CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Handro

well:



This. It's a lot easier to hold the alderman accountable, but when he can claim "it was members of the community who said they didn't want this!" it takes some steam out of the case against him. I think this is what happened to the senior living project at Six Corners.

This project got elected out of existence which is EXACTLY why Aldermen should not be in charge of urban planning. Voters should have zero say in zoning and planning decisions. It should be something like building permits which is handled by beauracrats. The Alderman can call downtown and push to speed this up or consider that, but there should be paid professionals who know the mechanics of how cities work that make decisions based on a prescribed set of policies. If the Aldermen want to change the policy, that's fine, but they should have ZERO say over specific decisions or projects. The only interaction Aldermen should have with planning is "we like TOD so let's pass a TOD ordinance" rather than "I like TOD so let me unilaterally use a PD to zone a 20 floor building wherever I want"...

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

We absolutely don't want the "community" making these decisions. Most people have no understanding of real estate development and markets at all. I see it all the time in my neighborhood, with people constantly lamenting what gets built or what doesn't.

"Ugh, more luxury condos just what the neighborhood needs".

"We need more affordable housing".

"I really wish a cute bakery would take over that long vacant space".

It all comes down to economics. Affordable housing costs the same as market rate housing to build and operate (sometimes more). The reason there is no artesinal bakery is become we don't have enough people with high disposable income. All basic concepts that flies over the head of the vast majority of people.

haha yes.

I see this all over the country. My moms town in Arkansas, Jonesboro, constantly runs stories on the local news talking about this or that new store or restaurant. There are *always* constant complaints by people saying "why aren't we getting something fun for the kids" etc. etc.. They act like this is a communist country or something where there is like one person or board who decides what every parcel of land gets lol

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

haha yes.

I see this all over the country. My moms town in Arkansas, Jonesboro, constantly runs stories on the local news talking about this or that new store or restaurant. There are *always* constant complaints by people saying "why aren't we getting something fun for the kids" etc. etc.. They act like this is a communist country or something where there is like one person or board who decides what every parcel of land gets lol

I know it's not Chicago centric, but I hear these things all the time in my area.

[Hourstrooper]

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/12/1...-all-ordinance

hopefully they find out a way to get this figured out bc as we all know there is no affordable housing crisis in Chicago lol.

If the requirement cuts too aggressively into profit margins, builders won’t be able to recoup already soaring construction costs or get financing from banks. Whether the city requires 10 percent affordable housing or 30 percent, the number of units is zero if a project never gets off the ground


This is scary stuff to be lead on to by freshman alderman such as the crazy sigcho-lopez and la spata whom have no experience at all with development and are pressing for this to be adjusted.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/12/1...-all-ordinance

hopefully they find out a way to get this figured out bc as we all know there is no affordable housing crisis in Chicago lol.

If the requirement cuts too aggressively into profit margins, builders won’t be able to recoup already soaring construction costs or get financing from banks. Whether the city requires 10 percent affordable housing or 30 percent, the number of units is zero if a project never gets off the ground


This is scary stuff to be lead on to by freshman alderman such as the crazy sigcho-lopez and la spata whom have no experience at all with development and are pressing for this to be adjusted.

I can't shake hte feeling that Chicago is teetering on the edge here--wind blows one way and the city is in full blown decline, wind blows the other way and could be a nice 50 years ahead.

City leaders with no sense of city planning or economic development are a major, major threat. It's entirely possible to be equitable and progressive without waging war on development. It worries me that so many people think it's a battlefield and not a symbiotic relationship.

[Hourstrooper]

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/12/1...-all-ordinance

hopefully they find out a way to get this figured out bc as we all know there is no affordable housing crisis in Chicago lol.

If the requirement cuts too aggressively into profit margins, builders won’t be able to recoup already soaring construction costs or get financing from banks. Whether the city requires 10 percent affordable housing or 30 percent, the number of units is zero if a project never gets off the ground


This is scary stuff to be lead on to by freshman alderman such as the crazy sigcho-lopez and la spata whom have no experience at all with development and are pressing for this to be adjusted. how could they raise it to 30 percent when half of the time the 10 percent doesn't even get built, these people need to figure this out.

good news is this does not affect hospitality or office developments and it sounds like the main alderman running this osterman, is open to the developers standpoint. , but this is scary as heck for the future of tall residential buildings and for ruining the feasibility of them in our city.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/12/1...-all-ordinance

hopefully they find out a way to get this figured out bc as we all know there is no affordable housing crisis in Chicago lol.

If the requirement cuts too aggressively into profit margins, builders won’t be able to recoup already soaring construction costs or get financing from banks. Whether the city requires 10 percent affordable housing or 30 percent, the number of units is zero if a project never gets off the ground


This is scary stuff to be lead on to by freshman alderman such as the crazy sigcho-lopez and la spata whom have no experience at all with development and are pressing for this to be adjusted. how could they raise it to 30 percent when half of the time the 10 percent doesn't even get built, these people need to figure this out.

good news is this does not affect hospitality or office developments and it sounds like the main alderman running this osterman, is open to the developers standpoint. , but this is scary as heck for the future of tall residential buildings and for ruining the feasibility of them in our city.

Hopefully the "socialist revolution" lasts as long and is as effective as the tea party.

[k1052]

The wrong headed reaction to places like Pilsen and Logan Square becoming desirable neighborhoods so development must be opposed (which just makes more of the existing stock turn over instead) is a feedback loop. Obviously development wasn't restricted enough so take the ARO to 50% plus all on site or something lol.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

The wrong headed reaction to places like Pilsen and Logan Square becoming desirable neighborhoods so development must be opposed (which just makes more of the existing stock turn over instead) is a feedback loop. Obviously development wasn't restricted enough so take the ARO to 50% plus all on site or something lol.

Why don't these far left Aldermen just propose what they really want? To restrict people with more money from being allowed to rent in certain areas .

[tjp]

“Under the previous ordinance, the city, in over a decade, created just over 400 units of affordable housing and a few dozen units for families,” said Sigcho-Lopez. “The results are very clear: Over 40,000 Latinx residents left communities like Pilsen, Logan Square, and Humboldt Park, and 280,000 Black residents left the city because of a lack of affordable housing. Today, we tell the City Council that affordable housing is not an option; it is a priority.”

Ah, yes - a lack of affordable housing is the reason people are leaving the south and west sides, not violent crime or anything like that.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by tjp

“Under the previous ordinance, the city, in over a decade, created just over 400 units of affordable housing and a few dozen units for families,” said Sigcho-Lopez. “The results are very clear: Over 40,000 Latinx residents left communities like Pilsen, Logan Square, and Humboldt Park, and 280,000 Black residents left the city because of a lack of affordable housing. Today, we tell the City Council that affordable housing is not an option; it is a priority.”

Ah, yes - a lack of affordable housing is the reason people are leaving the south and west sides, not violent crime or anything like that.

What a ridiculous thing for the Alderperson to say!

Nobody is leaving Chicago "because of a lack of affordable house."

They may leave because of crime, because of a lack of jobs in their preferred industry, or a lack of unskilled jobs. They may leave because of the weather. Or of either (or both) perceived and real racism. Maybe they'd rather leave the city if they can't stay in their preferred neighborhood. But it's patently ridiculous to say, "People are leaving the city because they can't afford Lincoln Park."

I know I'm preaching to the choir (lovely acapella, btw), but if people are willing to *leave the city* rather than just their neighborhood, it's not a problem with the *city*, it's a problem with the perception of where else in the city people feel comfortable living.

The Mayor's work to invest more in the neighborhoods is a good, rational, response to that problem. Taking all the money "invested" in creating "affordable housing" and instead investing it in better policing strategies in high-crime neighborhoods would be another rational response. Forcing a top-down, mandatory enforcement of police practices that foster trust in the communities is easier said than done, but would be another good choice.

So irritating.

Plus, not only do they force builders to build things that are unnecessary and actually contribute to the problem they claim to want to solve, but doing this ALSO contributes to the destruction of classic housing and buildings that many people like to see preserved. So annoying!

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by k1052

Rich people do the same thing fighting anything that might help other/poor-er people even tiny bit in their backyards. Lincoln Park NIMBYs are just the other side of the same coin.

Hence why Logan Square Preservation and Logan Square Neighborhood Association are allies. It makes no sense what so ever if you have half a brain. You have a virulent NIMBY group who wants nothing more than to drive up the value of their already incredibly expensive real estate (LSP) working in lockstep with an organization that thinks the best way to reduce the rents in the area is to... drive up the value of the already incredibly expensive real estate in the area.

LSP wants to prevent all developments that might add supply because "it means losing a 'historic' frame two flat". LSNA wants to prevent all developments that might add supply because "it will cause gentrification".

Any rational observer will notice that both can't be right. You can't both drive up and reduce land values with the same policy. It's lunacy.

Frankly I wonder if groups like LSP are playing LSNA and know damn well that their policy will increase land values faster thereby undermining the hand of their "allies" and strengthening their own grip on the area. I had a conversation with the president of LSP the other day on facebook and he openly came out in support of aldermanic perogative.

I told him there way no way to prevent property owners from demolishing the property they own that is not protected by preservation laws. He responded that owners are welcome to build within the as-of-right zoning. When I told him that the existing zoning of a site they were blocking development of was for strip malls and drive throughs (B3-1) he told me, totally seriously/unironnically, "Don't worry, we can always block the driveway permit for the curb cut"...

Gee where else have we heard of alderman using their power to abuse curb cut permits? Also you are not allowing them to use their existing zoning if you are restricting them from having curb cuts that, in theory, only require an administrative approval.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Why don't these far left Aldermen just propose what they really want? To restrict people with more money from being allowed to rent in certain areas .

Rich people do the same thing fighting anything that might help other/poor-er people even tiny bit in their backyards. Lincoln Park NIMBYs are just the other side of the same coin.

Really the city has the power to fix the problem without the heavy handed ARO but it requires taking away some zoning power from the Aldermen.

[tm30]

I remember reading a couple weeks ago that investors are decidedly shying away from Chicago properties now...

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by tm30

I remember reading a couple weeks ago that investors are decidedly shying away from Chicago properties now...

That's because Illinois has come to be the worst-governed state in the union. Uhaul can't keep up. It would be insane to invest in this state right now, during the Exodus. While there's demand downtown, activity is pretty bleak everywhere else.

[IrishIllini]

^ What happened to buy low, sell high

[emathias]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

^ What happened to buy low, sell high

That's what's being practiced now - it's just that the market believes values (or returns) will go lower (at least relative to other investment opportunities) before they go higher. And they're quite possibly right.

[SIGSEGV]

Blago's sentence commuted

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Blago's sentence commuted

Even the Republicans told Trump not to do it. But Trump's gunna be Trump. And also *pardons* Michael Milken. Not just commutes his sentence, but full-on pardons him. Maybe Milkin will be the last person who owns Trump enough now to loan him money every again ...

[Handro]

Honestly Blago's sentence was pretty harsh, I'd say he's served his time.