CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Educating poor urban youth is a problem that nobody really has the answer to, and not for lack of trying. I'm left to wonder whether the school system can really address these problems at all, or if we need to start looking at policies that change the home environment. Something like a state-run system of boarding schools that parents could opt into for a nominal tuition.

You're just realizing this now?

As long as people think that Government can solve this, they've already failed...

[cyked3]

The impression I have is that there are very few nuclear families left in poor Chicago (or poor rest of America). I’m a big lefty, and I know that the right used to pretend like they cared about preserving nuclear families, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is a big deal. (Maybe it matters that I am now a parent myself and I can’t imagine how hard it would be to raise functional children as single parent with no money.). Any ideas on what goverment can do to promote stable families?

[SIGSEGV]

Maybe some lessons from behavioral economics apply. Instead of just offering free birth control, birth control should be provided by default and one would have to opt out instead.

To make this more Chicago related, here's a link to Rahm's podcast with Economics Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler, where the impact of behavioral economics on retirement plans is discussed (EDIT: actually, maybe not, maybe I mixed it up with another one...). https://soundcloud.com/chicagosmayor...al-nobel-prize

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by cyked3

I’m a big lefty, and I know that the right used to pretend like they cared about preserving nuclear families, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is a big deal. (Maybe it matters that I am now a parent myself and I can’t imagine how hard it would be to raise functional children as single parent with no money.)

Totally. Being a parent now myself, I can fully appreciate how blessed I was to come from an intact two-parent nuclear family, and how big of a blessing I'm giving to my own kids by providing the same for them. It's a HUGE advantage.

And it's a pattern that tends to repeat itself. My 2 kids will come from parents who never divorced, 2 sets of grandparents who never divorced, 4 sets of great grandparents who never divorced, 8 sets of great great grandparents who never divorced, and so on.

The older i get, the more i realize that kind of familial stability is the key to success

[emathias]

Perhaps a "Sociology of crime" thread should be started?

Nuclear families do make a big difference, and that is one of the biggest criticisms of the War on Drugs: that by sending such an enormous portion of poor people, and particularly men, to prison, it's horribly disfigured the families of millions of children.

And not far behind that was poorly-considered welfare programs that basically rewarded poor families that didn't have a father at home, and actively financially punished those that did. One relatively easy description of this was in that documentary about Pruitt-Igo in St Louis that came out a few years back (assuming you don't want to read entire sociology texts).

How to get back to solid footing from where we are now is a tough question, but arresting fewer people is a good way to start. Something more radical, like giving every family - even rich ones - a fixed, per-child stipend until some age (maybe even until 18), and then figuring out an equitable way to tax everyone in a manner that rich people don't come out ahead in the deal, would do a lot of good, too, by taking pressure off of government having to differentiate between coupled or uncoupled parents - no incentive to divorce and at least a mild incentive to form a stable, long-term relationship when children are involved.

Additionally, for families that are already broken it that can't avoid being broken, government support services like child care and guaranteed health care for children and mothers (which we mostly have, but which can be overly complex), even things like density zoning and transportation policy can make big practical differences for single parents.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by cyked3

Any ideas on what goverment can do to promote stable families?

Well they can stop promoting instability in families to start. The War on Drugs and the "Great Society" welfare programs basically did in the idea of the nuclear family for poor inner-city familes. As noble as providing poor mother's with aid and food is, it also eliminates their reliance on having a stable male spouse to provide. Combine that with locking half the men in some communities up for having a joint on them and you've got the mess we have today.

The fact of the matter is that gentrification is the single greatest force disrupting entrenched poverty in America today. These marginalized, segregated, ghettos need to go. I don't mean that the people there need to be forcibly moved, I mean that the areas need to be integrated at all costs. The best thing that can happen to a poor family stuck in the poverty trap is to move somewhere like Des Moines IA where the unemployment rate is 2.5% and they are literally begging people to move there. Ames IA is at 1.5% and is desperately trying to fill their shortage. Compare this to Chicago segregated neighborhoods where unemployment is 25-50%.

I have a friend who actually works at a large property manager and development non profit that specializes in HUD/Section 8 housing in Des Moines. Half of their clients/tenants are essentially refugees from these areas in Chicago and a large number of them actually move out of these units after 4-5 years when they have had a stable job for a few years. Des Moines had 25 murders last year in a city of 200k. That's high historically for Des Moines and pretty much isolated to carryover violence largely among migrants from Chicago or similar Urban areas.

The best possible thing we can do is move some more wealthy residents into these areas and move some poor residents into wealthy areas. The government should be promoting this flow and helping people make that transition. But of course then politicians don't want their voters moving away so they portray the process as the great Satan...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Well they can stop promoting instability in families to start. The War on Drugs and the "Great Society" welfare programs basically did in the idea of the nuclear family for poor inner-city familes. As noble as providing poor mother's with aid and food is, it also eliminates their reliance on having a stable male spouse to provide. Combine that with locking half the men in some communities up for having a joint on them and you've got the mess we have today.

The fact of the matter is that gentrification is the single greatest force disrupting entrenched poverty in America today. These marginalized, segregated, ghettos need to go. I don't mean that the people there need to be forcibly moved, I mean that the areas need to be integrated at all costs. The best thing that can happen to a poor family stuck in the poverty trap is to move somewhere like Des Moines IA where the unemployment rate is 2.5% and they are literally begging people to move there. Ames IA is at 1.5% and is desperately trying to fill their shortage. Compare this to Chicago segregated neighborhoods where unemployment is 25-50%.

I have a friend who actually works at a large property manager and development non profit that specializes in HUD/Section 8 housing in Des Moines. Half of their clients/tenants are essentially refugees from these areas in Chicago and a large number of them actually move out of these units after 4-5 years when they have had a stable job for a few years. Des Moines had 25 murders last year in a city of 200k. That's high historically for Des Moines and pretty much isolated to carryover violence largely among migrants from Chicago or similar Urban areas.

The best possible thing we can do is move some more wealthy residents into these areas and move some poor residents into wealthy areas. The government should be promoting this flow and helping people make that transition. But of course then politicians don't want their voters moving away so they portray the process as the great Satan...

I went to Iowa State which is in Ames. I think when I was a senior, there was kind of an influx of people from Chicago from some "not so good areas." I remember there was a little increase of crimes like armed robberies and people were starting to get worried as the community was very low crime, and it was kind of a sudden increase. I don't think it really "spiraled" out of control or anything though. Still low crime and everything and it was already a really low crime place (outside of a few fights here and there, and many an underage drinking charge). Actually I have really "great" memories of my drunk, idiot friend (who comes from an upper middle class family in India and thinks he's entitled to everything) bumping into a group of people who had just moved from Chicago on the sidewalk while he was walking very drunk. They of course wanted to start a fight with us 3 on 2- my friend who was a boxer (and not necessarily small) the entire time yelling at them "F*CK YOU! I'M GONNA F*CK YOU UP SO MUCH YOUR OWN MOM CAN'T RECOGNIZE YOU!" Really fun diffusing that situation, haha..

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ I don't think larger issues have arisen because the migrants are actually finding a way to improve their lives and get out of poverty just as quickly as more move in. Like I said, the economy is desperate for labor out here and you can find a job making $15 an hour like nothing and the cost of living is pretty much zero. The subsidized apartments my friend manages start at $400/mo for a less than 15 year old 2 BR apartment. Who would stay in Englewood living in a dilapidated hole when you can move to Des Moines and rent that?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ I don't think larger issues have arisen because the migrants are actually finding a way to improve their lives and get out of poverty just as quickly as more move in. Like I said, the economy is desperate for labor out here and you can find a job making $15 an hour like nothing and the cost of living is pretty much zero. The subsidized apartments my friend manages start at $400/mo for a less than 15 year old 2 BR apartment. Who would stay in Englewood living in a dilapidated hole when you can move to Des Moines and rent that?

Right. Just saying I was there in the beginning when they started to come and there was an uptick in crime, but nothing really came of it. I know that they improved their lives a bunch. Go where there's the opportunity - too bad Chicago hasn't found a way to do this too much. I think it would be a key in turning some things around in those areas, but you know..

[LouisVanDerWright]

Iowa kicked all the pension crap to the curb in the 1990s, that's been key to the states success. Iowa has had excellent fiscal health due to a combination of Terry Brandstads reforms and a general "get things done" attitude among all lawmakers regardless of party. Chicago and Illinois could certainly be in the same boat ourselves if Madigan weren't constantly trashing everything and if 5 of our last 7 governors weren't total pieces of shit who ended up in jail. Good government matters people, unfortunately Rauner is no Brandstad and the Democrats are nothing more than the "handout party"...

[marothisu]

I liked this OpEd and think there's a good amount of truth to it. It's written by a founder of West Loop Ventures and Hyde Park Angels (VC)

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...os-amazon-loss

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I liked this OpEd and think there's a good amount of truth to it. It's written by a founder of West Loop Ventures and Hyde Park Angels (VC)

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...os-amazon-loss

Surprised no one has commented on this. I found this OpEd to be interesting as well. It's very balanced and well written. We definitely need some fresh faces in both state/local politics and the business community. It's tough to be a contrarian though, especially when you're up against the machine.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Surprised no one has commented on this. I found this OpEd to be interesting as well. It's very balanced and well written. We definitely need some fresh faces in both state/local politics and the business community. It's tough to be a contrarian though, especially when you're up against the machine.

I'm not surprised at all. This type of attitude runs very deep in this City and region. It's in the blood stream of the region. There are a lot of people who want to change it, but it is a formidable challenge. Too many people benefit from this system and many more are infatuated by it. I also believe this type of attitude is slowly changing, although not fast enough.

I still see great potential in this City. That's why I continue to live here. I feel like I do my part to improve the social, racial, and physical environment through my work and community involvement. I've met tons of people who are working to change the mindset that exist in this region. Some of them are established politicians. Changing the political and business environment will probably take an economic revolution (some booming new industry is started here and takes off). I sure NYC had similar traits until the finance and media industries exploded in the 80's.

[the urban politician]

DHL building a 24k sf innovation center in the Chicago area, no idea how many jobs are involved:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/logi...ses-e-commerce

[tjp]

Salesforce to add 1,000 jobs in new Chicago riverfront skyscraper

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...128-story.html



1,000 is the minimum they need to hire by 2023 to qualify for the tax credits. I'm assuming / hoping they'll be hiring many more considering they're increasing their square footage in the city from 200,000 to 500,000...

edit - i see this was already discussed in the Salesforce Tower thread.

[Randomguy34]

Separate from the Salesforce news, 2,000 new job expansions for 2018 and 2019 in fintech, supply chain, AI, and marketing.

Mayor Emanuel Announces Local Tech Companies Adding 2,000 Jobs in Chicago
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/e...r/TechDay.html

[marothisu]

Posted in the general thread, but maybe it's better here

New ACS numbers are out, which means new community area populations for 2017. Lakeview is officially over 100K people now - 100,470 people. Near North, West, South, and the Loop together grew 4168 people from 2016 to 2017. That is 2.01% growth in a year - total population of over 211K now of those 4 areas. A big chunk of that was Near North at +2550 people, or about a 3% growth in that year.

Of the 77 community areas, 32 of them lost population while 45 of them gained population. Of the 32 that lost population, 7 of them lost less than 100 people each. Pullman for example lost 7 people - for many of these, the margin of error may cover it.

Top Growth CAs
1. Avondale: +7351 people (I think this is more of a correction considering the Census estimated Avondale lost 9704 people from 2015 to 2016 - so change from 2015 to 2017 is still -2353 people)

2. Near North Side: +2550 people
3. West Ridge: +2492 people
4. Belmont Cragin: +1801 people
5. Uptown: +1677 people
6. Norwood Park: +953 people
7. Garfield Ridge: +910 people
8. The Loop: +870 people
9. South Lawndale: +868 people
10. North Center: +847 people
11. Bridgeport: +843 people
12. Montclare: +792 people
13. East Side: +758 people
14. Clearing: +691 people
15. South Chicago: +662 people

Bottom CAs (losing population)
1. Austin: -2351 people
2. New City: -1532 people
3. Chicago Lawn: -1167 people
4. Englewood: -945 people
5. West Englewood: -869 people
6. West Town: -837 people
7. Woodlawn: -817 people
8. Irving Park: -811 people
9. West Elsdon: -722 people
10. O'Hare: -698 people
11. Greater Grand Crossing: -695 people
12. Logan Square: -679 people
13. Morgan Park: -657 people
14. West Lawn: -487 people
15. Rogers Park: -438 people


More to come..

[sentinel]

A close friend who works in the industry told me something potentially juicy yesterday: Netflix is scoping out a large warehouse not too far south from Cinespace's current location (cannot yet divulge actual location), in order to convert it to another studio space...and they want to have the lease for at least 5 years, so as to produce anywhere between 5-10 new shows. With the incoming Governor keen on extending tax credits for film production in Illinois for another 10 years, there could continue to be a thriving local film industry well into the late 2020s. Fox apparently loves filming here, and they are also looking to expand their lineup with a couple of new shows, slated to begin production in 2019-early 2020.

Oh and forgot this: he also said there are rumblings in the entertainment industry that some studios currently operating in Georgia are incredibly PISSED at the recent election for Governor there, and are actively looking at Chicago (and Toronto to a lesser extent) to shift major productions away from Atlanta. A lot of studios feel that Georgia state leadership and the GOP in general do not have their interests in mind, and would rather work north again, with or without tax credit incentives.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by sentinel

A close friend who works in the industry told me something potentially juicy yesterday: Netflix is scoping out a large warehouse not too far south from Cinespace's current location (cannot yet divulge actual location), in order to convert it to another studio space...and they want to have the lease for at least 5 years, so as to produce anywhere between 5-10 new shows. With the incoming Governor keen on extending tax credits for film production in Illinois for another 10 years, there could continue to be a thriving local film industry well into the late 2020s. Fox apparently loves filming here, and they are also looking to expand their lineup with a couple of new shows, slated to begin production in 2019-early 2020.

Oh and forgot this: he also said there are rumblings in the entertainment industry that some studios currently operating in Georgia are incredibly PISSED at the recent election for Governor there, and are actively looking at Chicago (and Toronto to a lesser extent) to shift major productions away from Atlanta. A lot of studios feel that Georgia state leadership and the GOP in general do not have their interests in mind, and would rather work north again, with or without tax credit incentives.

Nice...potentially very good for Chicago. 5 to 10 new shows for 5+ years is pretty big. Really curious how far south of Cinespace. Potentially happier times for LVDW?

Hey, maybe some of those shows that take place in Chicago can actually be filmed in Chicago now?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Nice...potentially very good for Chicago. 5 to 10 new shows for 5+ years is pretty big. Really curious how far south of Cinespace. Potentially happier times for LVDW?

Hey, maybe some of those shows that take place in Chicago can actually be filmed in Chicago now?

I know right?? Haha

He said near 31st...or thereabouts. Although, it's still unconfirmed..