^ It's not clear if Rahm was talking about a specific policy he's trying to enact in his final days, or if he was speaking rhetorically about how he has strategized in the past.

I hope he does make some waves and back some losers in his final days, though. Go out with a bang.

New employees pay into the pension fund, which helps keep it solvent (similar to social security). Moving new employees to 401(k)s doesn't pass the arithmetic test, which is why nobody is seriously proposing it.

No they don't, Rahm's attempt at pension reform involved asking them to pay in and it was rejected by the courts as "diminishing" their benefits. Taxpayers fund the pensions, not the employees, which is why we are in such a fucked up situation. The only funding coming from city and state employees is coming out of the taxes they are paying.

This is incorrect. It is true that the city pays a majority of the pension cost. For example, teachers pay 9% of their salary to the pension, the city picks up 7% and the individual pays the other 2%. I'm having trouble finding the details for the Police and Municipal Employees, but I assume they are similar. Either way, this 9% goes directly to the pension fund and moving new workers to 401(k)s would eliminate this contribution from the pension plans and crater their funding percentage.

The law that was struck down would have forced the workers to pay a higher percentage into the fund and also lowered the annual 3% cost-of-living growth (which is ridiculous in it's own right). It was a reasonable reform, but the rigid constitutional language doomed it.

Thank you for providing the data and source.

I think you are still misunderstanding my statement. What matters is the total amount going onto the pension system. Right now, it is a combination of member and employer (the city) contributions. If all of those future payments go into a new 401(k) system instead of the existing pension system, it would kill the pension funding.

In 5 years, the pension wouldn't have any money to pay existing retirees. You would be drawing down the pension fund to pay existing retirees, while not replenishing with current worker/employer payments. This would cause the fund to go bankrupt.

IIRC, I believe we've been requested to move Pension discussions to the Politics thread ...

I'm still not following how Tiers 1-3 would continue to be funded alongside a new 401(k) program.

Maybe a couple examples would help clarify.

I get hired tomorrow and enter the new 401(k) program. When I get my paycheck, which funds am I paying into?

I got hired 5 years ago as a Tier 3 worker. When I get my paycheck, which funds am I paying into?

I thought this article was pretty interesting, about a drive-through Starbucks coming to Bridgeport:
https://southsideweekly.com/a-starbu...ay-bridgeport/

And it’s suburban as hell. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggghhhhh! :hell:

Throw out our worthless planning department

It's not DPD's fault. Most of the time DPD (staff) does everything in its power to shape how projects should fit into the urban fabric. The aldermen have tremendous power and can push projects like this through the zoning review process. In most cases the alderman has the support of the mayor's office. It's all about jobs and amenities, especially in the neighborhoods.

Starbucks is very regimented about their drive thru designs. They want it suburban so it's going to be suburban.

Well the City doesn't need Starbucks, so fuck them.

We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before.

I just tried to upvote this.

Isn't this the kind of big government solution you typically despise?

government is bad, except when it does stuff i like.

How is it "big government" to not want to allow a poorly planned drive thru to be constructed on land that is not currently zoned for a drive thru and is actually city owned? In this case the developer is not entitled to shit and the government should not be obliged to allow the developer to do more than they are already allowed to as of right. As has been established here ad nauseum, proper planning is an entirely appropriate use of government power, catering to hordes of NIMBYs and activists who are clamoring for poor planning decisions to be made is not.

In other words: NIMBYs demanding more parking and auto oriented design = not ok. Developers demanding more parking and auto oriented design = also not ok. That's totally consistent.

The comment was "We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before", which includes none of the nuance contained in your response.

It actually mirrors other discussions I've had with "small government" types. Specifically, they view every problem as having a simple solution (the market decides) except in areas where they have expertise. In those cases, there is specific nuance that should be taken into account.

No, not true. The city can still have basic design standards without having to intervene with every nook and cranny of life, but often they go way too far.

Simply put, ban streetfront parking on all commercial streets.

with the jussie smollett debacle, the aurora mass shooting, and now r. kelly's indictment, it'd be nice if chicago could stay out of national headlines with all of this negative shit for a little while.

and here's the perfect antidote to all of the recent negative news.


full article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/dinin...221-story.html



REJOICE!


i currently have a bottle of the impostor florida stuff in my liquor cabinet.

i'll have to polish that off and my get hands on a bottle of the new chicago-made stuff.