CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You are mixing up correlation with causation.

High taxes do not cause a place to be economically productive. There is no means by way that can happen.

High taxes usually follow rising economic productivity. NYC isn't rich because it has high taxes. You do understand this, right?

Taxes pay for the investments that create economic growth. The internet, mobile telephony, the basic research that's responsible for nearly every small molecule therapeutic, the interstate highway system; trains. The purchase of the center of the continent from the French. All of that required taxes and spending by a commonwealth.

Some investments can only be made by a group of people. People need to pool their money to make those investments. If that money is wasted, it's wasteful and inefficient. If that money creates the internet, the returns can be astronomical.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Taxes pay for the investments that create economic growth. The internet, mobile telephony, the basic research that's responsible for nearly every small molecule therapeutic, the interstate highway system; trains. The purchase of the center of the continent from the French. All of that required taxes and spending by a commonwealth.

Some investments can only be made by a group of people. People need to pool their money to make those investments. If that money is wasted, it's wasteful and inefficient. If that money creates the internet, the returns can be astronomical.

Too bad very little of Illinois taxes do any of that. Most goes to paying bloated benefits of government workers.

Illinois will have one of the highest tax burdens in the nation after JB is done with his spending spree. I guarantee we will have very little to show for it other than happy public unions.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Taxes pay for the investments that create economic growth. The internet, mobile telephony, the basic research that's responsible for nearly every small molecule therapeutic, the interstate highway system; trains. The purchase of the center of the continent from the French. All of that required taxes and spending by a commonwealth.

Some investments can only be made by a group of people. People need to pool their money to make those investments. If that money is wasted, it's wasteful and inefficient. If that money creates the internet, the returns can be astronomical.

What you are talking about is whether or not Government spending needs to happen, but that's not what I'm arguing with you about. Everybody knows that Government spending is needed.

What I'm talking about is whether high taxes lead to a thriving economy, and you just aren't making that case. You brought up high tax states having large economies, but all you are revealing here is a correlation.

Where is the causation?

I would argue that in most cases, thriving and bustling economies came first, and higher taxes came second. Over time, high commerce places brought in a lot of corruption, abuse, waste, entrenched interests, "bottom feeder" type people like Mike Madigan, Ed Burke and their minions who decided to use the system to enrich themselves. And the only way to have kept the tap flowing decade after decade is to slowly raise taxes and fees. Even if a lot of money goes into infrastructure, you ultimately have to raise taxes to maintain those splashy, ribbon-cutting projects built by your grandparents which won them votes.

So I'm not saying that high taxes are all bad. I'm just saying that I suspect they come after a thriving economy, as opposed to being the cause of it.

[the urban politician]

^ I think that’s the mix up.

A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.

But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.

Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.

Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think that’s the mix up.

A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.

But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.

Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.

Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.

Yeah, sorry I didn't mean it would save a struggling neighborhood. The casino is going to have its own drinks, food, etc so really not going to spur any new commercial/retail around it. I meant to say more like this - if they put it where Michael Reese was for example, I wouldn't doubt if there was some new development in that immediate area for housing. I'm not talking about tons of it, just a little. That type of thing. Rivers Casino employs over 1000 people - I'm sure you could build 50 new units nearby for some people who want to live close to work. Maybe not though - definitely not retail/commercial new development though unless they have plans to open up like 10 new entertainment venues next to it in a new entertainment district.

Anyway, I think you got my point. And I think the place for this would be within reach of downtown. Honestly Michael Reese type of area or Motor Row/McCormick works the best. It will be just one more thing for tourists and locals to do, but in no way is it going to be why 99% of them come to the city in the first place. It's possible it could sway some tourists on the fence about visiting in the direction of actually visiting the city though - some.

I think of this kind of like what I remember from the casinos I went to in Singapore. Actually they might be the only 2 in the entire city but anyway - one is on Sentosa Island (artificial tourist island) and the other is in Marina Bay Sands. Both nice - the one in Marina Bay Sands is really nice. Nobody is going to Singapore to only gamble (there's Macau for that in SE/South Asia) but it's just one more thing to do for tourists/locals. These places were always full when I went and neither is in the direct center of the city, but they're also right around hotels (Marina Bay Sands of course is a hotel and Sentosa Island has multiple hotels) and easy to get to via public transit. Sentosa is a bit different as there are other attractions there like Universal Studios, a water park, madame tussauds, an aquarium, beaches, etc.

I am hoping that a casino in Chicago will sway more upscale looking and in operation. The last thing the city needs is a dingy casino. But if they can do one with a bit of class and keep it up well, then it would be a lot better. I think McCormick Place or Michael Reese would be a good location for a casino. Make sure the public transit can take you between the casino as well as Soldier Field, Museum Campus and the Loop, and that it has easy access to the lake. Catch a show downtown, then catch a train/bus and go to the casino not far away. Some people would definitely do that.

I think of this like any other tourist attraction in most cities in the US. The majority of people on your average visit are not going for just one attraction to places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. They're going for multiple reasons, to see multiple things. Having a nice casino accessible to your average tourist is just another plus for some percentage of them.

[animositisomina]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think that’s the mix up.

A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.

But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.

Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.

Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.

Spot on. Chicago had 57+ million visitors last year. This should be located/marketed in a way to attract tourist dollars. Not a lot of people visiting the city of Chicago are going to Joliet or Aurora to gamble.

This is where a casino in the city could be wildly successful as opposed to just cannibalizing other markets in state which already have had riverboat casinos for decades. The Rivers casino is the only one that potentially had a chance to get tourist dollars because of it's proximity to O'Hare.

If you're looking at this casino as a way to save a dying neighborhood then yes, it will ultimately fail. We've seen that play out in far too many cities/regions throughout the country.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Putting a casino in an area that has been "left behind" is the stupidest idea ever. Yeah, let's put the vice factory right in the middle of the most vulnerable possible population. That's a stupid idea, it belongs in Lakeside Center period. McCorrmick Place will be twice as profitable for Chicago if we are also swindling all the visitors with a casino. That's also close enough to large populations that could benefit from employment at the casino without being so close as to make it a daily stop at the slot machines for people that don't need to be spending money gambling.

[Steely Dan]

^ i agree.

and putting it in lakeside would give chicago the most tasteful casino the world has ever known. that building is pure class.


source: https://www.docomomo-chicago.org/mcc...akeside-center

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ i agree.

and putting it in lakeside would give chicago the most tasteful casino the world has ever known. that building is sheer class.

It's a great idea.

Which, of course, means it'll never happen. It makes too much sense, and we don't want any of that around here....

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Putting a casino in an area that has been "left behind" is the stupidest idea ever. Yeah, let's put the vice factory right in the middle of the most vulnerable possible population. That's a stupid idea, it belongs in Lakeside Center period. McCorrmick Place will be twice as profitable for Chicago if we are also swindling all the visitors with a casino. That's also close enough to large populations that could benefit from employment at the casino without being so close as to make it a daily stop at the slot machines for people that don't need to be spending money gambling.

This one deserves a slow clap Could not agree more.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think that’s the mix up.

A casino isn’t going to save a struggling neighborhood.

But well located, it can contribute to a thriving tourism/nightlife district.

Las Vegas’ strip being the obvious example. Even if you hate Vegas, the casinos work there. You’ve got a whole ecosystem of entertainment down there.

Chicago doesn’t need to build a new “strip”, but having one grand, high-quality casino in a district with a lot of tourism and other draws that feed off of each other could very well succeed.

First, there's only one Vegas. Other cities have tried to compete for that top tier level of gambling/entertainment and failed (Atlantic City comes to mind).

Second, context matters. Even the Vegas style of casino would be absolutely awful in a traditional city like Chicago. Just look at Detroit - the MGM and Motor City casinos are awful anti-urban pieces of trash. They got it better with the Greektown Casino, but even that would probably seem cheap and tacky in Chicago compared to all of our authentic neighborhood strips. And I'm guessing the Greektown Casino is probably the best case scenario for Chicago. Potentially this could have been done as an infill project along Motor Row... but now Motor Row is probably too established, with a growing number of residents and businesses who will object.

[the urban politician]

Keep it coming, LL:

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/5/...lderman-reform

The article mentions her planning to propose allowing accessory dwelling units. Please do this!

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Keep it coming, LL:

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/5/...lderman-reform

The article mentions her planning to propose allowing accessory dwelling units. Please do this!

Yea as of right ADUs would be great. Hopefully whatever gets passed streamlines the permitting and inspection process like SF has done.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

Yea as of right ADUs would be great. Hopefully whatever gets passed streamlines the permitting and inspection process like SF has done.

Do you know how the actual "streamlined" process in SF is working? That city has one of the most difficult permit processes in America.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Keep it coming, LL:

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/5/...lderman-reform

The article mentions her planning to propose allowing accessory dwelling units. Please do this!

The real highlight of this is the ethics reforms to city council. No longer allowing Aldermen to have a second job that has anything to do with city council or city powers is a huge step forward.

Lori is killing it!

And by it I mean the entire Chicago machine and all of it's inner workings.

[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

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by ardecila

First, there's only one Vegas. Other cities have tried to compete for that top tier level of gambling/entertainment and failed (Atlantic City comes to mind).

Second, context matters. Even the Vegas style of casino would be absolutely awful in a traditional city like Chicago. Just look at Detroit - the MGM and Motor City casinos are awful anti-urban pieces of trash. They got it better with the Greektown Casino, but even that would probably seem cheap and tacky in Chicago compared to all of our authentic neighborhood strips. And I'm guessing the Greektown Casino is probably the best case scenario for Chicago. Potentially this could have been done as an infill project along Motor Row... but now Motor Row is probably too established, with a growing number of residents and businesses who will object.

I was imagining the Greektown casino too. I don't love it. And I don't like casinos period. But I'm found myself there three or four times after a Tigers game or event at Ford field. If it can bring me there, it's doing a good job.

[the urban politician]

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.

[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!

[Handro]

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?