monet, give me Van Gogh, give me some Picasso, give me something like American Gothic, give me some Lautrec, etc., I'm a happy boy. I do happen to also like the more historical stuff like Asian, African, Oceanic, etc... etc... Not everything needs to be a bunch of Renaissance works.

Regardless, my point is that on nearly every world rankings list, the AIC is definitely right up there with the world's great art museums. And I don't think $20 is unfair in terms of admissions cost, especially when there are so many free and reduced-fee days for Chicago/Illinois residents.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Thanks for saying this in response to Baronvonellis’ silly post. Let’s not forget that a great amount of artwork in the Met is ancient near east/Egyptian stuff. We happen to have one of the world’s greatest collections of that here in Chicago, but not in the AIC. It’s at the Oriental Institute, a facility that doesn’t get as much acclaim as it deserves.

If seeing room after mind-numbing room of Renaissance paintings of random European nobles and Biblical scenes is really your thing, then yeah, AIC is probably not going to be your favorite place.

Also, don’t forget that Illinois residents still get free admission to these museums several days per year.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

^ it's not really fair to compare European art museums to US art museums in terms of cost. As we all know, Europe provides large subsidies to many things that US does not. It's like public transport there vs. the US. Just not comparable.

I personally think the Art Institute is one of the greatest art museums in the world. I love the Prado too, I honestly think AI is better though. Of course the Louvre is the best in the world to me.

Agreed, although this is something I miss about St. Louis. The majority of their major museums are free due to a local tax. You only have to pay extra for the special exhibits. This includes the St. Louis Art museum, Zoo, Science Center, and Missouri History Museum.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

Though NYC has Community Boards screwing up basically everything they can get their hands on. I'll let the oversized city council live if that's an alternative.

Originally Posted by left of center

I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Let’s be careful with what we wish for. Aldermanic Privilege empowers NIMBYism in some cases, but also makes development easier in many cases. First of all, with a centralized process we run the risk of a more restrictive zoning map applied to the entire city and a much more difficult re-zoning process. Second, the highly non-compact Ward boundaries allow for Aldermen to approve developments in areas under their jurisdiction which are relatively far from their core constituencies - I think Hopkins Ward 2 is a prime example of this, and I’ve heard stories about how Luis Gutierrez intentionally focused development in such parts of his ward when he was an Alderman.

I’m a PhD candidate in economics and I have a paper where I used this feature of Chicago’s process to look at development in the city, trying to find this effect in the data. And I see it. Homeownership rates are the prime predictor of opposition to development. But what I find is that when I have two block groups with similar homeownership rates and other characteristics which only differ in terms of which Ward they’re associated with, the one in the relatively renter-dominated Ward experiences faster and larger re-zonings.

I’m currently working on a model that will allow for some counterfactual simulations where I can redraw Ward boundaries or change the number of wards or even dissolve city council. But my intuition based on my existing results is that Aldermanic Privilege May well be generally beneficial to development. In general, Aldermen probably have an incentive to approve developments, thanks to the contributions they get — perhaps an instance of what we sometimes call efficiency-improving corruption. So even though they’ll cater to NIMBYs quite often, they also play a role in redrawing wards in a way that makes future development easier. I can’t claim to be privy to the details of the last redrawing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the North Branch got lumped with a bunch of disparate areas. Obviously the big goal was to screw Fioretti, but it also gives surrounding Aldermen political cover to allow large-scale redevelopment to occur since its outside of their control.

And then of course we have the classic Tiebout sorting view that also suggests the system is better for us overall. You want low-density neighborhoods? There’s a ward for you. You want high density? We got you. If we were to instead create one standard for the city, because of their higher incomes and political participation the preferences of NIMBY homeowners are likely to be more influential than others’.

Well, look at this crap. The developer has a building permit and the stupid alderman is now trying to down zone the site. This is completely unacceptable. The time to stop this was long before a permit being issued.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-hotel-in-west

[Steely Dan]

Dorothy Brown to run for mayor

Fran Spielman @fspielman | email
Jon Seidel @SeidelContent | email

Embattled Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown is jumping into the already crowded race for mayor of Chicago, despite a federal investigation that’s been swirling around her and her office for years.

A campaign flier circulated by Brown’s allies and a follow-up emailed announcement invites supporters to a campaign kick-off at 2:45 p.m. Sunday at the Chicago Hilton and Towers, 720 S. Michigan.

The flier uses the hashtag #Hope4AllChicago, underscored by the words, “Respect, Pride and Change.” Patricia Keenan, a spokesperson for the Brown campaign, confirmed the clerk would, in fact, join the crowded field attempting to unseat two-term incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago...run-for-mayor/


my only question is why?

what's the play here?

[bnk]

She’s a “stalking horse” for Rahm.

She will wittingly or unwittingly draw the angry black monies, effort and if she stay in votes from a real candidate that could be a contender to topple him.

My guess she is doing it unwittingly or otherwise is going to get a lot of $ to do so.