^^^ It's worth noting the parallels between Clinton and Preckwinkle actually. They both basically ran on "gimme, it's mine!" instead of actually introducing new ideas. That was what was most glaring to me in the Lightfoot - Preckwinkle debates.
A question would be asked of Preckwinkle and she would spend half her time to respond building up to it with meaningless political blather (as someone who grew up doing this and has worked to help that for this many years blah blah blah) and then spit out a generic political sound bite (I am for making housing more affordable, I am for holding the police accountable, I am against big business). Then Lightfoot would answer and would just go right into rattling off actual policy changes she would make to address the problem.
I remember one answer about affordable housing where Preckwinkle was basically like "we are going to make affordable housing like I did in Hyde Park when I was alderman". Lightfoot immediately was just like "this is a super complex issue so it can't be solved in one go, but I'll change the way zoning works in this way, I'll change the building code to make new housing cheaper, I'll change the way the ARO works like this, I'll take politics out of the planning process to provide more affordable units in oppurtunity areas, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
I'm quite hopeful, too.
I hope she has effective ideas on keeping AA residents. She obviously has their support, which makes sense given her involvement in holding police to task. Should she have gone further in that role? Perhaps, but she went further than anyone else with actual power in the category had in a long time, if ever.
If AA residents stopped moving, we'd probably be growing, and as plenty of places have shown, growth begets growth, all things being equal.
|
Of course just giving a speech doesn't solve that problem, but perhaps she is better positioned than any other Mayor since Harold Washington to state the case to the AA community that we CAN solve problems if we work together.
Honestly as much as there are pull factors driving this trend, the biggest issues are the push factors: blight, gun violence, lack of opportunity. Violence and crime in particular are problems that we KNOW do not need to persist. NYC, LA, and many other cities have made huge inroads in snuffing that issue out. Why can't Chicago? I think she has correctly identified that we need to start with the murder clearance rate, 17% is a freaking joke. She has stated directly that she won't stand for that. I think she will push just as directly with the community as she does with the police in making that point. And that's really what needs to happen, people need to stop putting up with this bullshit and it starts with the top. If she tells the community she is not going to put up with a 17% clearance rate from the police and is not going to put up with racial profiling and abuse of power, you are damn right the community will finally start pulling their weight in turning in criminals.
I actually think her idea of decentralizing the police academy into some of the vacant schools is fantastic despite the "optics" of replacing schools with cops. It's abundantly clear the police need better training if we are going to avoid another McDonald incident. It's also abundantly clear that the police need better relations with the community. Instead of cloistering them off in some corner of town in a fancy new facility, why not make them learn their job in the communities they will be serving? Why not make service a part of their training? Why not start from the bottom and have young officers training in these un used facilities and then going out to lead youth league basketball games (also providing the double duty of some security at those events) or going out to meet with the local church group or anything like that.
As much as everyone is saying "well a speech is one thing" this woman has real ideas. She isn't just blowing smoke up our asses, she is taking a totally different angle on things.
Prev
Linear Mode
