CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[the urban politician]

It’s never enough.

It will never be enough.

The truth that nobody wants to admit is that you can build Harvard down there and it won’t uplift those communities. The problem isn’t the lack of facilities. The problem is the people.

Most of the entrepreneurs and successful people left these areas years ago. They are on the north side, the burbs, or left the region altogether.

Money spent on new buildings is a trashing of public money. Might as well feed that money to alligators. These areas need new people. Immigration is the only practical answer.

[the urban politician]

^ It seems deeper, there almost appears to be some sort of rift going on in Chicago's black community into 2 factions:

1. The Govt dependent, machine politics traditional faction supported by unions, ministers, etc that's with Preckwinkle

2. Those in the private sector/professionals who may be more likely to support Lightfoot

[moorhosj]

Seems all the hand-wringing about rent control was a bit premature. The bill to lift the state ban on rent control failed to get out of committee. It couldn't pass the first hurdle in a process of at least 7 hurdles. (committee vote, house vote, senate vote, governor's signature, city council committee vote, full city council vote, mayor's signature).

From Capitol Fax

Guzzardi’s bill died in subcommittee today when Democratic Reps. Curtis Tarver and Rita Mayfield sided with Republicans and voted against it and Rep. Andre Thapedi voted “Present.” The Chicagoland Apartment Association put together a coalition to lobby against the bill and issued a press release celebrating its demise…

[LouisVanDerWright]

Is it actually dead though? Or just kinda dead?


Speaking of the non-existence of the "housing crisis" in Chicago:

I have a $750/mo 2BD/1BA at Cermak and Albany available starting May 1st. Bedrooms and bathrooms are tight, but I just gutted the bathroom with new tile. The whole building has new drywall, electrical, and plumbing since 1996 so it's not even a shitty plaster wall fire hazard either.

Any takers? Kenmore? Anyone who is bitching about rent increases? Seriously, now's your chance to live two blocks from the Pink Line like a 15 minute train ride from the Loop...

[Baronvonellis]

Couldn't you say people buying houses and condo's are getting rent control from the bank though. Plus you get to deduct it from your taxes yet renters cant deduct their rent . You get to pay a fixed rent for 30 years without it going up. In the meantime the value of the property is going up, so there's no reason why the bank couldn't raise the mortgage as the value of the property goes up to reflect that. Since they don't get paid till the mortgage is paid off in 30 years or whatever the time period is. If you bought a house at auction for $200k and in 10 years its worth $500k you got rent control for it. You should be paying a bigger mortgage to the bank.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Couldn't you say people buying houses and condo's are getting rent control from the bank though. Plus you get to deduct it from your taxes yet renters cant deduct their rent . You get to pay a fixed rent for 30 years without it going up. In the meantime the value of the property is going up, so there's no reason why the bank couldn't raise the mortgage as the value of the property goes up to reflect that. Since they don't get paid till the mortgage is paid off in 30 years or whatever the time period is. If you bought a house at auction for $200k and in 10 years its worth $500k you got rent control for it. You should be paying a bigger mortgage to the bank.

Real Estate taxes continue to skyrocket. So does home owners insurance. Many people have ARMs so the mortgage payment can change. Rent control is an arbitrary government enforced price control.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Couldn't you say people buying houses and condo's are getting rent control from the bank though. Plus you get to deduct it from your taxes yet renters cant deduct their rent . You get to pay a fixed rent for 30 years without it going up. In the meantime the value of the property is going up, so there's no reason why the bank couldn't raise the mortgage as the value of the property goes up to reflect that. Since they don't get paid till the mortgage is paid off in 30 years or whatever the time period is. If you bought a house at auction for $200k and in 10 years its worth $500k you got rent control for it. You should be paying a bigger mortgage to the bank.

Wow, what?

Nothing at all related to property ownership remains "fixed" for 30 years

Standard residential loans are fixed for 30 years, but all commercial mortgages renew ever 5-7 years at the latest interest rates. So that can go up, and often does.

Property tax is always going up.

Maintenance costs go up over time as your property ages.

Utility costs always rise.

Rents MUST go up over time or else you'll be in the red. Sorry renters, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Couldn't you say people buying houses and condo's are getting rent control from the bank though. Plus you get to deduct it from your taxes yet renters cant deduct their rent . You get to pay a fixed rent for 30 years without it going up. In the meantime the value of the property is going up, so there's no reason why the bank couldn't raise the mortgage as the value of the property goes up to reflect that. Since they don't get paid till the mortgage is paid off in 30 years or whatever the time period is. If you bought a house at auction for $200k and in 10 years its worth $500k you got rent control for it. You should be paying a bigger mortgage to the bank.

This is a really asinine comment - you are either playing devils advocate, or have no idea how home ownership works.
Typical comment on here of punishing people who make smart investments - why on earth should a home owner be forced to make a bigger payment to a bank. Additionally, homeowners pay property taxes (mine, in the city of Chicago have gone up $15k over the past 12 months), Home owners insurance, etc. You have lost your mind.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Seems all the hand-wringing about rent control was a bit premature. The bill to lift the state ban on rent control failed to get out of committee. It couldn't pass the first hurdle in a process of at least 7 hurdles. (committee vote, house vote, senate vote, governor's signature, city council committee vote, full city council vote, mayor's signature).

From Capitol Fax

Yeah, I heard something of this sort.

There are enough sensible people among the elected officials to stave off the Socialists, at least so far. We must remain ever vigilant, though.

Btw, is this seriously how the Rent Control question was worded in the referendum?

“Should the State of Illinois lift the ban on rent control to address rising rents, unjust evictions, and gentrification in our community?”

That's just precious

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Yeah, I heard something of this sort.

There are enough sensible people among the elected officials to stave off the Socialists, at least so far. We must remain ever vigilant, though.

Btw, is this seriously how the Rent Control question was worded in the referendum?

“Should the State of Illinois lift the ban on rent control to address rising rents, unjust evictions, and gentrification in our community?”

That's just precious

That's hilarious considering the cities with rent control like San Francisco and New York have experienced far more gentrification than Chicago.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

That's hilarious considering the cities with rent control like San Francisco and New York have experienced far more gentrification than Chicago.

Of course and one of the reasons for that is...

Drumroll...

Rent control driving up prices for the masses to the benefit of the few lucky ones.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It seems deeper, there almost appears to be some sort of rift going on in Chicago's black community into 2 factions:

1. The Govt dependent, machine politics traditional faction supported by unions, ministers, etc that's with Preckwinkle

2. Those in the private sector/professionals who may be more likely to support Lightfoot

Purely anecdotal but it seems to me like many of the black "private sector/professionals" are fleeing the city unless forced to remain because they are city workers. If you have the option of living in the suburbs or taking your skills to another city and avoiding the dysfunction of the South Side, why wouldn't you do that?

So Group #1 has a numerical advantage on Group #2 and the well-publicized black exodus is only making that advantage bigger.

[the urban politician]

^ Well, the other issue with Baron's comment is that even with fixed, 30 year residential mortgages, he's basically suggesting that "if your property value goes up, you should pay a higher mortgage rate to the bank" as some sort of twisted way to punish property owners for accumulating wealth.

As Tom in Chicago would say: that's now how any of this works.

First of all, the majority of home owners are not landlords. So if my income stays the same but my home value goes up because I bought in an appreciating area, then Baron is suggesting that I should pay more to the bank. Even if my income is the same? What sense does that make? That could actually penalize people for seeing an increase in property values, and unnecessarily, because you are only enriching your lender, not the general public.

Secondly, why is there even a need to penalize people who buy property? People who rent have the convenience of getting to leave whenever they want, plus they don't have to pay the taxes or maintain the building. Owners are tied to the property whether it rises or falls, and due to that equity they should be allowed to benefit from the asset's rise just as they would suffer when the asset declines.

[Baronvonellis]

Hey I'm not saying do it to punish people. Just why couldn't the bank raise the mortgage if they wanted to make more money? They technically own your property till you pay it off, so your really just renting from the bank.

Yea, I don't know much about property would any of you guys be willing to teach a course? Buying property scares me to death, your tying up hundreds of thousands in a fixed asset, that's hard to buy and sell. And the taxes can go up at anytime. And the maintenance costs are an unknown. With stocks, I can buy and sell in minutes in small amounts. And I don't have to live inside my stocks.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Just why couldn't the bank raise the mortgage if they wanted to make more money?

because the mortgage agreement you make with the lender is like a contract.

they agree to loan you X amount of money and you agree to pay them back as scheduled in the mortgage agreement.

once it's agreed to and signed by both parties, then that's that.

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Buying property scares me to death, your tying up hundreds of thousands in a fixed asset, that's hard to buy and sell. And the taxes can go up at anytime. And the maintenance costs are an unknown.

buying a home for yourself really only makes sense if you plan to be there a while. and the main advantage in my eyes isn't the mortgage interest tax write-off, or the fixed payment schedule, or the equity built through appreciation, or anything else. it's the knowledge that i control my own housing destiny. as long as i hold up my end of the bargain with the mortgage and tax payments, then no one can tell me that i can't live in my home. once you have children to raise, that kind of foundational stability becomes a really nice "peace of mind" thing.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

buying a home for yourself really only makes sense if you plan to be there a while. and the main advantage in my eyes isn't the mortgage interest tax write-off, or the fixed payment schedule, or the equity built through appreciation, or anything else. it's the knowledge that i control my own housing destiny. as long as i hold up my end of the bargain with the mortgage and tax payments, then no one can tell me that i can't live in my home. once you have children to raise, that kind of foundational stability becomes a really nice "peace of mind" thing.

Exactly. Though housing becomes almost a forced savings account, and will build you wealth in almost all circumstances, save catastrophic events. Though, as you said, It is a long term play.

In my eyes, there are two ways to increase your wealth:

1. Buy a home (you can afford, and stay long term)
2. Get married to somebody who works a full time job (and don't get divorced)

[Steely Dan]

this column from eric zorn makes a lot of good points.

and this isn't coming from some reactionary right-winger, zorn is one of the trib's most lefty columnists.

march 17, 2020 is the date for the democratic primary for cook county offices. let's all pray that Kim Foxx is rightfully kicked out of office by her bosses (us).

Column: Kim Foxx will and should lose her job over the Jussie Smollett case
Eric Zorn
Chicago Tribune

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx probably will and arguably should lose her job next year over her office’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case.

Yes, there are many worse crimes committed every day in Chicago than staging a hate-inspired attack and filing a false police report about it — the offense with which Smollett was charged. And no, justice did not demand that Smollett be shackled and shipped off to prison for allegedly orchestrating a stunt.

But justice demanded resolution and accountability. And Foxx appeared oblivious to this imperative as she made the media rounds attempting to explain why her office sent Smollett on his merry way Tuesday morning without extracting an admission of guilt or collecting a meaningful fine.

Her tone-deaf statements included equating Smollett to the raft of no-name, low-level, nonviolent offenders who have received the “go and sin no more” treatment, and patronizing those who are outraged by the outcome as “people who don’t understand the intricacies of the justice system.”

full article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...328-story.html



when Kim Foxx is booted out of office next year, it will be the only worthwhile outcome from this whole monumentally retarded Jussie Smollett farce.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Hey I'm not saying do it to punish people. Just why couldn't the bank raise the mortgage if they wanted to make more money? They technically own your property till you pay it off, so your really just renting from the bank.

Why can't the bank raise the loan? BECAUSE IT IS A CONTRACT. Your agreeing to borrow a specific amount of money over X amount of time, paying back both P&I.

[the urban politician]

^ It's a fixed and extremely non-liquid asset, that's for sure.

But some of the best benefits is the ability to write off things in your taxes. Stocks don't age or need maintenance. Property obviously does.

So you can write off depreciation, which can add up to a LOT; in addition, if you spend enough time running property it's treated like a business, and that allows you to write off a ton of shit as expenses. People don't view it this way, but when you maintain a rental property you're basically adding to your own wealth even though you don't pay tax on it. For example, if my building has an old and faulty electrical system in some of its apartments and I spend $1400 upgrading some of the electrical in the building (just happened the other day), you think "damn! That cut into my profits". But the better thing to think is, "I just slightly upgraded my property, increased its value, and won't have to pay any tax on this miniscule amount of wealth that I just added to the building".

[maru2501]

More on Toni connections to Burke.

She hires his kid, saves the kid from layoffs, he starts sending campaign money etc.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/w...329-story.html