CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

LVDW I would like to borrow your insight, as you come across as a knowledgeable man. You seem to have a lot of exposure in this shithole state, given you own numerous rental properties, so how do you protect yourself against this ticking time bomb gifted to us by evil looter Democrats suckering our most vulnerable citizens who were simply seeking rescue, into electing these looters, when instead, they've completely run this state into the ground.

Too bad the Republican Governors we have had for 29 of the past 41 years couldn't help out with the problem. Those evil Democrats making problems, all by themselves.

Consider this, the federal government bailed out NYC in 1975, as they were on the edge of bankruptcy. I imagine the ROI on real estate bought in NYC in 1974 is pretty high.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Too bad the Republican Governors we have had for 29 of the past 41 years couldn't help out with the problem. Those evil Democrats making problems, all by themselves.

Consider this, the federal government bailed out NYC in 1975, as they were on the edge of bankruptcy. I imagine the ROI on real estate bought in NYC in 1974 is pretty high.

Republican governor Edgar is a huge part of today's problem. He created the current pension payment ramp where while he was governor, very little was paid into the system and it ramped up to the huge payments due today.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by JK47

2) Fiscal responsibility. Jesus Christ am I tired of people accusing liberals of being fiscally irresponsible. Do you know what Illinois would have if it received $1 of expenditure for every $1 of revenue it contributes to the Federal gov't in taxes? A balanced budget. Conservatives don't get to talk about fiscal responsibility since the places they run are either 1) falling apart or two 2) getting back far more in subsidies than they contribute in revenue.

Surely you are joking, Illinois' problems have zero to do with Federal funding. This state owes almost a quarter trillion in unfunded bills. Those bills directly result from so called "liberals" (who are really predatory lawyers that don't actually give a shit about poor people or liberal values unless those policies help them buy votes) making massive unsustainable promises to powerful special interests in order to ensure their own reelection. This has nothing to do with providing welfare to citizens who need it, funding social services, protecting minorities civil rights, or anything truly liberal. This has to do with a bunch of evil looters ransacking the states finances to enshrine their own power for decades. This has to do with a bunch of spineless cowards just going along with that system because "that's the way it works".

Anyone who can't recognize this essence of the problem and instead make excuses like yours fall directly into the "going along with the racket" category. If you want to deflect YOU are the problem. Acknowledge that the state has brought itself to the brink through their own gross mismanagement or continue sticking your fingers in your ears going "la la la la la" until disaster is unavoidable. It's your choice.


Just an FYI, each 1% increase in interest rates results in a $2.5 billion a year increase in the costs of funding this grotesque fiscal haunt. The entire state revenue is $39 billion. A 4% increase in rates results in 25% of the total budget being sucked up by interest payments. I am just aghast that anyone is living in denial of this impending disaster. Tick tock.

[the urban politician]

Illinois will never pay off its pension obligations. I don't care what the stupid Constitution says. Those State employees are screwed.

Too many promises and lies.

But whatever, keep voting for the same people. Like clockwork, they will probably put that slimy hack ("make the rich pay their fair share.....but not really") Pritzker in office.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Illinois will never pay off its pension obligations. I don't care what the stupid Constitution says. Those State employees are screwed.

Too many promises and lies.

But whatever, keep voting for the same people. Like clockwork, they will probably put that slimy hack ("make the rich pay their fair share.....but not really") Pritzker in office.

The majority of pensioners in Illinois are on the municipal, not state, level. Those municipalities can be allowed to go bankrupt if necessary, but even then those pensioners are not likely to get "screwed." If large level municipal bankruptcies start occurring here in Illinois, we'll likely see something similar to the grand bargain that Detroit came up with. That came with a restructuring and haircuts, but the pensioners didn't get told to take a hike. Michigan also has a similar state level constitutional amendment as Illinois does, and they managed to come up with their bargain nonetheless.

Detroit's bankruptcy left plenty of unanswered questions though, and the district courts here and the 7th Circuit might handle things differently than what happened up in Michigan. Who knows.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

The majority of pensioners in Illinois are on the municipal, not state, level. Those municipalities can be allowed to go bankrupt if necessary, but even then those pensioners are not likely to get "screwed." If large level municipal bankruptcies start occurring here in Illinois, we'll likely see something similar to the grand bargain that Detroit came up with. That came with a restructuring and haircuts, but the pensioners didn't get told to take a hike. Michigan also has a similar state level constitutional amendment as Illinois does, and they managed to come up with their bargain nonetheless.

Detroit's bankruptcy left plenty of unanswered questions though, and the district courts here and the 7th Circuit might handle things differently than what happened up in Michigan. Who knows.

A lot, if not most of those municipal pensioners have pensions paid for by the state (ie school teachers.)

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

The majority of pensioners in Illinois are on the municipal, not state, level. Those municipalities can be allowed to go bankrupt if necessary, but even then those pensioners are not likely to get "screwed." If large level municipal bankruptcies start occurring here in Illinois, we'll likely see something similar to the grand bargain that Detroit came up with. That came with a restructuring and haircuts, but the pensioners didn't get told to take a hike. Michigan also has a similar state level constitutional amendment as Illinois does, and they managed to come up with their bargain nonetheless.

Detroit's bankruptcy left plenty of unanswered questions though, and the district courts here and the 7th Circuit might handle things differently than what happened up in Michigan. Who knows.

Given the track record of Illinois courts with the pension amendment, I think any bargain will just get thrown out by higher courts outside of the bankruptcy court which (as mentioned above) is pretty much prohibited anyways.

The whole state is going to go down in flames, it's mathematically impossible to tax our way out of this. Let's not even consider the giant waiting list for payment we still have. Do you think those creditors will just accept what they are owed or do you think the unpaid bills have late fees and interest charges attached? They pay off those bills and what do they use? Debt which just means more servicing costs.

The state is currently adding about $6 billion a year in debt. Right now it's priced around 6-6.5%. That means, at current interest rates, the state's debt service costs rise by about a third of a billion dollars a year.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

The majority of pensioners in Illinois are on the municipal, not state, level. Those municipalities can be allowed to go bankrupt if necessary, but even then those pensioners are not likely to get "screwed." If large level municipal bankruptcies start occurring here in Illinois, we'll likely see something similar to the grand bargain that Detroit came up with. That came with a restructuring and haircuts, but the pensioners didn't get told to take a hike. Michigan also has a similar state level constitutional amendment as Illinois does, and they managed to come up with their bargain nonetheless.

Detroit's bankruptcy left plenty of unanswered questions though, and the district courts here and the 7th Circuit might handle things differently than what happened up in Michigan. Who knows.

Filing for chapter 9 bankruptcy supersedes state constitutions because it is done in a federal court. Municipalities have that right, but states as we know it do not.

[bnk]

I like this idea of use of money to keep the museum from raising prices every few years. Id like to see them lock in the current rates for at least another decade or longer, till 2030 would be nice, especially for international and out of state visitors IMO. That's what the donors would really like to happen, all cost raises, but gave most of the money without restrictions.

I would also like to see a big portion of the 50 M used in an endowment or used to create wealth in a mutual fund of some sort to grow larger over the years and make it untouchable for a long time and not blow it all in one stupid Warhol POS purchase or something like that. I'm ok if they use the rest of the non invested money to cover the rail tracks and create an additional wing for their Asian art and ancient Indian sculpture collections and free up that space for their other art that is just stored away. That would expand the footprint and allow more visitors access at the same time.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...418-story.html



Art Institute lands largest cash donation, $70 million in total







The Art Institute of Chicago publicly revealed the largest announced monetary gift in its history Tuesday, an unrestricted $50 million donation from trustee Janet Duchossois and her husband, Craig Duchossois, officials said.

In addition, trustees at Tuesday’s board meeting received news that board Chairman Robert Levy and his wife, Diane v.S. Levy, had ponied up another $20 million for operations and acquisitions at the not-for-profit institution.


..

There are no specific, immediate plans for the new money, Rondeau said, but he suggested it could be influential in shaping the museum’s future. The museum’s long-range plan has included hopes to put up a new building, possibly devoted to Asian art.

...

Levy said he hopes one of the things his family’s gift will do is “provide support to limit future price increases. … For us, access is a very important issue.”

The museum has had at least two price increases this decade. Most recently, in June 2015 general admission went up to $20 for Chicago adults, $22 for Illinoisans and $25 for those from outside the state.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bnk

I like this idea of use of money to keep the museum from raising prices every few years. Id like to see them lock in the current rates for at least another decade or longer, till 2030 would be nice, especially for international and out of state visitors IMO. That's what the donors would really like to happen, all cost raises, but gave most of the money without restrictions.

I would also like to see a big portion of the 50 M used in an endowment or used to create wealth in a mutual fund of some sort to grow larger over the years and make it untouchable for a long time and not blow it all in one stupid Warhol POS purchase or something like that. I'm ok if they use the rest of the non invested money to cover the rail tracks and create an additional wing for their Asian art and ancient Indian sculpture collections and free up that space for their other art that is just stored away. That would expand the footprint and allow more visitors access at the same time.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...418-story.html



Art Institute lands largest cash donation, $70 million in total







The Art Institute of Chicago publicly revealed the largest announced monetary gift in its history Tuesday, an unrestricted $50 million donation from trustee Janet Duchossois and her husband, Craig Duchossois, officials said.

In addition, trustees at Tuesday’s board meeting received news that board Chairman Robert Levy and his wife, Diane v.S. Levy, had ponied up another $20 million for operations and acquisitions at the not-for-profit institution.


..

There are no specific, immediate plans for the new money, Rondeau said, but he suggested it could be influential in shaping the museum’s future. The museum’s long-range plan has included hopes to put up a new building, possibly devoted to Asian art.

...

Levy said he hopes one of the things his family’s gift will do is “provide support to limit future price increases. … For us, access is a very important issue.”

The museum has had at least two price increases this decade. Most recently, in June 2015 general admission went up to $20 for Chicago adults, $22 for Illinoisans and $25 for those from outside the state.

While I do agree that price increases should be kept to a minimum when it comes to Chicago's major cultural facilities, especially its world-renowned museums, I'd still say that the Art Institute prices are amazingly inexpensive given the quality and quantity of art that is on display. Let's face it, we're talking about one of the world's great art museums, one with very, very few equivalents, not only in this country but throughout the world.

I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

A lot, if not most of those municipal pensioners have pensions paid for by the state (ie school teachers.)

My mistake.

Originally Posted by left of center

Filing for chapter 9 bankruptcy supersedes state constitutions because it is done in a federal court. Municipalities have that right, but states as we know it do not.

Detroit's entry into Chapter 9 wasn't this cut and dry though. It was actually uncharted territory. Prior to Judge Rhodes' ruling, there had even been a popular assumption that the pensions would be given heightened protection rather than getting treated like any other contract.

Due to the uncharted nature, a different bankruptcy court in a different district might rule differently, but Detroit's precedent will certainly be taken into consideration either way.

[the urban politician]

^ Yep, except for Chicago

[i_am_hydrogen]

Aldermen's absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge
Posted By Maya Dukmasova on 04.16.18 at 02:55 PM

GlenStar, the luxury developer at odds with 41st Ward alderman Anthony Napolitano over a proposed 299-unit apartment building near the Cumberland Blue Line, has sued the city in an attempt to secure the necessary zoning changes to proceed with construction. But buried in its demands that a judge find city officials' actions regarding its proposed building unlawful is a major legal challenge to the age-old practice of "aldermanic prerogative."

This tradition, while not articulated anywhere in city code, has historically given aldermen veto power over developments in their ward. As the case of GlenStar's proposal has shown, when Napolitano decided he didn't want its apartment building in his ward, the City Council's zoning committee complied and didn't grant the developer a hearing or vote on its proposal...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ourt-challenge

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Aldermen's absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge
Posted By Maya Dukmasova on 04.16.18 at 02:55 PM

GlenStar, the luxury developer at odds with 41st Ward alderman Anthony Napolitano over a proposed 299-unit apartment building near the Cumberland Blue Line, has sued the city in an attempt to secure the necessary zoning changes to proceed with construction. But buried in its demands that a judge find city officials' actions regarding its proposed building unlawful is a major legal challenge to the age-old practice of "aldermanic prerogative."

This tradition, while not articulated anywhere in city code, has historically given aldermen veto power over developments in their ward. As the case of GlenStar's proposal has shown, when Napolitano decided he didn't want its apartment building in his ward, the City Council's zoning committee complied and didn't grant the developer a hearing or vote on its proposal...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ourt-challenge

Maybe he blocked it because it has the design ascetic of an airport Hojo outside Cleveland.

[left of center]

^ Interesting... if this case works out in the favor of GlenStar, it could set a powerful precedent that aldermanic prerogative is no longer acceptable in Chicago... which would be absolutely fantastic!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

^ Interesting... if this case works out in the favor of GlenStar, it could set a powerful precedent that aldermanic prerogative is no longer acceptable in Chicago... which would be absolutely fantastic!

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

Though NYC has Community Boards screwing up basically everything they can get their hands on. I'll let the oversized city council live if that's an alternative.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by left of center

I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

I'd go with 10, but 25 is better than 50.

[ardecila]

^ I feel like we’ve seen this movie before re:lawsuits... even a victory for the developer would be narrow and only apply to the project in question, not aldermanic prerogative generally. Aldermanic prerogative is just a shortcut that enables City Council to function, imagine if every alderman had to weigh the pros and cons of every zoning change across the city. Now, aldermen generally have an obligation to conduct a predictable and consistent process for evaluating zoning changes before rendering a decision of support or no support, but this development did not really receive that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...media=AMP+HTML

The development went through the community process and was generally supported, Ald. Napolitano even wrote a letter of support before suddenly getting cold feet and deciding his ass was on the line if the new development brought more traffic and poor people into his ward. Basically he got scared after the NW Side racist NIMBYs turned out in force against a different affordable housing proposal in Jefferson Park.