CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[left of center]

The design isn't pushing any boundaries, but it *is* Jefferson Park after all. Anything remotely interesting being proposed there would probably ruffle even more feathers and add to the ranks of the zombie NIMBY horde.

Although if that surface parking lot is part of the development, then there goes my support for this project. They should at least spring for a garage of some sort.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Interesting, we were just discussing how aldermanic perogative is probably illegal at a policy event last week. No one has ever challenged it before and it is possible that the current practice is illegal. It's just hard to sue over it because it's not written down. You can't say that cities can't have the council vote on zoning matters and they all just decide to go along with it on their own volition, so how do you sue over it?

Originally Posted by Flaccer05

Depends on where you're going in the West Loop. Just take the Blue Line through the loop to UIC Halsted or Racine stop. Actually is quite accessible to southern half of West Loop. UIC Halsted stop is just a couple blocks from Greektown and 0.4 miles (~8 min walk) to Mary Bartelme Park. More of a jaunt to Randolph but within 15 min walk. But would need to transfer at Grand if you're going heart of Fulton Market where office demand is blowing up. In which case Pink Line is far superior as you highlight.

Yeah, but if you go through the loop on the Blue that basically doubles the travel distance and time from somewhere like Logan Square. That's like 5 more stops than just getting off at Grand.

The West Loop really is just poorly connected to other sides of the city just as pretty much every corner of the city is. Only certain lines cut through downtown each connecting only certain sides of the city. We are a hub and spoke city at the end of the day which means it's hard to go from one quadrant to the others. This is why I'm so bullish on that entire side of downtown. The forces of development have decided that, now that the north side and NW side are pretty much filled up, they will push West and SW.

[Vlajos]

^ it's not really fair to compare European art museums to US art museums in terms of cost. As we all know, Europe provides large subsidies to many things that US does not. It's like public transport there vs. the US. Just not comparable.

I personally think the Art Institute is one of the greatest art museums in the world. I love the Prado too, I honestly think AI is better though. Of course the Louvre is the best in the world to me.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

^ it's not really fair to compare European art museums to US art museums in terms of cost. As we all know, Europe provides large subsidies to many things that US does not. It's like public transport there vs. the US. Just not comparable.

I personally think the Art Institute is one of the greatest art museums in the world. I love the Prado too, I honestly think AI is better though. Of course the Louvre is the best in the world to me.

Agreed, although this is something I miss about St. Louis. The majority of their major museums are free due to a local tax. You only have to pay extra for the special exhibits. This includes the St. Louis Art museum, Zoo, Science Center, and Missouri History Museum.

[Khantilever]

Let’s be careful with what we wish for. Aldermanic Privilege empowers NIMBYism in some cases, but also makes development easier in many cases. First of all, with a centralized process we run the risk of a more restrictive zoning map applied to the entire city and a much more difficult re-zoning process. Second, the highly non-compact Ward boundaries allow for Aldermen to approve developments in areas under their jurisdiction which are relatively far from their core constituencies - I think Hopkins Ward 2 is a prime example of this, and I’ve heard stories about how Luis Gutierrez intentionally focused development in such parts of his ward when he was an Alderman.

I’m a PhD candidate in economics and I have a paper where I used this feature of Chicago’s process to look at development in the city, trying to find this effect in the data. And I see it. Homeownership rates are the prime predictor of opposition to development. But what I find is that when I have two block groups with similar homeownership rates and other characteristics which only differ in terms of which Ward they’re associated with, the one in the relatively renter-dominated Ward experiences faster and larger re-zonings.

I’m currently working on a model that will allow for some counterfactual simulations where I can redraw Ward boundaries or change the number of wards or even dissolve city council. But my intuition based on my existing results is that Aldermanic Privilege May well be generally beneficial to development. In general, Aldermen probably have an incentive to approve developments, thanks to the contributions they get — perhaps an instance of what we sometimes call efficiency-improving corruption. So even though they’ll cater to NIMBYs quite often, they also play a role in redrawing wards in a way that makes future development easier. I can’t claim to be privy to the details of the last redrawing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the North Branch got lumped with a bunch of disparate areas. Obviously the big goal was to screw Fioretti, but it also gives surrounding Aldermen political cover to allow large-scale redevelopment to occur since its outside of their control.

And then of course we have the classic Tiebout sorting view that also suggests the system is better for us overall. You want low-density neighborhoods? There’s a ward for you. You want high density? We got you. If we were to instead create one standard for the city, because of their higher incomes and political participation the preferences of NIMBY homeowners are likely to be more influential than others’.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Let’s be careful with what we wish for. Aldermanic Privilege empowers NIMBYism in some cases, but also makes development easier in many cases. First of all, with a centralized process we run the risk of a more restrictive zoning map applied to the entire city and a much more difficult re-zoning process. Second, the highly non-compact Ward boundaries allow for Aldermen to approve developments in areas under their jurisdiction which are relatively far from their core constituencies - I think Hopkins Ward 2 is a prime example of this, and I’ve heard stories about how Luis Gutierrez intentionally focused development in such parts of his ward when he was an Alderman.

I’m a PhD candidate in economics and I have a paper where I used this feature of Chicago’s process to look at development in the city, trying to find this effect in the data. And I see it. Homeownership rates are the prime predictor of opposition to development. But what I find is that when I have two block groups with similar homeownership rates and other characteristics which only differ in terms of which Ward they’re associated with, the one in the relatively renter-dominated Ward experiences faster and larger re-zonings.

I’m currently working on a model that will allow for some counterfactual simulations where I can redraw Ward boundaries or change the number of wards or even dissolve city council. But my intuition based on my existing results is that Aldermanic Privilege May well be generally beneficial to development. In general, Aldermen probably have an incentive to approve developments, thanks to the contributions they get — perhaps an instance of what we sometimes call efficiency-improving corruption. So even though they’ll cater to NIMBYs quite often, they also play a role in redrawing wards in a way that makes future development easier. I can’t claim to be privy to the details of the last redrawing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the North Branch got lumped with a bunch of disparate areas. Obviously the big goal was to screw Fioretti, but it also gives surrounding Aldermen political cover to allow large-scale redevelopment to occur since its outside of their control.

And then of course we have the classic Tiebout sorting view that also suggests the system is better for us overall. You want low-density neighborhoods? There’s a ward for you. You want high density? We got you. If we were to instead create one standard for the city, because of their higher incomes and political participation the preferences of NIMBY homeowners are likely to be more influential than others’.

Well, look at this crap. The developer has a building permit and the stupid alderman is now trying to down zone the site. This is completely unacceptable. The time to stop this was long before a permit being issued.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-hotel-in-west

[Steely Dan]

Dorothy Brown to run for mayor

Fran Spielman @fspielman | email
Jon Seidel @SeidelContent | email

Embattled Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown is jumping into the already crowded race for mayor of Chicago, despite a federal investigation that’s been swirling around her and her office for years.

A campaign flier circulated by Brown’s allies and a follow-up emailed announcement invites supporters to a campaign kick-off at 2:45 p.m. Sunday at the Chicago Hilton and Towers, 720 S. Michigan.

The flier uses the hashtag #Hope4AllChicago, underscored by the words, “Respect, Pride and Change.” Patricia Keenan, a spokesperson for the Brown campaign, confirmed the clerk would, in fact, join the crowded field attempting to unseat two-term incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago...run-for-mayor/


my only question is why?

what's the play here?

[bnk]

She’s a “stalking horse” for Rahm.

She will wittingly or unwittingly draw the angry black monies, effort and if she stay in votes from a real candidate that could be a contender to topple him.

My guess she is doing it unwittingly or otherwise is going to get a lot of $ to do so.

[left of center]

^ Same here, I was under the impression that the voluntary suggested donation was still in force. I haven't been to the AI for a number of years however... I really should reacquaint myself with the city's cultural institutions...

[the urban politician]

Another article about the rent control movement which isn’t going away:

https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...90050?rt=59960

[left of center]

^ Exactly why we need Rahm to win reelection. Not fully convinced the other candidates will attack the budgetary problems the city has like Rahm has been. I feel many of them will cause the budget to bleed even more by throwing away cash to their core constituencies with little to no benefit for the city overall.

We need a mayor that will continue to focus on bringing in the bacon, IE corporate relocations and expansions that in turn fuel the real estate boom that fills city coffers with sweet, sweet property tax funds.

[left of center]

Chicago is so affordable, the thought of rent control is down right laughable. Unfortunately, most of the electorate is going to get excited by any politician that offers to cut down one of their biggest expenses. Too bad they don't understand how supply and demand works, and how rent control is going to make finding available apartments damn near impossible. But alas, we like learning the hard way don't we?

[ChiMIchael]

Chicago doesn't rent control. The problem (perceived and realistic to some extent) is that many residents have to choose between dodging bullets or giving up half their checks to live in some stability. When the city actually makes curbing the crime a major priority, perhaps this debate can be at least delayed if not a thing of the past.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

Chicago doesn't rent control. The problem (perceived and realistic to some extent) is that many residents have to choose between dodging bullets or giving up half their checks to live in some stability. When the city actually makes curbing the crime a major priority, perhaps this debate can be at least delayed if not a thing of the past.

This isn't true either. For example, there's been a grand total of three homicides in Little Village this year which has a reputation for being a very "shooty" place. There are many areas that are sterotyped as dangerous but in reality have little crime especially if you don't partake in gangbanging.

Hermosa has zero, Bridgeport has zero, Kenwood has two, Uptown has zero, Rogers Park has one, West Ridge has two, Pullman has one, Burnside has zero, McKinnley Park as one, etc etc etc. None of these are expensive places except maybe Bridgeport.


The reality is Chicago has no affordability crisis PERIOD. There is high crime concentrated in a few very specific pockets and there is Gentrification in a few specific pockets and pretty much 50% of the city is cheap or moderately priced areas with average or low crime.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This isn't true either. For example, there's been a grand total of three homicides in Little Village this year which has a reputation for being a very "shooty" place. There are many areas that are sterotyped as dangerous but in reality have little crime especially if you don't partake in gangbanging.

Hermosa has zero, Bridgeport has zero, Kenwood has two, Uptown has zero, Rogers Park has one, West Ridge has two, Pullman has one, Burnside has zero, McKinnley Park as one, etc etc etc. None of these are expensive places except maybe Bridgeport.


The reality is Chicago has no affordability crisis PERIOD. There is high crime concentrated in a few very specific pockets and there is Gentrification in a few specific pockets and pretty much 50% of the city is cheap or moderately priced areas with average or low crime.

I have been trying to convince my mother-in-law of this for a month. She is convinced the only option for a 60 year-old woman is in Lincoln Park for $1400/month.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I have been trying to convince my mother-in-law of this for a month. She is convinced the only option for a 60 year-old woman is in Lincoln Park for $1400/month.

She could rent an entire bungalow for that in like half a dozen decent areas of the city.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This isn't true either. For example, there's been a grand total of three homicides in Little Village this year which has a reputation for being a very "shooty" place. There are many areas that are sterotyped as dangerous but in reality have little crime especially if you don't partake in gangbanging.

Hermosa has zero, Bridgeport has zero, Kenwood has two, Uptown has zero, Rogers Park has one, West Ridge has two, Pullman has one, Burnside has zero, McKinnley Park as one, etc etc etc. None of these are expensive places except maybe Bridgeport.


The reality is Chicago has no affordability crisis PERIOD. There is high crime concentrated in a few very specific pockets and there is Gentrification in a few specific pockets and pretty much 50% of the city is cheap or moderately priced areas with average or low crime.

Most of those areas listed are sketchy at worse. They were never particularly notorious. You can probably find something cheap in the South Side communities, but the the North Side ones are definitely not that much cheaper than the hotter neighborhoods. $1k/month is not affordable to the people lobbying to rent control.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This isn't true either. For example, there's been a grand total of three homicides in Little Village this year which has a reputation for being a very "shooty" place. There are many areas that are sterotyped as dangerous but in reality have little crime especially if you don't partake in gangbanging.

Hermosa has zero, Bridgeport has zero, Kenwood has two, Uptown has zero, Rogers Park has one, West Ridge has two, Pullman has one, Burnside has zero, McKinnley Park as one, etc etc etc. None of these are expensive places except maybe Bridgeport.

not all shootings are homicides as i think we're all aware, and thats mainly a testament to our skilled trauma surgeons and how good (or bad) the trigger man is at aiming. LV has a reputation as a shooty place, because well its a shooty place. and it borders a neighborhood thats an even bigger shooty place. and that dosent touch on other quality of life issues aside from that like break-ins, gang loitering (which often is a precursor to shootings), etc. Sure not as bad as some places but still no picnic, and the average person is not going to be comfortable living in those sorts of conditions.

[the urban politician]

We’ve also reached a point in Chicago where there are literally tenants who are wealthier than their landlords. This half century notion of the rich and greedy landlord vs the poor widdle working class tenant who is struggling is way outdated.

We need to stop victimizing tenant-hood.

[the urban politician]

I’ve got a tenant whose Dad co-signed the lease. Her Dad is a NYC attorney who makes $100,000 per month!. Now tell me, all of you who are stuck on this notion that tenants are poor and landlords are rich, who is better off here? I have a good job but I sure as hell ain’t making that kind of salary!