CHICAGO | General Developments

[left of center]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Damn, when did you turn into Fidel Castro?

The above scheme seems like a cute way to throw away an owner's property rights and simply bypass eminent domain altogether. Just heap on a pile of overly ridiculous and impossible to justify fines, then when the fines don't get paid ($40 million for 1 little building? okay, dude.....) the city takes the property for "free" under the excuse that they were owed $40 million anyway.

Property rights is not an excuse to be a slumlord. Either redevelop the site, or sell it. Don't let it rot away for years/decades while it remains an eyesore for the whole community.

If a neighbor of yours let their house rot away in partial ruins, I am sure you would be raising a stink at city hall about it. I know I would.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Kill them. Kill them ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

May the demise of all strip malls within city limits be swift and unrelenting.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by marothisu

[...]
Also there's a zoning application up to convert a vacant 5 story warehouse at 26th & Federal to 34 residential units with 35 parking spaces

https://www.google.com/maps/place/10...!4d-87.6291798

This is a tangent, but this building got me looking at the secluded little part of Chinatown/Armor Square surrounded by the highways and the Union Pacific Railroad (Marshaling?) Yard to the West. That yard is huge and on the map it looks completely underutilized. Are the looks just deceiving? If not, does anybody know why that is? Is there any chance this space could be converted to a better use? Chinatown and Armor Square could certainly use the space for housing though since it spans over the Stevenson it's probably too valuable and/or costly to change. It just seems like such a sore thumb right there if it's not being used to its full potential.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by left of center

Property rights is not an excuse to be a slumlord. Either redevelop the site, or sell it. Don't let it rot away for years/decades while it remains an eyesore for the whole community.

If a neighbor of yours let their house rot away in partial ruins, I am sure you would be raising a stink at city hall about it. I know I would.

Leaving a building vacant is not a crime.

You and I may not like it, but one cannot punish a person for doing that. The city can come up with ways to harass an owner and goad them into redeveloping their property, but that has its limits too.

I of course would bitch if my neighbor’s house was vacant and collecting weeds. Maybe the owner died and his kids don’t have the money to fix up the property? You can’t penalize someone for not having money. Maybe they want to sell but aren’t getting their price?

I’ll tell you what I view as illegal, though: municipalities racking up unjustifiable fines as a “back door” to seizing property without having to pay for it via eminent domain.

[emathias]

Why not put this near 19th and Western? Then it would have 'L' access and BNSF access, and actually near an intact neighborhood people might want to live in and walk to work from.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

While I certainly don't endorse the loss of quality ethnic restaurants, the concept of "the greater good" must be employed whenever we're talking about the potential elimination of a stupid fucking city-killing strip mall.

No goddamn strip mall is worth saving for the sake of a restaurant, regardless of how delicious it might be.

Kill them. Kill them ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Totally agree. The world gets a tad bit better when strip malls are replaced with proper urban buildings. Those restaurants will find a new home, there is plenty of vacant retail space everywhere

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Totally agree. The world gets a tad bit better when strip malls are replaced with proper urban buildings. Those restaurants will find a new home, there is plenty of vacant retail space everywhere

I agree - was being ironic. I hope they re-open in another location in the city.

[Randomguy34]

Google Streetview has started updating some downtown streets. Some standouts are One Chicago, continued growth of the Wells St corridor, and development on the western end of Fulton Market

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You can’t penalize someone for not having money.

Of course you can. For example, if they don't have the money to pay for the property taxes, they will and should be 'penalized' by having their property sold right from under them.

If you don't have the money to maintain any property, a home, a vacant lot, a condo, or an irreplaceable part of a historic district, then of course that property owner needs to be 'penalized' for not having the money to maintain it.

It is all about protecting the health and welfare of the larger community.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Of course you can. For example, if they don't have the money to pay for the property taxes, they will and should be 'penalized' by having there property sold right from under them.
.

But what if the owner is paying his property taxes?

I feel like there lacks any nuance in this discussion. Of course the City should have some “penalties” for slumlords, but it has to come with some limitations.

$10,000/day for Code violations is BS. You know it, I know it, and so does the City, because they simply can’t enforce such a heinously illegal dollar value. A loose board on your deck is a code violation. That’s not worth $10,000/day. The city uses this kind of stuff to harass and intimidate owners, but it’s more bark than bite.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

If you don't have the money to maintain any property, a home, a vacant lot, a condo, or an irreplaceable part of a historic district, then of course that property owner needs to be 'penalized' for not having the money to maintain it.

It is all about protecting the health and welfare of the larger community.

And herein lies my point.

This system of penalizing people who don’t have money doesn’t seem to be working. Look at all of vacant land in less wealthy parts of Chicago that once contained buildings.

All that’s going to happen from all of this harassment, court dates, fines, etc is that the owner is going to demolish as long as it’s not a landmarked property.

Let’s face it, the current punitive system of isn’t doing much to encourage preservation in areas that aren’t wealthy or rapidly gentrifying.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Leaving a building vacant is not a crime.

You and I may not like it, but one cannot punish a person for doing that. The city can come up with ways to harass an owner and goad them into redeveloping their property, but that has its limits too.

I of course would bitch if my neighbor’s house was vacant and collecting weeds. Maybe the owner died and his kids don’t have the money to fix up the property? You can’t penalize someone for not having money. Maybe they want to sell but aren’t getting their price?

An unmaintained lot or building's value is un unearned increment made possible by the nearby community and the enterprise of its people. Intentionally removing value from your neighbor's property so that yours increases in an economic problem that classic free marketers like Friedman and Hayek agreed requires regulation. Letting markets and enterprise do what it wants is almost always the right answer in matters of investment and development. Not every time.

Obviously a great way to make money is to build a rat poison factory next to a reservoir, have an "accident" and then watch the profits of your coffin business soar. We all agree that regulation is required in that extreme example; intentionally letting a property rot until someone pays you to stop spreading blight in the community is a greyer area, but on a continuum in a way most folks don't need to have sketched out for them unless intentionally not understanding something is emotionally satisfying for them.

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, since “intentionally letting buildings rot” is exactly what I advocated for in my posts above that you never bothered to read….

Internet debating: an exercise in futility because nobody reads each other’s arguments

[rivernorthlurker]

Wasn't sure where to put this as Willis thread is locked.

Here are some really nice photos (15-20) of the finished Willis rehab including the roof

I'm hoping there will be some outdoor seating on some of those roof patios on the Jackson side.

https://claycorp.com/project/willis-...ion-project-2/

[left of center]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Leaving a building vacant is not a crime.

You and I may not like it, but one cannot punish a person for doing that. The city can come up with ways to harass an owner and goad them into redeveloping their property, but that has its limits too.

I of course would bitch if my neighbor’s house was vacant and collecting weeds. Maybe the owner died and his kids don’t have the money to fix up the property? You can’t penalize someone for not having money. Maybe they want to sell but aren’t getting their price?

I’ll tell you what I view as illegal, though: municipalities racking up unjustifiable fines as a “back door” to seizing property without having to pay for it via eminent domain.

In your scenario, its justified for the kids to let their parent's former home sit for 10 years until it is uninhabitable and needs to be torn down because they "aren't getting their price"?

Here's the deal, if you own a commercial property in the central area and let it rot for years without doing any basic maintenance to keep the elements out and keep the building in a state where it is not deemed hazardous to the public safety, that is just outright negligence. This property owner, who perhaps was in way over his head and had no funds to develop the building, should have simply sold it. Giving the city the ability to prod someone in this direction is a net benefit overall to the city and its population. This was a contributing building in a landmark district that we have now lost to all future generations because of either one landowner's greed or ineptness.

A municipality would have no need to "seize a property with unjustifiable fines" if the property was in good standing with the city, in good structural shape and a contributor to the tax rolls instead of being another forgotten parcel in a slumlord's portfolio.

[pilsenarch]

well, the bottom-line with the destruction of this handsome contributing building to the Motor Row Historic District is that both the owner and the city fucked up....

obviously enforcement needs to be increased and certainly "the owner has no money" is not an acceptable excuse... those owners should have their property seized...

an interesting side note, I rented a loft in the building just to the west... 3000 sf loft that I lived at in the early 90's that looked over the roof of this building... at the time, City Chevrolet was using the building for auto repair...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Damn, when did you turn into Fidel Castro?

The above scheme seems like a cute way to throw away an owner's property rights and simply bypass eminent domain altogether. Just heap on a pile of overly ridiculous and impossible to justify fines, then when the fines don't get paid ($40 million for 1 little building? okay, dude.....) the city takes the property for "free" under the excuse that they were owed $40 million anyway.

None of that seems legit or legal to me.

Look, the city keeps taking the same approach of villainizing property owners and it's no wonder they keep getting the same results. Keep slapping on fines, eventually the owner will just say "fuck it" and tear the building down. This approach is punitive and, heck, maybe some people working for the city actually enjoy it. But it doesn't seem to be working.

A better approach is to consult with private property owners and developers to find an approach that is less punitive and more carrot-and-stick with owners of vacant but worthwhile properties. We don't know the circumstance of the owner? Do they even have the funds to rehab the building? Are they an out of towner, or perhaps somebody who inherited the building from a parent who passed away?

Knowing what can be done to "encourage" an owner to do something useful with a property would be a better approach than simply slapping on fines, sending threatening letters, and otherwise treating the owners like they are delinquent white collar criminals.

Lol you know nothing of the circumstances surrounding the demise of the Rambler Building. This isn't the estate of some poor family in Englewood, this is highly valueable, landmarked, property directly adjacent to one of the largest convention centers on earth.

There was value in the building and the owners intentionally destroyed it in a bid to get even more value by demolishing landmark that was in their way.

I actually know the owner of this property and the Cadillac Building across the street which would also have suffered the same fate if it weren't a concrete bunker brick shithouse impermeable to these assholes neglect.

The owner of these properties is an Indian General Contractor from Arlington Heights who is worth a shit ton of money. This same person was the GC for the construction of that huge, ornate, Hindu Temple in Lemont. He's not some pauper being abused by the state, he's a wealthy landowner with extreme expertise in the building trades. He had the money, time, and resources to fix the roof with his own damn crews. He intentionally did not do so because he is aggressively attempting to destroy the building so he can extract greater value from the land than he was entitled to by using the existing building under the current landmark laws.


The city can and should take the property from him. It's not his right to destroy landmarks out of greed. It's also not his right to leave a building in extremely dangerous condition putting everyone in the areas lives at risk. Need I remind you of the lady killed walking with her child a few blocks from here when a piece of that church caved her head in? I guess that's "property rights" to you? Destroying a landmark and raining bricks down upon innocent pedestrians is your right because you need to squeeze more money out of the property you are landbanking?


What an absurd pile of nonsense TUP. Your position is wrong, so wrong that you should feel like a total buffoon for taking it.


I've actually met this guy, I tried to buy the property off him 3 or 4 years ago and he wouldn't sell it. He's the worst kind of landlord, the person that gives all of us a bad name because he's a criminally negligent piece of shit hell bent on grinding out another dime at everyone else's expense. I'm a libertarian, but government has a reason for existing. The biggest reason is to have a court system, to have law and order. This asshole is breaking the law in as many ways as he can come up with and should be run through the ringer.


Luckily the city slapped his ass with a demo lien, so I suspect there's also a big fat fine in the offing as well. Funny you keep claiming I've suddenly become some kind of Marxist for taking these positions considering you know I acquired my first big property by forcing a bank to give it to me or face the same blowback from the city. These laws exist for a reason, usually they force idiots like the owner of the Rambler Building to take profits before the building is lost. Unfortunately this guy is such a piece of shit that he wouldn't see the writing on the wall and dump it off to someone who would take care of it. He absolutely should not be rewarded for that and the city needs to crush him to make sure other landlords don't try the same shenanigans.

[the urban politician]

^ Damn LVDW, I am talking in general terms. You appear to have a history and perhaps an issue with this particular owner, but your axe to grind on this case should not set any precedent on how property owners are treated in this city. Every story is different.

I’ve bought property from slumlords who were rats and from good people who inherited from dead parents and just couldn’t commit resources for a rehab. It’s obtuse and stupid of the city to treat everybody as one and the same. This guy was obviously an asshole, but the point I’m making is that the city treats everyone like that.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Damn LVDW, I am talking in general terms. You appear to have a history and perhaps an issue with this particular owner, but your axe to grind on this case should not set any precedent on how property owners are treated in this city. Every story is different.

I’ve bought property from slumlords who were rats and from good people who inherited from dead parents and just couldn’t commit resources for a rehab. It’s obtuse and stupid of the city to treat everybody as one and the same. This guy was obviously an asshole, but the point I’m making is that the city treats everyone like that.

You responded to me saying the city should throw the book at this particular owner. You criticized my position on this particular property and then went on a rant about how I apparently support the government crushing poor people under the heal of their boot which wasn't even remotely topical. I'm responding to that nonsense, the government should have this power and the City typically uses this power very judiciously. I've never once had the city refuse to drop their case and fines against a property because I come in and rectify the situation. They aren't using this to raise revenue, they use it to come in and force action in situations where the owner is being a deadbeat.

[the urban politician]

^ I’ve been in that boat a few times too and mostly don’t disagree, but $40 million fine (your words) is not even on the same planet of being reasonable. Even for a delinquent, douchy landlord. Hell, just use eminent domain and seize the property or force a demo.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

This is a tangent, but this building got me looking at the secluded little part of Chinatown/Armor Square surrounded by the highways and the Union Pacific Railroad (Marshaling?) Yard to the West. That yard is huge and on the map it looks completely underutilized. Are the looks just deceiving? If not, does anybody know why that is? Is there any chance this space could be converted to a better use? Chinatown and Armor Square could certainly use the space for housing though since it spans over the Stevenson it's probably too valuable and/or costly to change. It just seems like such a sore thumb right there if it's not being used to its full potential.

Long story short, UP closed this yard (Canal St Yard) as part of cost-cutting moves. Due to space limitations, it was not very efficient compared to the truly enormous yards out in the exurbs. However, with freight volumes straining the current yard infrastructure, it's possible UP will reactivate it, or at least retain ownership for the future.

IMO it may be needed in the future as a yard for passenger trains, as Amtrak service in the Midwest grows. It has a straight shot into Union Station, and while it may be tight for mile-long freight trains it's the perfect size for 800' passenger trains. Seems foolish to open it up to residential development and never get that land back.