[chiphile]

Equating not showing up to town halls as the same as not voting is absurd. The point of representational government is to yes, vote, and then have your representatives, or administrative agencies empowered by law, carry out what's best for the city through objective standards (based off of the platforms they campaigned on).

When the department of aviation wanted to expand O'Hare and build more runways, aviation geeks on the airliners.net forum (skyscraper page for aviation enthusiasts) didn't deride Chicagoans for sitting at home while Bensenville residents packed town halls and screamed at the city and airlines. City, state, and FAA officials pretty much assumed such town halls would be NIMBY festivals and weren't naïve enough to think the future of the region's air transport should be decided by town hall screamers. Chicagoans just expected that the city would get shit done, and it did.

For a major public works project like CTA expansion, I might be inclined to voice my opinion and prevent NIMBYism from blocking transit, like BRT. But for a private developer, I just don't see it as the same.

I expect my alderman to have enough sense to analyze what's good and bad and vote for this building, especially in a location that is so obvious for what is proposed. If he doesn't have the sense, then hopefully I'll have a chance to vote against him.

Now when it comes to voter apathy, I agree, everyone should be responsible and vote for pro-development and pro-density aldermen, but that is in no way the same as showing up to every town hall. There are public comment meetings, town halls, almost daily for various issues, and it is entirely subjective what is more important. Every week I read about one concerning the airports (noise), metra/transit expansion, union station development, local art and theater, school openings and closings, crime, developments and skyscrapers, parks and recreation, road closures, and probably snow removal soon. You would have to be either unemployed or a loser to go to each one, and you'd be known as "that" guy.

I'll be a minority on this forum to say this, but it needs to be said. If I had the choice to spend 2 hours with my wife and kids, or spend 2 hours at a town hall that would be THE deciding vote on this tower, I would spend it with family. If I was single, then yeah sure I'd go, but other things matter to me too (and to most people not on this forum, i.e. everyone). Understand people have different lives than you; that doesn't mean they don't care or are apathetic.

My job isn't to administrate government on a day to day basis--there should be clear objective standards for approving tall buildings, like normal cities around the world do, rather than straw polls. There should be a Department of Development or something that decides yes/no on proposals based on objective, intelligent standards, so that development decisions are decided by unelected bureaucrats and development professionals who don't have to face the masses for re-election. It's like Aldermen having a voice in snow removal rather than the Department of Streets & Sanitation - you're guaranteed a shit show if that was decided by town hall input. So it perplexes me why development proposals have to go through the same thing. If this new "Department of Development" approves crap or does a bad job, then the mayor can face the consequences come election time just as he might if the Police Department (or Streets & Sanitation) does a bad job.

My job is to vote government in OR out, maybe participate in very serious local issues and voice my opinion, and otherwise hold the government accountable during the next election (or campaign season when they ask for donations).