CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events - Page 119

LouisVanDerWright · #**2361** Posted **Jun 11, 2019, 3:37 PM**

Lightfoot now attacking gerrymandering and calling for an independent commission of citizens to draw the ward boundaries in 2020:

https://news.wttw.com/2019/06/10/lig...ceEwLRHSEKcUvI

the urban politician · #**2362** Posted **Jun 11, 2019, 4:24 PM**

About time.

And it's silly that the Black Caucus expects to keep the same number of Aldermen (18) when their share of the city's population is declining. This should be the case for any ethnic group.

When you leave, you give up political representation.

Asians keep getting screwed by these special interest groups. Chicago should easily have 2 Aldermen of Asian descent by population alone. With Alderman Pawar gone, it's back down to zero.

MayorOfChicago · #**2363** Posted **Jun 11, 2019, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Lightfoot now attacking gerrymandering and calling for an independent commission of citizens to draw the ward boundaries in 2020:

https://news.wttw.com/2019/06/10/lig...ceEwLRHSEKcUvI

This would be fantastic, I HATE the current way the wards are drawn. Many north side lakefront wards look like what they should. Centralized wards based around neighborhoods.

I moved away from there and now I'm in a ward that's really just a small tail that hangs far away from the rest of the ward. As it stands I don't feel like I'm in a ward, I'm just forgotten on the side.

Wards should have no more than 6-8 straight lines in their boundries. Make it quick and simple.

the urban politician · #**2364** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 7:37 PM**

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack........

https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2019...-other-states/

BrinChi · #**2365** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 8:25 PM**

Thankfully Lori campaigned against rent control, and I love the potential ward redistricting. This would be a huge step forward for Chicago if we can get rid of gerrymandering!

Handro · #**2366** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrinChi

Thankfully Lori campaigned against rent control, and I love the potential ward redistricting. This would be a huge step forward for Chicago if we can get rid of gerrymandering!

What are the effects of gerrymandering a city?

the urban politician · #**2367** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

What are the effects of gerrymandering a city?

Destroying democratic representation

LouisVanDerWright · #**2368** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 10:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

What are the effects of gerrymandering a city?

Allowing nitwits like Rosa to do whatever they please to the section of Logan around the Square and the portion of Avondale North of there with zero recourse to, you know, the people that actually live in that area. He gets away with it because most of the voters in his ward are down in West Logan and Humbolt and areas like that where "free money for me" sales pitch works great.

emathias · #**2369** Posted **Jun 13, 2019, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

What are the effects of gerrymandering a city?

It distorts representation. In extreme cases, it can when lead to a minority party electing a majority, or a majority party controlling all districts, even in areas where they aren't in the majority. In Chicago it's mostly been used to allocate seats between the three primary racial constituencies, white, black, Latino. In a more fair system, Asians would probably have a couple seats, and a few would be true wildcards instead of foregone conclusions.

the urban politician · #**2370** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 1:32 PM**

My problem with this silly development, and why it irritates me, is that we have enough trouble getting development to happen on existing vacant land south of Roosvelt Rd as it is.

Why on earth would it make any sense to build a platform over the Metra tracks and hence, new developable land? That should only happen if land prices are super high and we have nearly run out of anywhere else to develop.

This proposal needs to die already...

Chisouthside · #**2371** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 2:10 PM**

Seems the developer wants to use public money to subsidize their project.
Build something seemingly beneficial to the public and reap profit with little risk. a light rail line from Navy Pier down Columbus to the Museum Campus would be a better idea.

Halsted & Villagio · #**2372** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 2:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

Lightfoot is concerned about blocking views?

Regarding One Central:

Lightfoot listens and respond to public comments before City Council meetings. Maybe someone could go and explain why bowing to NIMBY pressure about blocked views is bad for the city and will hurt her goal of growing to 3 million residents.

Nothing to see here. All Lightfoot is doing is stating the obvious. Besides advocating for engagement with all stakeholders (something essential to any democracy), she has not weighed in one way or the other.

Handro · #**2373** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

It distorts representation. In extreme cases, it can when lead to a minority party electing a majority, or a majority party controlling all districts, even in areas where they aren't in the majority. In Chicago it's mostly been used to allocate seats between the three primary racial constituencies, white, black, Latino. In a more fair system, Asians would probably have a couple seats, and a few would be true wildcards instead of foregone conclusions.

I guess I didn't really undrestand it on a civic scale--of course statewide/nationally where political parties are a factor its easier to see the negative effects of gerrymandering and what the game is--one party getting more representation than another party. So race is the proxy for party here? That seems like antiquated methodology, to put it mildly.

galleyfox · #**2374** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

Seems the developer wants to use public money to subsidize their project.
Build something seemingly beneficial to the public and reap profit with little risk. a light rail line from Navy Pier down Columbus to the Museum Campus would be a better idea.

There is a light rail between Navy Pier and Museum Campus using the McCormick Busway included in the One Central proposal.
It still doesn't make it the best use of the state's financial resources. But if the state has to repay the developer in 20 years anyway, then it might as well build its own transit with cheaper stations, and let the developer pay for his deck and fancy superstation using his own money.

MayorOfChicago · #**2375** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by galleyfox

There is a light rail between Navy Pier and Museum Campus using the McCormick Busway included in the One Central proposal.
It still doesn't make it the best use of the state's financial resources. But if the state has to repay the developer in 20 years anyway, then it might as well build its own transit with cheaper stations, and let the developer pay for his deck and fancy superstation using his own money.

It's not light rail - they just want to use automated buses. That busway is the ONLY piece of their transit hub I really want to see developed or understand as beneficial. I would rather have it be light rail though and tie into the plans they put out a few years ago now with light rail from Lincoln Yards, Carroll Transitway, etc.

I don't get the "CTA connection" to the One Central plan, it looks like a spur that's only option would be to continue down the path of the Orange Line towards Midway. So the first stop after leaving One Central and the only route towards One Central on the L would be leaving from the Halsted Orange Line. It isn't very functional unless you happen to be coming from the southwest side, and then what? Have every third Orange Line re-direct from Halsted onwards to One Central and then back to Midway? Run a small shuttle just going from Halsted to One Central? Not worth the expense.

Same with the Metra connection. Just run BSFN but instead of turning north into Union it continues past the yard and into One Central. Not really that useful overall.

I like developing 18th street metra more, tie in something with the McCormick busway - but overall it's just a huge transit hub with no real "hub" to it, I don't see it getting used much at all except for people going to games or museums or McCormick - BUT even then the routes from the outside world into the One Central hub seem very limited and not functional to 99% of people.

ardecila · #**2376** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 6:27 PM**

^ Guys, the transit aspects of One Central are definitely not baked.

At last week's community meeting, I pointed out to the chief planner that Amtrak was looking to re-route their Illini, Saluki and City of New Orleans trains away from the St Charles Air Line (and the One Central site), and the response I got was "huh?" Then he suggested Amtrak could terminate at One Central and force passengers to get on CTA to get downtown or make further connections, which is also a non-starter (why spend billions to reduce the usefulness of Amtrak?)

I did impress that a connection into downtown, and ultimately crosstown to the North or West Side, was more valuable than a direct connection to Midway. People from the South/Southwest Side would already have access to the site through existing train/bus lines, while a North Sider would face two trains and a hefty walk.

Really they should hire an experienced transit planner to look at what the travel needs are, what the physical realities of the transit network are, and what planning efforts are already underway by the city, the transit agencies, the railroads, and various advocacy groups.

k1052 · #**2377** Posted **Jun 14, 2019, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

At last week's community meeting, I pointed out to the chief planner that Amtrak was looking to re-route their Illini, Saluki and City of New Orleans trains away from the St Charles Air Line (and the One Central site), and the response I got was "huh?" Then he suggested Amtrak could terminate at One Central and force passengers to get on CTA to get downtown or make further connections, which is also a non-starter (why spend billions to reduce the usefulness of Amtrak?)

Jesus Christ.

the urban politician · #**2378** Posted **Jun 15, 2019, 12:55 PM**

Who’s being the “racist” in this situation:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/politic...ot-white-judge

....because after all, if they aren’t “black”, they can’t be “fair”.

It’s only a matter of time that our increasingly multi-ethnic society is going to grow intolerant of this agitating from basically one highly vocal ethnic/special interest group....

OrdoSeclorum · #**2379** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

^ Haven’t you heard?

You can’t be racist to white people by discriminating against them due to their skin color.

I think a lot of discussions on this topic are quibbling over the meaning of a word. Or ignoring that people are obviously using different definitions. If "racism" is defined as considering one race to be superior to another, or wishing harm to a specific race of people, then of course you can be racist towards whites.

If you feel that American culture is essentially just white culture (I'll leave the reader to determine the truth of that or what that means for themselves, but you know what I'm getting at), then it would be difficult for a white person to suffer from racism, if you look at racism charted as the integral of the average experience of any American resident.

the urban politician · #**2380** Posted **Jun 17, 2019, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I think a lot of discussions on this topic are quibbling over the meaning of a word. Or ignoring that people are obviously using different definitions. If "racism" is defined as considering one race to be superior to another, or wishing harm to a specific race of people, then of course you can be racist towards whites.

If you feel that American culture is essentially just white culture (I'll leave the reader to determine the truth of that or what that means for themselves, but you know what I'm getting at), then it would be difficult for a white person to suffer from racism, if you look at racism charted as the integral of the average experience of any American resident.

Here's how Merriam Webster defines Racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

I would say that #3 above is being violated by those people who are angry that a white woman was appointed as a judge, being that they pretty much offer no other reason to oppose her (does she have a history of unfair or discriminatory judgements? Has she made overtly racist statements? What is the reason other than the fact that she's a white woman?)