CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

He's trolling as usual, two thirds of Americans own their own home. We are not the majority, we are the supermajority.

To be fair, the discussion here has been pretty focused on rentiers, not owner-occupied homes.

That said, rent control is not an economically productive concept, let's attack it from that perspective.

Kenmore is probably on record saying how great of a socialist success Chavez and Maduro have been somewhere on this forum.

Meanwhile, Medicare and Social Security are the two most popular things our government does. They are also socialist programs. Do you suggest we eliminate those two programs?

[emathias]

Isn't rent control being phased out in New York or at least reduced in scope? And I haven't heard anything about it being expanded in San Francisco. If it was so demonstrably beneficial, it seems like the places that had it would be illustrating it's success.

Personally, I'd rather the government directly fund inexpensive housing and manage it via a non-profit than implement rent controls.

The non-profit could be directed to set rents at a self-sustaining level and instead of developers having to build low income housing, could pay into that non-profit.

People will point to the Housing Authority as an example of why that won't work, but the housing authority was subsidized by the government and had other institutional problems that could be addressed in a non-profit charter and regulations about where and how much longer-income housing could be built in a given area to avoid creating slums. This class of housing could have a work requirement, and allow existing CHA units to focus on fully subsidized units.

The idea would be to buffer the impact of gentrification, not to house the indigent. Over the long term, the city could intentionally cycle where the housing is provided, eliminating non-market housing as it's tenants willingly relocated at their own pace, with the goal of allowing renters to stay in the same neighborhood or school district even as market rents rose, but bowing out as the original lower-income residents left. Timed right, the city might even turn a profit on the housing if they bought wisely ahead of gentrification and sold afterwards.

It would compete against small developers to some extent, but the housing would be maintained to code with no included services or amenities (except maybe laundry) so that people would only use them when staying in the area was their true primary goal and risking being priced out wasn't a risk they wanted for any amount of luxury.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

Isn't rent control being phased out in New York or at least reduced in scope? And I haven't heard anything about it being expanded in San Francisco. If it was so demonstrably beneficial, it seems like the places that had it would be illustrating it's success.

Personally, I'd rather the government directly fund inexpensive housing and manage it via a non-profit than implement rent controls.

The non-profit could be directed to set rents at a self-sustaining level and instead of developers having to build low income housing, could pay into that non-profit.

People will point to the Housing Authority as an example of why that won't work, but the housing authority was subsidized by the government and had other institutional problems that could be addressed in a non-profit charter and regulations about where and how much longer-income housing could be built in a given area to avoid creating slums. This class of housing could have a work requirement, and allow existing CHA units to focus on fully subsidized units.

The idea would be to buffer the impact of gentrification, not to house the indigent. Over the long term, the city could intentionally cycle where the housing is provided, eliminating non-market housing as it's tenants willingly relocated at their own pace, with the goal of allowing renters to stay in the same neighborhood or school district even as market rents rose, but bowing out as the original lower-income residents left. Timed right, the city might even turn a profit on the housing if they bought wisely ahead of gentrification and sold afterwards.

It would compete against small developers to some extent, but the housing would be maintained to code with no included services or amenities (except maybe laundry) so that people would only use them when staying in the area was their true primary goal and risking being priced out wasn't a risk they wanted for any amount of luxury.

^ What you're talking about is the city becoming a landlord, which is really what they should be doing if they wanted to treat housing as a public utility, rather than force that on thousands of private property owners.

The major advantage for the city is that I imagine that Government-owned properties wouldn't have to pay property taxes. Property taxes, perhaps next to the mortgage itself, is the single highest expense to landlords today--and the fact that they are ever rising is what contributes most to rent increases these days--despite what the dumbfuck Socialists who don't understand business will have you think.

So Chicago, be my guest--provide your cheap housing to people at your own expense. Somehow, though, I have a sense that this won't ever happen. The property tax revenue that private landlords provide is far too valuable.

[bnk]

Landlords Unite !!!

Better hope for Daley and also contribute to him.

Here is where you can donate toward his campaign.


https://daleyformayor.com/


Make a Donation

[sentinel]

I'm as bleeding-heart liberal/progressive as they come and even I know that rent control laws are idiotic and ineffective, especially in a city like Chicago that is losing population.
Happy I don't own physical property in Chicago anymore; it's also perhaps the quickest way to make a city's appeal to property buyers plummet.

[Mikemak27]

Gery Chico opposes rent control and has probably the most coherent, pro-business platform out there. He has won my support.

[SIGSEGV]

Crains endorsed Daley.

[Steely Dan]

so crain's and tribune endorse daley.

the sun-times endorses lightfoot.



i think i'm leaning daley for the 1st round, as much trepidation as that gives me.

but in the run-off, i'll vote for anyone not named toni preckwinkle.

[bnk]

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...505857991.html

Telemundo Chicago/NBC 5 Exclusive Poll Shows 5-Person Dash to Finish of Chicago Mayoral Race

Nearly six out of 10 voters said the city is on the wrong track, again with more women than men disenchanted.

Published Feb 14, 2019 at 9:51 PM | Updated 3 hours ago

In the poll, conducted in both English and Spanish from Feb. 11-13, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle barely leads the 14-person pack with 14 percent of the vote.

Following her are:

Bill Daley: 13 percent

Susana Mendoza: 12 percent

Lori Lightfoot: 10 percent

Gery Chico: 9 percent

Amara Enyia: 7 percent

Jerry Joyce: 4 percent

Willie Wilson: 4 percent

Garry McCarthy: 3 percent

Paul Vallas: 2 percent

Bob Fioretti: 1 percent

LaShawn Ford: 1 percent

Neal Sales-Griffin: 1 percent

John Kozlar: ----

The leader of the pack was "Undecided" at 19 percent.

[the urban politician]

Ugh, what is up with people? How in FUCK is Preckwinkle leading the pack?

GRRRRRRRRR............. dumb Chicago voters..

[Baronvonellis]

I'm guessing women and liberals who are sympathetic to the teachers union are for Preckwinkle. Since she has more name recognition. And the voters who are against another Daley no matter what. All the adds in the world aren't going to convince some people to go with another Daley. The name has a bad taste in some peoples mouths. I hate to say it but I could see her winning.

I don't know anything about Lori Lightfoot or Amara Enyia. I don't think they have as much name recognition as Preckwinkle.

[sentinel]

Good read from A/N interviewing a couple of (haha) hopefuls for mayor. Long story short: Why is Bob Fioretti running?

https://archpaper.com/2019/02/chicago-mayor-election/

[bnk]

Daley will make the cut on the first run off but the problem with the poll is that 3 of the top five runners are minority leftist females. The female bloc will group to one woman left standing.

Doom is upon us.


I don't think is a sure thing at all even with all of the business money behind him for Daily to win the runoff.

What he is going to pick up 1, 2, and 3 % from Foretti, Vallas, and McCarthy? That's not enough votes right there.

[bnk]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/gove...mpaign-sources


February 15, 2019 04:56 PM |updated 20 hours ago



Ken Griffin aims to give another $1M to Daley's campaign: sources



The financier's donations—potentially totaling $2 million—would make him the biggest contributor among the major businesspeople supporting Bill Daley's run.



Bloomberg

Ken Griffin has decided to donate another $1 million to Bill Daley's mayor campaign, sources close to Griffin say.


...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by bnk

Daley will make the cut on the first run off but the problem with the poll is that 3 of the top five runners are minority leftist females. The female bloc will group to one woman left standing.

Doom is upon us.


I don't think is a sure thing at all even with all of the business money behind him for Daily to win the runoff.

What he is going to pick up 1, 2, and 3 % from Foretti, Vallas, and McCarthy? That's not enough votes right there.

I’m not too sure that these leftist females all like eachother that much, though.

For example, I don’t see Mendoza voters supporting Preckwinkle.

I actually think that Preckwinkle is the most extreme of the bunch with her leftist stance. Everybody else (Mendoza, Daley, Chico, Vallas, Lightfoot) come across as more centrist to me. Even Willie Wilson got the endorsement of Chicago’s tiny Republican Party.

I have a suspicion that Preckwinkle’s base is deep but not broad. To win you need to broaden your electorate, and Preckwinkle is doing herself zero favors by alienating white people.

[Vlajos]

I was going to vote for Vallas, but now I am going with Daley because it appears Vallas has no chance of getting to the run off.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not too sure that these leftist females all like eachother that much, though.

For example, I don’t see Mendoza voters supporting Preckwinkle.

I actually think that Preckwinkle is the most extreme of the bunch with her leftist stance. Everybody else (Mendoza, Daley, Chico, Vallas, Lightfoot) come across as more centrist to me. Even Willie Wilson got the endorsement of Chicago’s tiny Republican Party.

I have a suspicion that Preckwinkle’s base is deep but not broad. To win you need to broaden your electorate, and Preckwinkle is doing herself zero favors by alienating white people.

That is exactly the case. I've been waffling between Mendoza and Lightfoot since I can't decide whether I prefer a reform-minded candidate vs a policy wonk with connections (who is not another Daley.)

Preckwinkle is a just another corrupt populist. The worst sort of leader. She will not get my vote under any circumstances.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not too sure that these leftist females all like eachother that much, though.

For example, I don’t see Mendoza voters supporting Preckwinkle.

I actually think that Preckwinkle is the most extreme of the bunch with her leftist stance. Everybody else (Mendoza, Daley, Chico, Vallas, Lightfoot) come across as more centrist to me. Even Willie Wilson got the endorsement of Chicago’s tiny Republican Party.

I have a suspicion that Preckwinkle’s base is deep but not broad. To win you need to broaden your electorate, and Preckwinkle is doing herself zero favors by alienating white people.

I'm (probably) a Mendoza voter, because she seems like the best chance for a continuation of Rahm's neoliberal-ish policies. She won't admit that of course, but it's in her platform and public statements. No way in hell I switch to Preckwinkle if Mendoza doesn't make the runoff. They're just wildly different candidates. If all you see with these candidates is a liberal non-white female, and think they are interchangeable, you seriously need to look closer. Mendoza also seems like the strongest candidate for transit expansion out of the bunch (although even she isn't all that vocal about it).

I'd be okay with a third Mayor Daley I guess, but he just doesn't impress me as a candidate. The only thing I like is his DC experience, our mayor needs to be able to see beyond the insular Chicago-midwest perspective and the experience dealing with the Federal government doesn't hurt either.

My worst fear is like Preckwinkle vs Chico in the runoff. Ugh. Eff that.

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I was going to vote for Vallas, but now I am going with Daley because it appears Vallas has no chance of getting to the run off.

Same here daley it is, Because in the end its going to be daley vs preckwinkle or one of the other female candidates.....

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm (probably) a Mendoza voter, because she seems like the best chance for a continuation of Rahm's neoliberal-ish policies. She won't admit that of course, but it's in her platform and public statements. No way in hell I switch to Preckwinkle if Mendoza doesn't make the runoff. They're just wildly different candidates. If all you see with these candidates is a liberal non-white female, and think they are interchangeable, you seriously need to look closer. Mendoza also seems like the strongest candidate for transit expansion out of the bunch (although even she isn't all that vocal about it).

I'd be okay with a third Mayor Daley I guess, but he just doesn't impress me as a candidate. The only thing I like is his DC experience, our mayor needs to be able to see beyond the insular Chicago-midwest perspective and the experience dealing with the Federal government doesn't hurt either.

My worst fear is like Preckwinkle vs Chico in the runoff. Ugh. Eff that.

But wouldn't it be awesome if we got Mendoza vs Daley or Lightfoot vs Mendoza or any combination like that? We could have a productive public debate about serious issues where half the conversation isn't redirected to rediculous pandering to special interests like the teachers union?