Chicagoist: The New Kids on the Block

woodlawnchuck

Wed, 23 May 2007 12:56:49 -0600

Addendum: Problem with schools is 70% parenting. So what great strides has NYC made since the 80s that Chicago hasn't? Seriously, aside from hitting me with bullet-point styled soundbytes that you read from Kass every day, tell me the problems and explain what the solution is. Otherwise, no one here wants to hear it.

woodlawnchuck

Wed, 23 May 2007 12:39:44 -0600

Vise, I am not a coward, I simply know more about what's going on than you do. As someone else said, if you don't like what's going on here and prefer, say, paying 2.5 times more to own something in, say, New York, then by all means, leave. You do nothing for my town. There, I said it. This is my town. I have disagreed with several other posters on this website, but they at least had a decent argument or tried to form one other than to bitch bitch bitch. I guess if I weren't such a coward, I'd move to Detroit and try to criticize your hometown (funny how you left it to live in several cities before settling here). And yes, I take offense to you calling me coward. It's one thing to disagree with my beliefs, it's another to call me a name. Come on down to Woodlawn anytime you little fantasyland fruitstick.

vise77

Wed, 23 May 2007 08:35:00 -0600

Woodlawn: Contrary to your little thesis, I have looked at the big picture, way back to the foundations of the Machine. I have looked at Daley's role in the police toture scandal. I have looked at his onglling lack of (city) funding for the CTA. I have looked at the ongoing corruption. I have looked at his shortsighed financial decisions--the Skyway deal, for instance (though, I must admit, I was encouraged that he would keep the money from the operating budget). I have looked at how bad the schools are after nearly two decades of his rule. I decline to give him all the credit for Chicago's revival, as many cities have improved since the hellish years of the 1980s, and some--NYC, for instance--have made even greater strides, in my view. And your apparenty idea that criticism of officials should stop once the election over is odd and cowardly, to say the least. If you take that to its logical conclusion, there would be no journalism.

woodlawnchuck

Wed, 23 May 2007 06:34:23 -0600

I agree with Ross. There is no use in getting one's panties in a bunch if your guy doesn't get in. I am sick of the Daley bashing that goes on here at Chicagoist. I am sick of the attitude that just because you are personally inconvenienced, or because you heard someone say something about Daley that sounds cool to jump on, you fail to look at the big picture. Some of you might be here today if Daley weren't the Mayor, but be honest, Chicago is now a destination for a lot of people, an attractive one at that, because of his work and that of his administration. Being a Daley backer, I do have my concerns, and one is the budget, as somebody mentioned. The budget problems that may (or may not) arise in the next couple of years are not a Chicago problem. Across the board, things don't look so rosy for a lot of municipalities. However, and here is my criticism, we should not privatize things like the Skyway, or soon, Midway. As someone said above, the money comes up front, and serves as a band-aid, while we sign over the rights to whatever entity we're selling, into perpetuity. It's not a good thing. In 8 years, the French company can seemingly jack the cost of a ride on the Skyway to $50 per ride, and justify it by saying the 7 mile stretch of road needs repairs. And what can we do about it? The Midway situation is scary just from the viewpoint that it puts National Security into the hands of unknowns. NSA has a hard enough time hiring people on their own, imagine what happens with another couple of layers of bureaucratic horseshit? Except that, these added layers won't be governed in the same way that our government is supposed to be. Then again, Time, Newsweek or one of those other weeklies named Daley the country's best Mayor and actually sited his privatization as part of the reason for it.

ross

Tue, 22 May 2007 17:01:21 -0600

You know what I do is I vote in every election that is how much I care. What I don't do is sit around after the person I voted for didn't get in and bitch bitch and bitch. I do my part and take it for what it is. I can't help stupid people vote for stupid people. We haven't had a real alternative to most of the crooks I mean politicians either. And most qualified people don't want to run for public office and put up with all the bitching from the haves and the have nots.

vise77

Tue, 22 May 2007 16:21:29 -0600

I don't buy it, Kevin. I come from an area even more working class than Chicago, an area that experienced serious decline in the 1980s (and is still going down), yet we didn't sit around and bitch about the complainers, nor engage in self-loathing. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying .... Anyway, I think this has more to do with years of the citizenry being beaten down by the Machine--and the sheep-like attitudes that resulted among the regular folk--than any self-loathing. I am grateful that I know enough Chicago natives who are NOT wussies when it comes to civic culture and corruption, or I would think all Chicago natives are the same. Seriously, I have never seen a bigger collective of wimps than I have seen in this city. Even Muscovites don't seem so beaten down-well, at least on the sunny days.

Kevin

Tue, 22 May 2007 16:09:06 -0600

vise 77: The reason that nobody in this city can handle critisism of Daley is because we are getting our big chance to stop being such a dirty-faced, industrial blue-collar town. It's like when all the carpenters and autoworkers moved out to Tinley. You gotta keep up appearances, or the rest of the upper-working class might look down their nose at you. Self-loathing has always been the hallmark of the working-class....

vise77

Tue, 22 May 2007 15:42:06 -0600

Ross, et al: Never said I liked it better anywhere, and you would be I have lived in a number of places, and visited others so often that I know them pretty well. And I never claimed Bloomberg or NYC was perfect, despite what you think you might have read. That said, what is wrong with loving something so much you just want to see it improve? Why do people have such defensive attitudes when it comes to criticism? Certainly you don't think Chicago is perfect, that it can't improve. Seriously, this bullshit attitude about not "love it or leave it" is among the most ignorant lines of thought known to man. Fucking wankers.

ragamuffinnine

Tue, 22 May 2007 15:40:58 -0600

Only 8 incumbents lost; the 9th was an open seat.

ross

Tue, 22 May 2007 15:19:16 -0600

The grass always looks better on the other side of the fence. I like reading all these posts from people saying it is so much better elsewhere but they live here. Why? If you don't like it here? I don't get it?

spolk

Tue, 22 May 2007 15:09:16 -0600

vise - I hear there are plenty of apartments for rent in NY. Go there

vise77

Tue, 22 May 2007 14:07:12 -0600

Triplecynic: I am nowhere near an accountant, but I know at least a little bit about long-term budget matters when it comes to governments, and I hate to say it, but I think you are right, at least based on what I've seen and studied. I am very concerned about the money to pay for large-scale infrastructure improvements, and not just the CTA (which, of course, the city hardly contributes shit). Why can't we have someone like Mayor Bloomberg? I am not saying I agree with him on all points, but at least he doesn't shrink from long term, bold planning when it comes to his city. (Sure, some of it is PR, as he probably wants to run for President, and much of it will fail in Albany, but still. And Bloomberg is a lot more green than our own little munchkin in charge.)

Good Idea

Tue, 22 May 2007 13:40:36 -0600

These are excellent critiques of my post, and right on regarding indirect costs through tax breaks and lack of complete analysis regarding the skyway transaction. I was just picturing Mayor Daley (Patrick) in twenty years holding another tax increase over our heads to pay for Skyway redevelopment.

triplecynic

Tue, 22 May 2007 13:33:09 -0600

Actually, asset sales are frequently a sign that an organization is in severe financial trouble. Selling something like the Skyway brings in a large lump sum up front, but denies the City a stable revenue stream for nearly a century. That trade-off may be worth making, but Chicago never witnesses debates like that. Policies emerge from the black box of the Planning Department and Mayor's Office and are rammed through City Council in a matter of days, with virtually no time for consideration, let alone debate and discussion. Since our largely cowed local press can't be bothered to look into the City's ever-worsening financial situation, let me be the first to warn everybody about the inevitable day of reckoning that's sure to come. The Olympics bid may actually help matters by hastening the crash and the much-needed political s**tstorm that will surely erupt. Don't say you weren't warned.

woodlawnchuck

Tue, 22 May 2007 10:22:10 -0600

Bob Fioretti is not the answer to Madeline Haithcock. Pat Dowell is not the answer to Dorothy Tillman. Sandi Jackson is already bitching about her stipend for offices. Maybe she can hit the Woodlawn Organization up, or even Operation Breadbasket? I think things will be more interesting over the next four years. But I don't think anyone will have the real balls it takes to stand up to Richie. The first couple years will be a little bit difficult for anyone to stand up against him. The only person I see having those balls is Sandi Jackson, then again, she's a self-righteous opportunist, just like her father-in-law and stomach-stapled opportunist of a husband Jesse Jr (if he didn't want to cash in on his father's panhandling name, he could have changed to something like, say, Noah Robinson. Jesse's father's real name was Robinson, and he really ain't no minister). Sorry for the tangent. The Jacksons just make me sick. I met Dowell a few times too and she rubbed me the wrong way. Kind of like the kind of person who didn't really appreciate us whites who live in Woodlawn. I hope they freeze Richie Daley like Ted Williams and he comes back to clean up the god foresaken mess that whoever follows him leaves.

vise77

Tue, 22 May 2007 09:57:35 -0600

Good idea: Your idea appeals on a gut level, but it lack appeal for one simple reason: Government is not business. They differ in fundamental ways. For instance, businesses are loyal to customers and shareholders or other owners. Government is charged with serving all. Businesses exist to make money. Government does not, and should not, be driven by the profit motive (though having a surplus might be a good thing, depending on your economic stance). As well, when you make the claim that tax moneys are not spent on private assets, you are half-right. You ignore the role of indirect taxation--that is, all the tax deductions that private companies take, and the money governments spend on police protection and other services that indirectly provide the right environment for private business activities. Yes, government can be made more efficient and less corrupt, and perhaps privatization can work in specific instances (and I am certainly opposed to wholesale nationalization policies). But I would caution against the libertarian urge to privatize too much government services.

vise77

Tue, 22 May 2007 09:44:18 -0600

"Hold on Chicago, because the next four years should be a great show!" I don't know where you are getting this. Consider: We still have an pretty powerful incumbent mayor who's held office since '89. His power likely will act as a brake to any real move toward Council independence. For instance, Daley has shown he is a master at controlling or, at the least, shutting out those who might seriously challenge his rule. And, in general, this city has pretty much chewed up and spit out those who promise to reform. Consider: The last time the Council showed any, uh, "backbone," we get often lengthy, and usually silly, debates about such pressing issues as animal liver or horse shit. Yes, we actually got a decent debate on the living wage recently, but that debate hardly spilled over into deeper questions about the ability of poor and middle class people to live in this city, or deep debate about the direction this city may be heading. I am hopeful, but skeptical, the Council will actually address some of these important issues. I mean, I see little evidence the Council will actually tackle such issues as TIFs or corruption. And did those CTA hearings actually happen? My predication: A bit more Council theater in the coming years, but nothing really new, not while the same system/machine is in place. Yes, Daley may actually sweat more with the new Council, but he'll still be able to crack his whip pretty easily. I hope I am wrong.

Good Idea

Tue, 22 May 2007 09:39:31 -0600

Handing city items over to private business is a great idea for any city. The government almost never runs as efficiently as a private entity (especially here, Strogers!), and as long as the city ensures they get appropriate market value, as they did for the skyway, it is a good deal for everyone. Remember, NO TAX MONEY WILL BE SPENT ON THESE ASSETS ANYMORE, yet you can still use them. Also, if you don't like skyway fares just take surface streets to Indiana. It takes a bit longer but you don't have to pay.