Chicago - Mayoral Race - Rahm Emanuel Wins

[pip]

Alex1, You brought up educating the parents. I'm all for things like that. But will they work? First of all cutting 10 to 20% of CPS's budget, like you proposed, for the students to give to educating the parents would be a disaster. The biggest portion, like 80% - off the top of my head, of the budget is salaries and benefits. The kids will get less attention.

There are over 400,000 students in CPS. How many parents are there? 800,000 then. Where is that money going to come from if CPS is now under your plan going to educate parents also? You can't force adults into education anyway. The budget for CPS's 400,000 students is over $6 billion a year. Educating 800,000 parents also, how much will that cost? A City Income tax of like 50% will be needed.

You heard of the City Colleges? They have 7 main campuses and tons of satellite campuses. Adult Education is free. Adult Education is GED, Literacy classes, and the such. They will start you with 1+1=2.

The case for education has to come from within. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink the water. Until a fundemental change in attitude and culture takes place. No programs in the world unfortunetly I believe, short of tearing apart families and forcing the kids away from their parents - which would be illegal and unethical, will change things.

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.

Originally Posted by alex1

Not sure I get your point.

Immigrants cause way less crime than native born americans in our cities. Both LA and NYC used to have extremely high crime rates. Starting in the 90's immigration to those cities exploded. They are now about 55-60% immigrants and their children. They dispaced a good portion of the original population. Those cities had no great vision or policies that cut crime drastically as it is, they had displacement.

If people from the Third world that moved here and that do not know our culture or language can make it so to speak, in perspective, then so can born and raised Americans.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by pip

Alex1, You brought up educating the parents. I'm all for things like that. But will they work? First of all cutting 10 to 20% of CPS's budget, like you proposed, for the students to give to educating the parents would be a disaster. The biggest portion, like 80% - off the top of my head, of the budget is salaries and benefits. The kids will get less attention.

we know that what we're doing now isn't working. If putting more resources into parents of CPS students helps get them more vested and supportive to their kids education, then reallocating resources should be done.

Immigrants cause way less crime than native born americans in our cities. Both LA and NYC used to have extremely high crime rates. Starting in the 90's immigration to those cities exploded. They are now about 55-60% immigrants and their children. They dispaced a good portion of the original population. Those cities had no great vision or policies that cut crime drastically as it is, they had displacement.

gotcha. What's Chicago's %?

And I think your comment about having a great vision isn't the point. NYC and L.A. have very impressive grass root programs that cover a broad range of social issues.

For example, this year I'll be mentoring a NYC public school student, which I'm very excited about. Chicago has these programs, but they're still not as developed as the programs out here. A kid getting mentored, on a topic that they're passionate about gives them something positive to involve themselves in. It's also not a huge burden on the tax payer. Every bit helps.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

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

The program has been super successful. NYC's subsidized housing program is the reason why the lower class hasn't been pushed out to the far edges of the outer boroughs. That's a good thing.

You can find 100 different reasons why the middle class have been pushed out. The most compelling reason might be regulation that made building new dwellings extremely difficult throughout the 90's, an era where Wall St. and NY businesses were booming.

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.

Who's advocating for Chicago to model their city government after NYC? There is a lot Chicago can learn from NYC though but each city needs to go their own path in bettering their respective cities. If Chicago decides that their lakefront and Loop is where they need to keep tossing their cash at, so be it.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

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.

would agree with you that Philly provides a good example to learn things from, but I'm not sure they have their s*** together. L.A. is surprisingly a good city to learn lessons from.

[pip]

You brought up Philly as an example to learn things from. Really? Maybe at best a combination of what to do and what not to do.

Originally Posted by alex1

we know that what we're doing now isn't working. If putting more resources into parents of CPS students helps get them more vested and supportive to their kids education, then reallocating resources should be done.



gotcha. What's Chicago's %?

And I think your comment about having a great vision isn't the point. NYC and L.A. have very impressive grass root programs that cover a broad range of social issues.

For example, this year I'll be mentoring a NYC public school student, which I'm very excited about. Chicago has these programs, but they're still not as developed as the programs out here. A kid getting mentored, on a topic that they're passionate about gives them something positive to involve themselves in. It's also not a huge burden on the tax payer. Every bit helps.

I believe in Harlem NYC there was a very successful program in getting parents educated along with their kids(students) but it was very expensive. How do you duplicate that on a city wide scale?

Chicago is probably half what LA and NYC is with regards to immigrants.

I think you will find Chicago also had very impressive grass roots education and social programs too. I would easily venture with the top tier of quantity and quality of American cities. But like I mentioned before LA and NYC changed because of immigration way greater than Chicago has. That has benefited those cities so greatly. Greater than any local socail program or policing effort has.

To get back to the point of the Loop and Northside neighborhoods I made in my first post. Without that income generated from those areas you can throw in the towel and just beg for money from the State and Fed Gov. Those areas do not require much resources and generate a lot of income and ALSO provide a ton of jobs for people from all over Chicago and I am also talking about spin off companies from around the city that provide services to these local businesses. JOBS - a goal. Encourage job creation. Access to jobs solves so many problems. Why not encourage more of what draws in the money, they spend money and create a need for services. Chicago spending money in Downtown etc. has a huge multiplier effect on revenue and jobs created for all. WHy do you think all american cities from Detroit to Flint to Gary to Denver to Seattle are investing in the downtown areas?

[alex1]

wish the bears could convert on 4th and goal, when they're on the 1 yard line, btw.

edit: that a boy, Hester.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pip

Chicago is probably half what LA and NYC is with regards to immigrants.

I think you will find Chicago also had very impressive grass roots education and social programs too. I would easily venture with the top tier of quantity and quality of American cities. But like I mentioned before LA and NYC changed because of immigration way greater than Chicago has. That has benefited those cities so greatly. Greater than any local socail program or policing effort has.

^ But Chicago is also a smaller city than these two. I don't think immigration alone is a good explanation for variances in the quality of education.

In fact, I would argue that the types of immigrants that flock to big cities like NY, LA, Chicago tend to be less educated and less oriented towards performing well in school than the types of immigrants that move to medium sized or small sized cities. In other words, more immigrants may actually be a liability on education; thus having more immigrants should not really "benefit" NY and LA over Chicago, as you suggested above.

[pip]

you really think NYC and LA schools are better than CPS? Maybe at most marginally.

I was more making the point, I guess ineffectively lol, in terms of social and community order than education with regards to immigration. But it did seem as if the discussion of education also started to involve basic behaviors to which immigration played a big role for the changes in LA and NYC

[10023]

Originally Posted by alex1

You can find 100 different reasons why the middle class have been pushed out. The most compelling reason might be regulation that made building new dwellings extremely difficult throughout the 90's, an era where Wall St. and NY businesses were booming.

That regulation still wrecks the market for new housing, and keeps existing housing off the market. Manhattan has a less than 1% vacancy rate for apartments, largely because of rent control. Someone living in a one bedroom apartment for $900/month means that somebody else has to be paying $3,000/month, when both apartments should cost $2,000.

[sukwoo]

A good job is the best social program. I believe both LA and NYC had better job growth over the past few years (at least until the current recession).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

A good job is the best social program. I believe both LA and NYC had better job growth over the past few years (at least until the current recession).

^ Actually, LA's unemployment rate is higher than Chicago's right now. Also, from 1980 to 2000 the LA area (like Chicago) had actually lost jobs.

New York (as usual--the city that seems impervious to fucking everything) certainly has outperformed these two.

Am I the only one who gets sick and tired of New York's superiority in seemingly everything?

[the urban politician]

Rahm very close to announcing his candidacy for Mayor

[alex1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Actually, LA's unemployment rate is higher than Chicago's right now. Also, from 1980 to 2000 the LA area (like Chicago) had actually lost jobs.

New York (as usual--the city that seems impervious to fucking everything) certainly has outperformed these two.

Am I the only one who gets sick and tired of New York's superiority in seemingly everything?

but it's not. NYC has more of just about everything, but it's not necessarily "superior". It's different.

I really like living in here, but I'd much rather live in Chicago.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

That regulation still wrecks the market for new housing, and keeps existing housing off the market. Manhattan has a less than 1% vacancy rate for apartments, largely because of rent control. Someone living in a one bedroom apartment for $900/month means that somebody else has to be paying $3,000/month, when both apartments should cost $2,000.

again, this information is not factual.

The main reason why nYc has seen low vacancy rates (besides it being an exceptionally successful city) is that the city was in NIMBY mode for much of the past few decades. But that in itself doesn't explain the why. The back to the city movement coincided with one of NYC's greatest increases in wealth, ever. While the city had thousands of new residents moving in each month, the planning department and various neighborhoods made it virtually impossible for developers to build high density housing that could have added tens of thousands of new units to lessen the strain on the housing supply. Also mix in the fact that many apartments and other rental dwellings were then being converted to condos and the strain was even harsher. The regulation against new housing has been severely loosened in the past 5-7 years.

Rent control/stabilization laws might have had some influence on the price of real estate, but I'm not sure it's conclusive (obviously, it most rewards those who have lived in a particular apartment within the city longest). One MIT professor who backs getting rid of price regulations in NYC stated that the average price of rent stabalized units would rise $200 (64% of citywide units) while market rate housing would drop $200.

edit: Just an fyi. NYC had over 2 million units of rent controlled housing in the early 1940's. That number is now down to 39,000 and decreasing every year. There are over 1 million units of rent stabilized housing in nYc. 36% of rental units are "market rate".

[alex1]

Originally Posted by pip

You brought up Philly as an example to learn things from. Really? Maybe at best a combination of what to do and what not to do.

I did not bring this up. I agreed with Viva that Philly is actually an environment that Chicago could look to for ideas. Mainly due to built form, demographic breakdowns and being older, industrial cities. For example, Philly gutted it's mass transit system years ago. Is there something in that data that suggests Chicago should emulate this or does it give the region more incentive to sustain its current transportation systems? If Chicago does gut mass transit more than it has, are there lessons we can learn from Philly?

I believe in Harlem NYC there was a very successful program in getting parents educated along with their kids(students) but it was very expensive. How do you duplicate that on a city wide scale?

Start off with a pilot program. The goal isn't to achieve equity in year one, but to begin strengthening our communities so that future generations aren't mired in the same muck that current ones are stuck in. It's not a one pronged attack. Lots of little things can be done. And I don't think we need to spend more money to achieve loftier goals. Does anyone actually believe the current school system is efficient (in terms of how the money is spent, how teachers teach and the success rates of it's students)?

Btw, I started looking for past CPS stories thanks to this thread and found this nugget: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...120409.article

Even more impressive is the 41 percent increase—to 60.8 percent—in the number of freshman “on-track” at Harper High School in impoverished Englewood.

Harper is a so-called “turnaround” school where the principal and teachers were replaced just a year ago.

I've always understood the purpose and strengths of charter schools while never really buying into their long-term success. Public schools are just as likely to succeed when teachers believe they can make a positive difference and leadership gives them the tools to make that happen.

[10023]

Alex, if those figures are city wide you can be sure that the dollar amounts will be far greater in Manhattan.

The fact is that right now New York is like a club where unless you're a long-time member or you've got an elderly aunt that can sign her lease over to you, you are at a huge disadvantage in finding housing.

To put it bluntly: there is absolutely nothing that entitles someone who rents an apartment to continue living there and paying the same rate for decades. Nothing. If you want to take advantage of rising real estate prices then you should buy a home. If you don't and you're priced out, and forced to move, so be it. The current residents or ones that have been in an apartment for a period of time should not have any more claim to good housing than anyone else.

It absolutely sickens me that I have neighborhoods in my building that pay perhaps 20% of what I do a month. It's a corrupt system, but like most longstanding corrupt systems, it's maintained by politics. Like union members, stabilized renters are a powerful voting bloc in the city.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by 10023

Alex, if those figures are city wide you can be sure that the dollar amounts will be far greater in Manhattan.

The fact is that right now New York is like a club where unless you're a long-time member or you've got an elderly aunt that can sign her lease over to you, you are at a huge disadvantage in finding housing.

To put it bluntly: there is absolutely nothing that entitles someone who rents an apartment to continue living there and paying the same rate for decades. Nothing. If you want to take advantage of rising real estate prices then you should buy a home. If you don't and you're priced out, and forced to move, so be it. The current residents or ones that have been in an apartment for a period of time should not have any more claim to good housing than anyone else.

It absolutely sickens me that I have neighborhoods in my building that pay perhaps 20% of what I do a month. It's a corrupt system, but like most longstanding corrupt systems, it's maintained by politics. Like union members, stabilized renters are a powerful voting bloc in the city.

numbers were for Manhattan. Averages saved/lost were in the $20-30 range for the boroughs.

This particular debate has gotten off topic. We'll need to agree to disagree on the merits of the program.

[Loopy]

...

[the urban politician]

^ AAAAAHHH!!!

[Loopy]

...