CHICAGO | General Discussions

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/1/31...meeting-moreno


I hope rahm can get this thing thru the door before he leaves bc its a crapshow rn with all these alderman butting in.....

I cannot wait until we get rid of aldermanic prerogative... my dream would be no aldermen at all though

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I cannot wait until we get rid of aldermanic prerogative... my dream would be no aldermen at all though

I think we need a city council, but 10 members plus the mayor seems about right.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by BonoboZilla4

I cannot wait until we get rid of aldermanic prerogative... my dream would be no aldermen at all though

Prerogative is a problem, but this process strikes me as more how not having prerogative should look. Rather than one alderman pushing something through, others are weighing in. Which is how this should work. This isn't a liquor license. Its effects are consequential, far reaching and long term.
I haven't followed this plan or process closely, but it doesn't appear much thought has gone into impacts from the subsequent development eventually coming to that entire area. This site shouldn't be viewed in isolation; holistic thought should be put into the area. And, for example, the public transit ideas seem only high level. Has the CTA put together plans for how it will address transit in that area over time, or how that would affect service in other areas? Obviously, the subject of TIF and overall revenues to the City as well as how development in this area affects planned development elsewhere. These are subjects the entire Council should have an interest in. And why we do actual urban planning

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Prerogative is a problem, but this process strikes me as more how not having prerogative should look. Rather than one alderman pushing something through, others are weighing in. Which is how this should work. This isn't a liquor license. Its effects are consequential, far reaching and long term.
I haven't followed this plan or process closely, but it doesn't appear much thought has gone into impacts from the subsequent development eventually coming to that entire area. This site shouldn't be viewed in isolation; holistic thought should be put into the area. And, for example, the public transit ideas seem only high level. Has the CTA put together plans for how it will address transit in that area over time, or how that would affect service in other areas? Obviously, the subject of TIF and overall revenues to the City as well as how development in this area affects planned development elsewhere. These are subjects the entire Council should have an interest in. And why we do actual urban planning

Agree with this. The whole issue here is Aldermen from outside the ward not caving in to Aldermanic “prerogative”.

The question is why they don’t do this to Reilly? He is clearly being a hack in regards to 400 N LSD

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I think we need a city council, but 10 members plus the mayor seems about right.

Isn't it possible that this setup would just make the remaining 10 aldermen more powerful and provide more avenues for corruption?

I get the idea as a cost savings measure (lower payroll and less "menu" money), but I'm not sold that it would lower corruption. That seems like a different set of problems.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Isn't it possible that this setup would just make the remaining 10 aldermen more powerful and provide more avenues for corruption?

I get the idea as a cost savings measure (lower payroll and less "menu" money), but I'm not sold that it would lower corruption. That seems like a different set of problems.

Shrinking the size of the City Council is just incredibly short-sighted. Whatever savings are wrung out of the process will be minuscule compared to the consequences of concentrating power in fewer individuals and the dilution that will result for individual voters. When fewer people represent more citizens it takes a lot more time, power, money, and people in order to reach the critical mass needed to influence the decision-making process of your representative. This kind of concentration disadvantages the public versus larger and wealthier interests since the latter have the resources to reach the ear of such officials whilst the former will need to spend a lot more time accumulating that kind of power.

With more power will come more opportunity for corruption. With fewer people involved you'll have a smaller circle of potential co-conspirators and thus a lower probability of leaks.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by JK47

Shrinking the size of the City Council is just incredibly short-sighted. Whatever savings are wrung out of the process will be minuscule compared to the consequences of concentrating power in fewer individuals and the dilution that will result for individual voters. When fewer people represent more citizens it takes a lot more time, power, money, and people in order to reach the critical mass needed to influence the decision-making process of your representative. This kind of concentration disadvantages the public versus larger and wealthier interests since the latter have the resources to reach the ear of such officials whilst the former will need to spend a lot more time accumulating that kind of power.

With more power will come more opportunity for corruption. With fewer people involved you'll have a smaller circle of potential co-conspirators and thus a lower probability of leaks.

At this point we have decades of history of just how awful our city government is. NYC with 8.6 million people has 51 city council members. LA with 4 million people has 15 city council members.

Chicago does not need 50 Aldermen for 2.7 million people. Our current system is basically set up for graft and corruption.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Agree with this. The whole issue here is Aldermen from outside the ward not caving in to Aldermanic “prerogative”.

The question is why they don’t do this to Reilly? He is clearly being a hack in regards to 400 N LSD

I feel like a lot of people are missing the obvious here...the election is the issue. Cappleman is facing a ton of heat in his ward from challengers saying that he's been facilitating gentrification in Uptown by giving developers a pass on building affordable housing; instead letting them just contribute cash to the fund.

His counter-argument to those accusations, as of the last debate or whatever they call it where the candidates make a pitch to the public, was that the affordable housing developed has an income floor of $30,000 that wouldn't help the folks in Uptown that need it since they don't make enough. He's also argued that Uptown is pulling more than its fair share of the load for affordable housing and other wards need to pitch in. If you look at Cappleman's comment on this development he asked Sterling Bay to provide more housing for folks earning less than $30,000...which is consistent with comments he just made to his constituents.

His challengers have also said that he hasn't done enough to involve the community in his decision making process. He's tried to argue that he has involved a wide range of community groups and stakeholders in the development of the ward but he has no control over who those groups send as their representatives (challengers argued that those representatives lack diversity). So once again Cappleman is following through on the practices he just espoused by asking Hopkins to involve his constituents in the development process.

Giving in to Hopkins and SB and rubber-stamping the Lincoln Yards proposal would give the accusations made by Cappleman's detractors traction that he's developer friendly, facilitates gentrification (regardless of whether that's true for Lincoln Yards) and helps developers inside and outside of his ward avoid providing more than a token amount of affordable housing.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Chicago does not need 50 Aldermen for 2.7 million people. Our current system is basically set up for graft and corruption.

Yes and with fewer representatives we can have less oversight and less responsive representatives who are more reliant on large donors in order to fund re-election campaigns that are more expensive because they represent more people. Since there are fewer of them each one will have more power and less competition.

You're arguing that size of the council will impact the likelihood of corruption which is ludicrous. The only impact size will have on corruption is the scale and scope of corruption. If you want to address corruption then you need to strengthen enforcement, oversight, and secrecy.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by JK47

Yes and with fewer representatives we can have less oversight and less responsive representatives who are more reliant on large donors in order to fund re-election campaigns that are more expensive because they represent more people. Since there are fewer of them each one will have more power and less competition.

You're arguing that size of the council will impact the likelihood of corruption which is ludicrous. The only impact size will have on corruption is the scale and scope of corruption. If you want to address corruption then you need to strengthen enforcement, oversight, and secrecy.

I'm arguing that our current system is ridiculously corrupt as proven by decade after decade of Aldermen being indicted and convicted and we get nothing as citizens for all this representation and we can see that the 2 largest cities in the country operate much better with much less representation. Save money and stop the corruption. The city council should be focused on city wide issues not taking bribes for zoning changes.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

we can see that the 2 largest cities in the country operate much better with much less representation.

Where is the evidence that they operate much better? I see LA with bumper-to-bumper traffic and NYC with a ridiculously high cost-of-living.

Not to mention, plenty of NYC corruption and LA corruption.

Save money and stop the corruption.

I get the goal, I'm just saying that I don't think shrinking the city council automatically does both of these things. To lessen corruption, you need more than just a smaller council as size of city council is not the sole or root cause of corruption.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Where is the evidence that they operate much better? I see LA with bumper-to-bumper traffic and NYC with a ridiculously high cost-of-living.

Not to mention, plenty of NYC corruption and LA corruption.



I get the goal, I'm just saying that I don't think shrinking the city council automatically does both of these things. To lessen corruption, you need more than just a smaller council as size of city council is not the sole or root cause of corruption.

Both are growing in population and have stronger economies. Why wouldn't we try to change our ways? We have decades of evidence showing what we are doing does not work. Can't we at least try a smaller council? It seems strange that you are so opposed to this.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Both are growing in population and have stronger economies. Why wouldn't we try to change our ways? We have decades of evidence showing what we are doing does not work. Can't we at least try a smaller council? It seems strange that you are so opposed to this. I can't think of any reason we need to so many aldermen.

LA has a stronger economy? Idk about that.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

LA has a stronger economy? Idk about that.

It does. It's been growing at a faster rate than Chicago for a while now. Wages and incomes are growing faster too. It used to be the laggard of the big 3, now Chicago is.

[the urban politician]

^ Take this to the Chicago Politics Thread, please

[LouisVanDerWright]

The problem is that planning should not be politicized any more than public health policy should be politicized. Politicians shouldnt be running on whether they are probably or anti vaxxer, aldermen shouldn't be running on whether they are pro or anti upzoning. There is no mystery on housing policy here, we know how planning works pretry quantitatively after 100+ years of trial and error. A building shouldnt have bigger units because the neighbors are scared of the poors and they shouldn't have higher affordable housing minimums in Logan square because the alderman wants to get reelected. Professionals should study these things and make such determinations.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The problem is that planning should not be politicized any more than public health policy should be politicized. Politicians shouldnt be running on whether they are probably or anti vaxxer, aldermen shouldn't be running on whether they are pro or anti upzoning. There is no mystery on housing policy here, we know how planning works pretry quantitatively after 100+ years of trial and error. A building shouldnt have bigger units because the neighbors are scared of the poors and they shouldn't have higher affordable housing minimums in Logan square because the alderman wants to get reelected. Professionals should study these things and make such determinations.

Unfortunately, the country's faith in expertise is at crisis levels. People think they can google "climate change", read an article or wikipedia entry and suddenly know more than people who have spent their entire careers studying such things.

It's one of the reasons I like this message board. There are actual experts here and their thoughts are generally respected (speaking for myself, a non-expert in architecture or development).

[Vlajos]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...htmlstory.html

This is why we need to change both the number and the powers of the City Council. It's ridiculous how corrupt the system is. Something like 1/3 of all aldermen since 1972 have been convicted of corruption.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...htmlstory.html

This is why we need to change both the number and the powers of the City Council. It's ridiculous how corrupt the system is. Something like 1/3 of all aldermen since 1972 have been convicted of corruption.

Couldn’t agree more. The point I was trying to make before is that fewer aldermen alone won’t necessarily lower corruption. We also need to limit their powers.

[Vlajos]

Confirmation of how strong the rental market is:

According to the report, 2018 was a record-breaking year for apartment absorption in the downtown neighborhoods. By year’s end, they estimate that over 4,200 units were absorbed, in contrast with 3,600 deliveries. This differential provides landlords a chance to catch up with the oversupply of 2016 and 2017.

https://www.rejournals.com/chicago-s...trong-20190129