CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Development will still happen. Even these starry eyed losers will have to take developer money, they don’t have any other source of income. Being a socialist in America is a dead end career.

But things will indeed slow down and yes, landlords will simply face less competition from new construction leading to rent increases and further displacement.

I don’t think Milwaukee/Belmont is that much to get excited about, though. No L access

They won't take the money, just look at Rosa, he simply shut down all development in his ward including completely reasonable proposals where he would ask for tons of affordable housing which the developers would agree to and then came back demanding more parking too which what physically impossible to do without going to 4 floors. It's just a three ring circus so why would anyone even bother?

Look closer, Milwaukee and Belmont is 1/2 mile from 3 different Blue Line stations and two different Metra stations (on different lines to boot). It has better transit access than where I live around Central Park and Milwaukee. The only reason it feels like a transit desert is that it's a total pedestrian wasteland consisting of vacant lots, strip malls, abandoned auto shops and small box stores, with literally nothing of interest to pedestrians in the area. Belmont is already on fire with small scale development between here and the Belmont stop (which is also being massively upgraded) it's literally the next stop for everything that has been going on South of the square.

All I have to say is "all aboard the gentrification train!" because what has already been a pretty bad situation in terms of displacement is about to get a whole lot worse.

[tjp]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

There really aren't, not in Moreno's ward at least. They eviscerated everything along Milwaukee in the first ward. Really only the CVS is left. There's nothing in Rosa's ward except the Emmitt street lot. All the remaining vacant lots are north of Central Park and mostly lie in Reboryas' ward. Assuming he wins the runoff expect a flurry of proposals for the area around Milwaukee, Belmont, and Pulaski which is basically 50% vacant lots all of which are up for sale. I have half a mind to go get all of that under contract right now so I can flip out of the contract at a much higher price other developers if he wins.
\

There's still all those underutilized lots around MiCa that I'd love to see redeveloped. That stretch of Milwaukee is still far from pleasant to walk down, imo.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Development will still happen. Even these starry eyed losers will have to take developer money, they don’t have any other source of income. Being a socialist in America is a dead end career.

But things will indeed slow down and yes, landlords will simply face less competition from new construction leading to rent increases and further displacement.

I don’t think Milwaukee/Belmont is that much to get excited about, though. No L access

Donors are more than just residential developers, though. Industrial businesses, retailers, and bars/restaurants all donate as well, and even the socialist aldermen aren't willing to tell restaurants and retailers to take a hike.

Honestly all this talk of affordable housing is worthless unless more city, state, and Federal resources are offered up. I agree that affordable housing (in good locations) is becoming harder and harder to find. At the same time, we have no shortage of land that is close to transit and job centers. If the government wants to pledge more resources toward a big program of new construction for moderate and low income housing, I'd support that... but the private developers of our city are not an giant grapefruit that can be squeezed endlessly for "free" affordable housing.

[the urban politician]

Well, unlike Aldermen who can just cater to a predominant group in their ward and still win, the Mayoral election is all about coalition building.

So as I said before, making it to the runoff is fine, but the winner of the final election will need to prove that they can “move the needle” a bit to appeal to other groups.

Preckwinkle seems a bit more locked into her positions, and is actually hemmed down a bit by the CTU. Lightfoot is in a much better position to seek out votes from groups that voted for Daley, Joyce, Mendoza, Chico, etc if she is smart about it. Also, I’m confused how Willie Wilson (endorsed by the GOP) voters would suddenly flock to Preckwinkle—she’s the opposite of a Republican.

There are two huge blocks of money in Chicago: union money and business money. If Lightfoot is smart she will try to go after the latter.

[ardecila]

^ I'm unclear how Lightfoot will perform in Daley/Joyce (cop/white ethnic) wards, though.

Her relationship to the police department during her career puts her at odds with both rank-and-file cops, and the Black community at large. Cops see her as an enemy of the police, while Black voters see her as a an ally of the police. Her sexual orientation doesn't endear her to these groups, either, which tend toward a more conservative social view. I expect the Black community at large to go for Preckwinkle... for the white ethnics, I think they've got more of a dilemma. Both candidates will be in the uncomfortable position of courting white ethnics who are loathe to see any Black mayor.

I also expect to see both candidates focus on Latino wards as the key swing group in this election, since their only representative candidate Mendoza was eliminated and they're definitely not a lock for Preckwinkle.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ I'm unclear how Lightfoot will perform in Daley/Joyce (cop/white ethnic) wards, though.

Her relationship to the police department during her career puts her at odds with both rank-and-file cops, and the Black community at large. Cops see her as an enemy of the police, while Black voters see her as a an ally of the police. Her sexual orientation doesn't endear her to these groups, either, which tend toward a more conservative social view. I expect the Black community at large to go for Preckwinkle... for the white ethnics, I think they've got more of a dilemma. Both candidates will be in the uncomfortable position of courting white ethnics who are loathe to see any Black mayor.

I also expect to see both candidates focus on Latino wards as the key swing group in this election, since their only representative candidate Mendoza was eliminated and they're definitely not a lock for Preckwinkle.

I agree, I’m just counting on them viewing her as a better choice than Preckwinkle, who also has a similar stance on Police accountability

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

She seems reasonable enough. She has my relatively unenthusiastic vote.

after seeing lori's victory speech last night, i've gone from "relatively unenthusiastic" to "very interested".

i think she might possess the skills needed to actually pull this city, this WHOLE city, together into a better era.

i'm absolutely rooting for her. and it looks like she might just win!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

after seeing lori's victory speech last night, i've gone from "relatively unenthusiastic" to "very interested".

i think she might possess the skills needed to actually pull this city, this WHOLE city, together into a better era.

i'm absolutely rooting for her. and it looks like she might just win!

I was reading some of her positions on her responses to Crains. A lot of her positions are pretty moderate. She even seems to advocate for eliminating pensions for future public employees. It also seems like she's against rent control and she opposes a city income tax and head tax. Though does mention a need for "progressive taxes" without ever fully explaining what that could be. So all around not that bad.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

after seeing lori's victory speech last night, i've gone from "relatively unenthusiastic" to "very interested".

i think she might possess the skills needed to actually pull this city, this WHOLE city, together into a better era.

i'm absolutely rooting for her. and it looks like she might just win!

Indeed Steely. Excellent post and observation. Yes, she may be just what this city needs. Ironically enough, by the time I got to the polling booth it was between Daley and Lightfoot for me. Yes, surprisingly, Daley won me over. I voted for him. Vallas was my guy but I just didn't think he could win. After seeing Lightfoot's speech, I must admit, I am glad that she won. As you pointed out, she may be just what this city needs -- a reformer who can truly pull this city together.

As for those concerned about the business side of things, a more peaceful/harmonious city will make this city more attractive to invest in/corporate relocations. And Lightfoot is smart enough to bring in the right people that will help attract big business to this city.

What must NOT happen is Peckwinkle. We must do everything we can lawfully do to make sure that woman never sees city hall.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I was reading some of her positions on her responses to Crains. A lot of her positions are pretty moderate. She even seems to advocate for eliminating pensions for future public employees. It also seems like she's against rent control and she opposes a city income tax and head tax. Though does mention a need for "progressive taxes" without ever fully explaining what that could be. So all around not that bad.

The elimination of pensions for future employees would be a godsend as would the reform of the building code. Talk about ways to actually improve affordability in the city: stop flushing money down the drain with pensions and stop forcing people to use technology that is way more expensive and has been obsolete for 50 years in construction.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Her sexual orientation doesn't endear her to these groups, either, which tend toward a more conservative social view.

This is a fact that has been totally overlooked with all the discussion of "wow Chicago will see it's first African American Woman Mayor". Lightfoot would also be Chicago's first LGBTQ mayor.

I'd like to think that, in today's era and a race between two black women, not a whole lot of people are going to be motivated by sexual orientation. Maybe I'm ignorant though...

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Though does mention a need for "progressive taxes" without ever fully explaining what that could be. So all around not that bad.

One specific she has called for is a graduated real estate transfer tax.

The current tax is $5.25 for every $500 of a property’s sale value, or 1.05 percent. Lightfoot’s tax would charge 0.35 percent for the first $500,000 of sale value; 1 percent for between $500,000 and $1 million; 2 percent for between $1 million and $5 million; and 3 percent for the sale value over $5 million.

Lightfoot projected that 95 percent of property sales in the city would see a cut in the amount of transfer tax paid under the proposed rates. She also estimated the new structure would bring in an additional $80 million to $150 million per year. Proceeds from any transfer tax ebb and flow with the housing market.

[UPChicago]

Why all the hate for Preckwinkle, other than the sugar tax and the penny tax her record as board president has been great and she has made real reforms and other incremental changes which have greatly benefited the county. The county is in much better condition under her than under her predecessor, that's a fact.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Why all the hate for Preckwinkle

CTU endorsement = no fucking way in hell for me.

i hope to Pizza God that Lightfoot wins.

[UPChicago]

CTU is tainted by the legacy of Karen Lewis, and I can understand how that might leave a bad taste in people's mouths. I don't think that endorsement or any other for that matter is going to affect the way she leads. Her position on schools is more community focused whereas Rahm's was economic-focused. This disconnect from a community focused outlook on leading the city is why Rahm won't serve a third term. Clearly, Chicago is seeking a leader that sees more than just downtown and economic factors as important. I also think Preckwinkle, more than any other candidate, is willing to make the hard choices needed to put this city's finances back on track because she has done it with the County. All that said, I also think Lori is a good candidate as well and shares many of the same qualities; if she wins, I think her and Preckwinkle will work closely together.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

...
This is a fact that has been totally overlooked with all the discussion of "wow Chicago will see it's first African American Woman Mayor". Lightfoot would also be Chicago's first LGBTQ mayor.

I'd like to think that, in today's era and a race between two black women, not a whole lot of people are going to be motivated by sexual orientation. Maybe I'm ignorant though...

I'm gay and I don't think the fact that she's lesbian will play much of a role. Perhaps in some wards, but not most. I think the fact that she isn't really part of the Machine will carry far more weight than her sexuality. Heck, I think the fact that she's a graduate of the University of Chicago will carry more weight than her sexuality. I think if she were a man, it might at least a little bit more of a liability, because in terms of broad public opinion, I think gay men still suffer more from negative stigma than lesbian women do.

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ I'm unclear how Lightfoot will perform in Daley/Joyce (cop/white ethnic) wards, though.

Her relationship to the police department during her career puts her at odds with both rank-and-file cops, and the Black community at large. Cops see her as an enemy of the police, while Black voters see her as a an ally of the police. Her sexual orientation doesn't endear her to these groups, either, which tend toward a more conservative social view. I expect the Black community at large to go for Preckwinkle... for the white ethnics, I think they've got more of a dilemma. Both candidates will be in the uncomfortable position of courting white ethnics who are loathe to see any Black mayor.

I also expect to see both candidates focus on Latino wards as the key swing group in this election, since their only representative candidate Mendoza was eliminated and they're definitely not a lock for Preckwinkle.

Lightfoot did very well in "liberal white" districts from what I saw on TV last night. I think anyone who looks at what Lightfoot did when it comes to her involvement with police will realize that she did more to hold police to account than almost anyone else. I certainly think a reasonable person could conclude that Lightfoot will do more to promote racial equity than Preckwinkle will (or has).

Preckwinkle may be considered the machine candidate that city workers would normally vote for. But city workers have to live through machine politics, too. They are impacted by police corruption, too. They are most likely to be hit doubly hard by the pension issues (higher taxes, and uncertainty about whether they'll receive what they'd been promised), so they want someone with intelligent plans to address them, not just more of the same. So, given the times, I'm not convinced that they'll just all automatically go with who the Machine tells them to go with. Burke won in his ward, but with only 55%, and I don't think outside of his ward anyone respects him. Preckwinkle's association with him may not be as much of a smoking gun as some would say, but it's certainly not the best look for her.

Personally, I don't think Preckwinkle is many people's second choice, so a high percentage of people who would ever vote for her, have already voted for her. If I'm right about that, Lightfoot could end up winning 60/40.

[OhioGuy]

Considering Houston twice elected a lesbian as mayor, and Catholic-oriented South Bend has a gay man as its mayor, I would hope (and expect) the fact that Lightfoot is a lesbian will not hinder her prospects of winning in April.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

CTU is tainted by the legacy of Karen Lewis, and I can understand how that might leave a bad taste in people's mouths. I don't think that endorsement or any other for that matter is going to affect the way she leads. Her position on schools is more community focused whereas Rahm's was economic-focused. This disconnect from a community focused outlook on leading the city is why Rahm won't serve a third term. Clearly, Chicago is seeking a leader that sees more than just downtown and economic factors as important. I also think Preckwinkle, more than any other candidate, is willing to make the hard choices needed to put this city's finances back on track because she has done it with the County. All that said, I also think Lori is a good candidate as well and shares many of the same qualities; if she wins, I think her and Preckwinkle will work closely together.

Toni is willing to make “tough” choices?

Is that what the CTU is expecting her to do?

Was the Soda Tax an example of a “tough” choice? All she had to do was to fire some worthless Government workers (by the way—have any of you been affected by their abscence?) who sat around getting great pay and benefits to do nothing, but instead she decided to pass a horribly regressive and widely unpopular tax. And it thankfully blew up in her face.

That’s what she’s all about—the best measure of future behavior is past behavior, lesson 101.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by emathias

Heck, I think the fact that she's a graduate of the University of Chicago will carry more weight than her sexuality.

Both candidates went to UChicago, so it's hard to see how that will play a role (Preckwinkle for undergrad/ masters, Lightfoot for law school)!

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Toni is willing to make “tough” choices?

Is that what the CTU is expecting her to do?

Was the Soda Tax an example of a “tough” choice? All she had to do was to fire some worthless Government workers (by the way—have any of you been affected by their abscence?) who sat around getting great pay and benefits to do nothing, but instead she decided to pass a horribly regressive and widely unpopular tax. And it thankfully blew up in her face.

That’s what she’s all about—the best measure of future behavior is past behavior, lesson 101.

I think the County's shrinking budget deficit and credit rating speaks for itself. She has put in place several reforms to begin to straighten out the County's budget and we are better off for it. I didn't like the sugar tax either but the reality is it's no better than the bag tax which was also a money-grab. No one is calling for Rahm's head over the bag tax. The implementation of the sugar tax was horrible, several localities have a version of a sugar tax in place already. Preckwinkle has also cut over 2,000 county jobs over her tenure in an effort to correct the budget, I'm sure the unions were not pleased about that.

[tjp]

I was just at a multifamily housing conference over lunch, and the couple of developers I talked to seemed to be under the impression both candidates support increasing the ARO significantly (someone said 30%). Has anyone else heard this? I can't find any record of either Lightfoot or Preckwinkle talking about ARO specifically.