Chicago - Mayoral Race - Rahm Emanuel Wins

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Alliance

I totally agree. It would be best for the city if the South and West sides became as much of the "bread and butter" as the North and downtown neighborhoods.

How are they not "bread and butter"?

Public schools are failing on the North Side too, except for the small few that have a large group of motivated parents with time on their hands.

Parks, roads, and transit service are fairly well-maintained and well-run across the city.

Crime is much higher in these areas, but what can be done to solve the problem, and why hasn't CPD made any headway with the problem even after adopting the successful practices that other cities have used?

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by ardecila

How are they not "bread and butter"?

Low property values/tax income, low sales tax income and high expenditures for city services (policing, maintenance, and social services).

Originally Posted by ardecila

Public schools are failing on the North Side too, except for the small few that have a large group of motivated parents with time on their hands.

The quality of schools in the parts of the Northside that are medium to high income is on an entirely different level than in the troubled sections of the West and South sides. There are far more than a "small few" quality schools on the North, Northwest, and Southwest sides of the city. You seem to be implying that the the quality of public schools is of the same quality across the entire city - that is obviously not true. The real issue is that the schools really can't control that. There are far more kids with serious learning, health, nutritional, family, and behavioral issues in South and West side schools, and while the city puts just as many resources into those schools the test scores will remain low until underlying social issues are addressed (a multi-generational task).

Originally Posted by ardecila

Parks, roads, and transit service are fairly well-maintained and well-run across the city.

I think the city does put the same amount of $ and effort into maintaining all parts of the city. But when you drive around Independance or Douglas Boulevards compared to say Logan Boulevard or the Midway, you can see that the money spent on the Westside goes towards towing abandoned cars and cleaning up graffiti instead of upgrading the landscaping (as it should be).

Originally Posted by ardecila

H
Crime is much higher in these areas, but what can be done to solve the problem, and why hasn't CPD made any headway with the problem even after adopting the successful practices that other cities have used?

This really is the biggest issue on the South and West sides. The CPD isn't making headway for two main reasons. 1 - they aren't really adopting the practices of other cities on the ground. This is a big part of Why Jody Weiss is so hated, he is really trying to implement change. 2 - Many of the issues are social, and by the time the police are involved it is far to late.

All the points you mentioned are the crux of what any incoming mayor has to deal with (along with the budget). I don't think Daley gets enough credit for the amount of work he did on the West and South sides, he frequently gets slammed for focusing on downtown but he really didn't. The city spent more on refurbishing Garfield Park Conservatory than they did on Millennium Park (tho' Millennium got more private money). Daley did not rule as an autocrat, he made sure that all parts of the city got what their aldermen asked for, the South and West sides just have more entrenched problems, and in many cases, more incompetent Aldermen.

[10023]

^ The problem with city alderman is that they're elected by the people of their wards. The more local the politics are, the more incompetent the elected politicians. Whether it's an inner city ward or an underpopulated rural congressional district, an electorate comprised of people that barely finished high school often isn't going to put a competent person in office.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by pip

^and with that you need money.

The downtown area brings in 50% of the revenue for the city. You know how many tens of thousands of people are employed from all over the city in non white-collar jops in downtown? It's a staggering number. I would venture to say easily over a hundred thousand. Chase that away and you will have those very people going to the burb's to work instead and eventually moving out there as to be close to work.

The amount of money Chicago puts into downtown, while substantial, is certainly way way way less then the amount they recieve in revenue from downtown. Gotta throw a bone to the areas that pay the bills.

You ever seen a city with no tax base? Beg for even more from Springfield and DC as the resource for money? That will get you no where. Yup you will get a small bite of the cookie once in a while though.

Also fyi. the Chicago Public Schools already out spends about every suburb in per student spending at over $13,000 per student per year. Don't get me wrong I would love more education spending but CPS is certainly no slouch in spending. It keeps pace with the wealthier of suburbs in spending per student.

sorry Pip, you sort of lost me. You say we need more money for the things I'm advocating for and then you go on to talk about how Chicago spends a ton already. Personally, I could care less if there is less spending on education as long as we get results. When over 40% of CPS students do not graduate, you have an epidemic.

It seems to me that there exists this myth that pouring a good amount of city resources into already successful areas is the best way for cities to succeed. This might be true for a city that's on the outs, a city like Detroit, which needs the initial shot in the arm. I think at some point, a place like Chicago needs to focus less on dolling out TIFs in already successful areas and doing more at doing a lot of little things to make the city a much more livable and humane place.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

That's the usual view, and it sounds more "fair", but it's incorrect.

The fact is that concentrating city resources on making suburban commuters and shoppers, business people, and tourists feel as safe and as comfortable as possible is essential to the city's tax base. I'm not saying that outlying neighborhoods should be ignored, but it is entirely appropriate and beneficial for the city as a whole to concentrate disproportionately on Chicago's "money centers".

It may seem callous, but the city's fate will rise and fall based on what it does for those residents (and corporations, and tourists) that have the choice to go elsewhere.

It's not about being fair. It's about making the city better. And I'm not sure why some of you think that being holistic in how a mayor runs a city is simply an economic choice.

and to your point about suburbanites, I think the best way to get suburbanites to truly trust the city is not to create "green zones", but to get crime down citywide and drastically increase the quality of the city schools.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

High-income residents pay far more in local tax revenue than they require in government services, so investing in ensuring they constitute a part of the tax base ensures you have money to take care of lower income populations. Granted, it's important to walk the fine line between the two extremes of always focusing on making high-income people feel comfortable and actually using the money for public services, but a mayor at least needs to be cognizant that the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere ain't gonna be West Englewood or North Lawndale.

I think it's a fair assessment that Chicago will not reach it's full potential until it's schools are in order and the violent crime rates are down to reasonable levels.

Walk the fine line, whatever you want to call it, but be holistic and get results.

[10023]

The problem is that violent crime rates are only partly within the control of city government. Violent crime is a national problem, not a city one, to a large extent. It manifests itself in cities, but trying to fix the problem on a municipal level is like playing whack-a-mole.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

The problem is that violent crime rates are only partly within the control of city government. Violent crime is a national problem, not a city one, to a large extent. It manifests itself in cities, but trying to fix the problem on a municipal level is like playing whack-a-mole.

New York City got a handle on the problem. LA has as well. They did a fine job "whacking the mole". It's very much a local issue. And I'm not one of those people who think more police = less crime.

[10023]

Originally Posted by alex1

New York City got a handle on the problem. LA has as well. They did a fine job "whacking the mole". It's very much a local issue. And I'm not one of those people who think more police = less crime.

New York "got a handle on the problem" via the explosive growth of its financial services sector over the past decade or two, and the economic dividends and consequences thereof. There is so much money here that not only can the city (especially with a 3.65% city level income tax) afford to put tons of cops on the streets, but New York City has gentrified in a way that makes Chicago's transformation under Daley look modest.

There are, quite simply, no more "bad neighborhoods" in Manhattan below Harlem, which itself has brownstone houses selling for $2 million. When you can't buy a two-bedroom apartment for less than $1 million or rent one for less than $3,000/mo. across 20 square miles of city, social problems start to subside. Brooklyn and Queens have seen affluence displace poverty in dramatic fashion. This is great for the city, and for its tax base, but it doesn't mean that the city has somehow gotten gangbangers to stop doing what they do or has even brought the incomes of the poor people that used to reside in these neighborhoods up. There is just such a huge swath of New York City that ranges from moderate to extreme affluence that problems have been moved elsewhere, or at least have been diluted by more affluent newcomers to formerly troubled or borderline neighborhoods.

When yuppies take over Chicago's South and West sides and houses around Washington Park start selling for Lincoln Park prices (not to mention houses in Englewood selling for, say, Lakeview prices), Chicago will see its crime rate drop as well.

[10023]

And to add a point, New York's recovery since the 1970s started in Manhattan too. Areas like the East Village (around Tompkins Square Park) and the Lower East Side gentrified, and it pushed out into the boroughs. It's gentrification that ultimately improves crime and schools.

This is sort of a chicken-and-the-egg situation too. Let's say you could just magically bring crime rates down and improve schools in poor neighborhoods - with all that wonderful housing stock in Chicago's inner city neighborhoods, you'd see wealthier residents move in swiftly. But there's no way for a city government to address poverty directly. Tough neighborhoods are reinvigorated because a mix of people move in, displacing some of the former residents and eliminating areas of concentrated poverty. That results in lower crime, better schools (because you've got educated parents that will make sure their kids succeed), and a better economic environment for local businesses, which gives everyone (including the long-time low income residents and their children) a better chance to succeed.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

New York "got a handle on the problem" via the explosive growth of its financial services sector over the past decade or two, and the economic dividends and consequences thereof. There is so much money here that not only can the city (especially with a 3.65% city level income tax) afford to put tons of cops on the streets, but New York City has gentrified in a way that makes Chicago's transformation under Daley look modest.

There are, quite simply, no more "bad neighborhoods" in Manhattan below Harlem, which itself has brownstone houses selling for $2 million. When you can't buy a two-bedroom apartment for less than $1 million or rent one for less than $3,000/mo. across 20 square miles of city, social problems start to subside. Brooklyn and Queens have seen affluence displace poverty in dramatic fashion. This is great for the city, and for its tax base, but it doesn't mean that the city has somehow gotten gangbangers to stop doing what they do or has even brought the incomes of the poor people that used to reside in these neighborhoods up. There is just such a huge swath of New York City that ranges from moderate to extreme affluence that problems have been moved elsewhere, or at least have been diluted by more affluent newcomers to formerly troubled or borderline neighborhoods.

When yuppies take over Chicago's South and West sides and houses around Washington Park start selling for Lincoln Park prices (not to mention houses in Englewood selling for, say, Lakeview prices), Chicago will see its crime rate drop as well.

^ Bingo.

What Chicago needs to do is stop being in the business of giving subsidized housing to the poorest of the poor.

There is no reason--none, zilch, zero, NADA--why Chicago should bear the brunt of housing the poorest members of society while the suburbs get away with blocking "undesirable" development at their own desire.

Chicago needs to eliminate the CHA and allow market rate development to take over these sites. Until that happens, it will be one generation of failure after another.

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by 10023

And to add a point, New York's recovery since the 1970s started in Manhattan too. Areas like the East Village (around Tompkins Square Park) and the Lower East Side gentrified, and it pushed out into the boroughs. It's gentrification that ultimately improves crime and schools.

This is sort of a chicken-and-the-egg situation too. Let's say you could just magically bring crime rates down and improve schools in poor neighborhoods - with all that wonderful housing stock in Chicago's inner city neighborhoods, you'd see wealthier residents move in swiftly. But there's no way for a city government to address poverty directly. Tough neighborhoods are reinvigorated because a mix of people move in, displacing some of the former residents and eliminating areas of concentrated poverty. That results in lower crime, better schools (because you've got educated parents that will make sure their kids succeed), and a better economic environment for local businesses, which gives everyone (including the long-time low income residents and their children) a better chance to succeed.

One problem in Chicago, as opposed to New York, is that we have bulldozed so much of the wonderful urban fabric from our poorest neighborhoods, especially on the commercial thoroughfares, which are the bread and butter of a Chicago neighborhood. People are moving to Harlem because, although still dicey in places, it's dense, vibrant, and alive. Who is going to want to live near 63rd St (the Chicago one) when it is as lifeless as a cornfield? Earlier this summer I drove two New Yorkers through Bronzeville and they couldn't believe all the vacant land, and how broken and disjointed the streetscape was. In showing them around I found myself using phrases like "this area used to be cool greystone rowhouses, but they got bulldozed" over and over.

It is a real chicken-and-egg as far as getting quality commercial infill on these thoroughfares to go along with new housing. The only new buildings I see on the blighted parts of the S and W sides are suburban-style drive-throughs.

[pip]

Originally Posted by alex1

sorry Pip, you sort of lost me. You say we need more money for the things I'm advocating for and then you go on to talk about how Chicago spends a ton already. Personally, I could care less if there is less spending on education as long as we get results. When over 40% of CPS students do not graduate, you have an epidemic.

It seems to me that there exists this myth that pouring a good amount of city resources into already successful areas is the best way for cities to succeed. This might be true for a city that's on the outs, a city like Detroit, which needs the initial shot in the arm. I think at some point, a place like Chicago needs to focus less on dolling out TIFs in already successful areas and doing more at doing a lot of little things to make the city a much more livable and humane place.

my point was that Chicago is already spending $13,000 per year per student. out spending most suburbs. And I would also love for their to be more spending. I would have no problem with $26,000 a year. You know what though, I don't think it would make a difference.

Lets say you took students from a poor performing high school in Chicago and put them all in top notch New Trier High School that is in the North Shore suburbs, replacing the students that are their now and all resources and everything at New Trier do not change. New Trier would perform just as poorly as the previous school.

The point being no one cares about education - the parents and the students. Look at parent involvement in their children's studies. None. No one cares. It seems hard to believe but truly hardly Anyone Cares from parents to students. There is nothing a mayor can do.

My friend/neighbor is a CPS teacher in the West Side some where. You got to see it to believe it.

You can lead a horse to the water but you can't force it to drink it.

Until people decide to value education there is nothing short of orphanages that can make a change for the students. The culture 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 in other words.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem and that simply without taking apart families which is illegal and unethical or providing school 24 hours a day with a place to sleep things won't change.

Originally Posted by alex1

New York City got a handle on the problem. LA has as well. They did a fine job "whacking the mole". It's very much a local issue. And I'm not one of those people who think more police = less crime.

LA/ NYC is getting a handle on crime? Weren't those two cities flooded with immigrants thus making them and their kids easily well over 50% of the population. Displacement is not crime control.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pip

Displacement is not crime control.

^ While true, I see no reason why Chicago has to continue to be the laboratory where these problems are solved.

New York has slowly but surely pushed the problem of crime and poverty further and further to its outskirts through gentrification. Chicago has done the same, to a lesser degree--however, a short trip south of downtown or a few blocks west of the West Loop and you see that the city has a long way to go.

I partially blame generations of bad decision making--creating the CHA was the great 🞵🞵🞵🞵-up of the mid-20th century, so lets start there. Then, as Thundertubs stated, bulldozing so much of the urban fabric on the south and west sides essentially destroyed any chance that a new generation of artists/yuppies would ever gravitate to these areas and bring in new life.

Now, we are trying to rectify that by tearing down the towers and building communites that resemble the urban fabric that was once there, but it's just not working: few in their right minds with a good income wants to live & raise their family in a community that is at least 30% public housing. It's just plain ridiculous!

Housing should be market-driven. It should always have been market-driven, the City should never gotten into the business of providing subsidized housing for the poor. If they had not done so, a much greater proportion of those in poverty would be living in the suburbs today instead of occupying prime real estate in the city.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Attrill

I think the city does put the same amount of $ and effort into maintaining all parts of the city. But when you drive around Independance or Douglas Boulevards compared to say Logan Boulevard or the Midway, you can see that the money spent on the Westside goes towards towing abandoned cars and cleaning up graffiti instead of upgrading the landscaping (as it should be).

Good point. It's not so much a matter of where money is being spent, but how the local populace and elected officials demand it be spent, and how vigilant and persistent the local populace are at badgering local officials and public workers to get their job done. The northside neighborhoods aren't just magically pretty and well-kept; you better believe property owners young and old, by the multitudes, produce a barrage of phone calls, letters, e-mails, and complaints to get things done.

All the points you mentioned are the crux of what any incoming mayor has to deal with (along with the budget). I don't think Daley gets enough credit for the amount of work he did on the West and South sides, he frequently gets slammed for focusing on downtown but he really didn't. The city spent more on refurbishing Garfield Park Conservatory than they did on Millennium Park (tho' Millennium got more private money).

Another important point --- the amount of money invested in fixed capital and infrastructure (new schools, police stations, fire stations, street reconstructions, new sewer lines, new lighting) in neighborhoods throughout the city is very impressive compared to any other big city in the country, and was largely accomplished through... TIFs, which basically took money from the operating budgets to invest in the capital budget, thus compounding the current operating deficit and pension underfunding issues. Tricky.

Daley did not rule as an autocrat, he made sure that all parts of the city got what their aldermen asked for, the South and West sides just have more entrenched problems, and in many cases, more incompetent Aldermen.

Though it's frustrating, I think these are one and the same problem; or at least, the latter is but a symptom or manifestation of the former. From time to time there are flukes and exceptions, but over the long run, democracy gives people the government they want and deserve, so if a large number of aldermen in these areas are incompetent, corrupt...

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

New York "got a handle on the problem" via the explosive growth of its financial services sector over the past decade or two, and the economic dividends and consequences thereof. There is so much money here that not only can the city (especially with a 3.65% city level income tax) afford to put tons of cops on the streets, but New York City has gentrified in a way that makes Chicago's transformation under Daley look modest.

that's only part of the equation. But I'd be wary to suggest that more cops = less violent crime. The root of the problem needs to be addressed and I've seen NYC do a much better job at allocating resources city-wide than Chicago has. There's a reason why NYC's projects have been successful for many years now, and it's not because they're ignored and isolated.

Then again, NYC has things going for it that Chicago doesn't. More density for one = less dead zones, which could lead to more crime.

There are, quite simply, no more "bad neighborhoods" in Manhattan below Harlem, which itself has brownstone houses selling for $2 million. When you can't buy a two-bedroom apartment for less than $1 million or rent one for less than $3,000/mo. across 20 square miles of city, social problems start to subside. Brooklyn and Queens have seen affluence displace poverty in dramatic fashion. This is great for the city, and for its tax base, but it doesn't mean that the city has somehow gotten gangbangers to stop doing what they do or has even brought the incomes of the poor people that used to reside in these neighborhoods up. There is just such a huge swath of New York City that ranges from moderate to extreme affluence that problems have been moved elsewhere, or at least have been diluted by more affluent newcomers to formerly troubled or borderline neighborhoods.

yeah, i live in NYC. To your point, wealth obviously brings more stability to those particular areas. I'm not sure this has anything do with creating more equitable cities. This is something NYC has encouraged through rent control and a HUGE amount of affordable housing targeted to low-income residents. New York might have the highest rate of income inequality in the U.S., but the effects of these inequalities are lessened by certain programs (whether you agree with them or not).

When yuppies take over Chicago's South and West sides and houses around Washington Park start selling for Lincoln Park prices (not to mention houses in Englewood selling for, say, Lakeview prices), Chicago will see its crime rate drop as well.

i think this is a pretty myopic view on the situation. The notion that gentrifying areas and making them more affluent to solve the crime gap is short sighted. There are plenty of ways to decrease crime, displacement can help a certain neighborhood, but it doesn't solve the problem (you just push it elsewhere).

[alex1]

Originally Posted by pip

my point was that Chicago is already spending $13,000 per year per student. out spending most suburbs. And I would also love for their to be more spending. I would have no problem with $26,000 a year. You know what though, I don't think it would make a difference.

And my point is that solving problems doesn't have to be solely a cash flow problem. It obviously isn't and we both know this to be true. So why not spend $10-11k on each student and $2k on parenting outreach/education. Give parents the tools to be better parents and support their child's education. Give them the tools to create grassroot programs to better their school districts. Give them money if their kids succeed (crazy, i know). Might not solve the problem but would certainly move things in a more positive direction.

Lets say you took students from a poor performing high school in Chicago and put them all in top notch New Trier High School that is in the North Shore suburbs, replacing the students that are their now and all resources and everything at New Trier do not change. New Trier would perform just as poorly as the previous school.

Who's advocating for taking random students in the public schools and putting them at New Trier?

But I suppose I disagree with you that a grouping of students plucked from a poor performing CPS school would perform "just as poorly as the previous school". This would depend on the type of students assigned.

The point being no one cares about education - the parents and the students. Look at parent involvement in their children's studies. None. No one cares. It seems hard to believe but truly hardly Anyone Cares from parents to students. There is nothing a mayor can do.

to say "no one cares" is a bit extreme. Plenty of kids and parents care. I did some market research for one of the top boarding schools in the country and a few of the kids were from the "wrong side" of Chicago. Brilliant kids though, and they certainly cared. So did many of their friends who didn't have the opportunity to get the scholarships and grants needed for them to get out of CPS.

Unfortunately, some of the problems you're bringing up can be too systematically engrained into a school, or school district as it has at CPS. There's plenty a mayor can do, however. It's taking a leadership roll that begins with creating the right education team that looks at a holistic approach to fixing our schools. It's not easy, but it not impossible to find a long-term solution.

My friend/neighbor is a CPS teacher in the West Side some where. You got to see it to believe it.

oh, I know about CPS's problems. My last roommate before leaving Chicago was a CPS teacher in the Austin neighborhood. He came home on a few occasions with a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 lip. Told me some unbelievable stories. The sad reality is that many of the schools at CPS need to 1. educate parents just as much as students and 2. have faculty that feel safe to be more effective.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem and that simply without taking apart families which is illegal and unethical or providing school 24 hours a day with a place to sleep things won't change.

i think anyone willing to make excuses not to make the changes doesn't understand the magnitude of the problem. When we allow a system to become as dysfunctional as have some parts of the CPS, we are playing with fire. Everyone in our society is damaged by inequity and the trappings and failings it brings.

LA/ NYC is getting a handle on crime? Weren't those two cities flooded with immigrants thus making them and their kids easily well over 50% of the population. Displacement is not crime control.

Not sure I get your point.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Bingo.

What Chicago needs to do is stop being in the business of giving subsidized housing to the poorest of the poor.

There is no reason--none, zilch, zero, NADA--why Chicago should bear the brunt of housing the poorest members of society while the suburbs get away with blocking "undesirable" development at their own desire.

Chicago needs to eliminate the CHA and allow market rate development to take over these sites. Until that happens, it will be one generation of failure after another.

New York actually has a rather splendid subsidized housing program. Milwaukee has a pretty successful one from what I've heard, as well. Market rate housing for everyone isn't necessarily a good idea. Some of the most "free market" cities on earth, cities that are extremely successful have over 50% rates on subsidized housing as a city's total housing supply–Singapore and Hong Kong. For some housing projects, there should be an incentive to give it's residents ownership to their units. This is what's done in Singapore and it tends to work well.

I agree that the 'burbs should do more to create affordable housing for lower income folks, but there just isn't an incentive for them to do it. However, we're seeing a much higher percentage of the region's poverty living out there.

[10023]

New York's subsidized housing program is a disaster. It's the reason the middle class can't afford to live in Manhattan.

Look, the difference between New York and Chicago is that New York has a concentration of wealths orders of magnitude greater than Chicago. That's not a model that Chicago's city government can just decide to follow.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by 10023

New York has a concentration of wealths orders of magnitude greater than Chicago. That's not a model that Chicago's city government can just decide to follow.

Indeed. Further, it's not a mere concentration of wealthy residents --- it's the home of the single biggest and best tax revenue source in the history of humanity (Wall Street). For this reason and this reason alone, New York City provides very poor guidance or useful insight vis-a-vis municipal policy in basically every other city in the country.

In this regard, Philadelphia and Los Angeles probably provide better examples for how Chicago could possibly operate differently while facing the challenges of a multi-ethnic, income-diverse population while dealing with the legacy costs of having been a very large city for some time.