At least we know, for now, that Alderman Reilly's nose works, as in, he can smell the blood in the water, of all those former, ex-aldermen who were ousted, and the potential for future blood-letting of hack incumbents to continue.


Maybe he's one of the few who are actually thinking about their futures in government, after all the dinosaurs finally experience the extinction they so well deserve.


Now, if only he doesn't make the huge mistake of still caving under future pressures from those 'business interests'.......

And many of us who contributed to the mass hysteria a few weeks ago should save our judgments until the new blood in our council can establish a record. I for one expressed my doubt that Reilly would live up to his expectations, but he voted to keep the public in our public art funding, and now has shown support for preserving a perfectly good building and supporting the residents who vote for our city representation over the narrow interest of developers and the hyper and expensive buildup in areas around the loop without the sufficient infrastructure to support a build up.

I for one am sorry I felt his connections to Madigan led me to the forgone conclusion he was part of the combine. This is a good sign for the many interest in the 42nd ward - few wards have such diverse interest, and Brendan is showing that he is thoughtful and comes to some good conclusions. Let’s hope he is an advocate for a more accountable OPS in the upcoming session.

Well said, "Good for Brendan." If only optimism were a communicable disease.

I've come down on the pessimists pretty hard lately, and I guess I should apologize. It's easy to forget that after years -- and in Natarus's case, decades -- of politics as usual, people take awhile to wake up to the idea that change is possible. You just have to do more than wish for it or believe in it, you have to work hard for it, every day.

On Madigan, as a bit of a student of history, I've learned not to judge people so much by their past associations, but by the fruits of their own labors. Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR were political insiders in their day, but that did not prevent them from becoming great statesmen when history presented the opportunity.

Besides, contrary to popular opinion, I'm pretty sure that Mike Madigan does not have horns.

And while you're right that the new aldermen deserve a chance to establish a record, its important to remember that what an elected official can achieve is limited by how far those they represent are willing to help them push the envelope. I'm sure there's a great Ditka quote somewhere about quarterbacks and the offensive line, but you get my point.

It would have been more responsible of Reilly to also suggest which public assets we sell to make up for the lost tax revenue.

better yet, why doesn't the "we need more tax revenue" crowd start explaining why with all the new revenue the relentless development has brought in, our taxes never, ever, ever go DOWN.

I have been hearing nonstop this baloney that "development is great for everyone, as it spreads the tax burden further," yet taxes keep going up, while our schools, CTA and other services stay frozen in time.

more money for people who don't know how to manage it wisely is like more heroin for a junkie - it's not a good thing. the difference is the junkie's habit isn't literally forcing people out of their homes due to rising taxes.

Why don't you take a cut in your pay, give back some of the swag you've raked in on those 'consulting contracts' you got and stop milking the cow.

Amazing, how those who think of themselves as honest, intelligent, human beings consistently fall for the same old tricks and deceptions.

There is no such thing as 'lost tax revenue', there's only our public 'officials' misusing our ever-increasing tax burdens, spreading the 'wealth' WE'VE worked hard to EARN, being generous, to all their 'associates', with the dollars taken from US, by force of law, confident that they'll continue to have the authority and power to fool 'the public', enrich themselves and their 'partners-in-crime', for now and forevermore.

How about 'losing' a good portion of those budget expenditures earmarked for swag, over-inflated 'consulting' contracts, over-paid and under-worked patronage 'employees', bloated and ego-driven 'public projects' that benefit only the contractors who build them, sham 'programs' that benefit only the crooks and scammers who 'run them', etc...

You want to pay less taxes, get rid of the thieves responsible for mis-using and wasting the revenues they get right now.

ok, I'll revise my comment.

It would have been more responsible of Reilly to also suggest which municipal pork should be cut to make up for the previously anticipated revenue growth.

I'll even go one step further. It would be more responsible for Reilly to advocate up-zoning the entire city and abolishing the landmarks ordinance until such time that the city trims its budget and ceases to generate growing debts and deficits.

IMO your frustrations should be directed at the entire City Council and the Mayor, not Reilly. exactly who would be planning on using this revenue anyway? I believe the operative cliche would be "don't count your chickens before they hatch."

We can't grow your way out of an addiction to wasteful spending by expanding the tax base, all that does is exacerbate the problem.

What would be better is accountability/better auditing for the money already being taken in, and an actual plan of how future revenue would be used. All of the people living in the proposed new development would be taxing already existing infrastructure, but as we all know, there has never been a commitment by the City to tie future growth into improving/maintaining that infrastructure.

The City can't grow forever any more than a person can continue getting taller their whole life, at some point the foundation/your knees just can't handle the weight.

"It would be more responsible for Reilly to advocate.....abolishing the landmarks ordinance..."

Responsible?

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

Crawl back into your developer buddies' bung hole, where you're much more comfortable, the fucking Landmark Protection Ordinance exists to PROTECT our city's rich and exquisite architectural legacies, not to service greedy developers interests.

Your feeble attempts to promote the concept that we can't afford to give a shit about preserving our classic buildings, because of the "...growing debts and deficits." piled onto the taxpayer's backs, by the very same cocksuckers you shill for, while amusing, ain't no laughing matter.

How about 'revising' your comment one more time?

Just for laughs.

At the risk of exposing kelly any further, why not jump on board Reilly's call for statewide TIF reform? If you want to talk about "lost tax revenue", that seems like the logical place to start, as Ben Joravsky has so often pointed out.

Of course, that's "municipal pork" that developers eagerly defend.

YDD has this right. Reilly has been acting and advocating for exactly the right things so far. We need STATEWIDE TIF reform - a reform of the state laws that govern TIF districts - NOT THE COUNTY or CITY EFFORTS, and Ald. Reilly has shown so far he is doing the responsible thing of responding to the residents whom elected him. He voted correctly against taking out the public from our funding of public art, is advocating for the state to live up to responsibility to reform TIF laws (none of the new alderman created this mess, and they are forced to play by corrupting rules of one hand washes the other if they are going to have any say on TIFs in their wards), and he has upheld the spirit of the landmark protection ordinance and listened to the concerns of SOAR on the effects to their quality of life with the increased development of Streeterville (and you don't need to keep tearing down and building new housing that few of us can afford to have a healthy city neighborhood.)

Kelly should pick up Jane Jacobs 'The Life and Death of Great American Cities' to understand the value of older buildings and adapting them to present needs. This building is fine, and there is no value of constructing a new building in its place. Getting it out of the hands of the University and on to the tax roles (and I fully admit I don't know the tax status of NWU) in private hands is a big improvement by itself.

But we don’t have to attack one another with profanity as the one above. It weakens your arguments by making you look belligerent.

It's great fun to demonize developers. It's the political foundation for many a demagogue, but the informed know that most developers are hard-working, risk-taking, high-paid-union-job-creating entrepeneurs who are a conduit for unsubsidized, private wall street investment into the city who don't take corporate welfare and who would prefer to not have to compete with the bribe-paying cronies sucking in the TIF subsidies. The informed also know that it's developers that increase the affordability of housing by increasing it's supply, and they also know that the older buildings that preservationists are so gaga over were built by developers.
It's good that Reilly wants to reform the TIF fiasco, but it would be even better if he would work to abolish aldermanic prerogative on zoning and landmarks issues. It's a root cause of corruption and contributes to disrespect for rule of law.

well, then I'd say it's long overdue for these righteous folk to start policing themselves, and to start making a stink about TIF abuses, zoning nonsense and all the rest of the problems.

The lousy cinder block McCondos that have gone up like the plague certainly don't appear to be getting built by union workers, nor are they affordable, nor do they seem to reflect any real risk, as the mere fact most of them are built on land purchased as R3 and then upgraded to R4 or more means the land itself becomes more valuable than the purchase price.

I'm also struggling to see any credence to the idea that anyone, much less developers, is increasing the supply of affordable housing, btw.

I'm sure there are decent developers/builders out there, but if they aren't part of the problem, what's there to discuss?

It's really not possible for a developer to make an ethical stand in this machiavellian, machine government environment. Making up all development rules is the life force of the machine. They would squash you like a bug. You would have to leave town or change careers. It's incumbent on the voters to bring in an ethical city council.
The cinder block McCondos are are the logical, inevitable manifestation of archaic building and zoning codes. There's a reason they all look the same. It's what the codes demand. The building code has never had a rewrite since it was first created many decades ago. It's a mishmashed pile of incremental additions and deletions inserted by special interests that is way behind the times. A few years ago, someone at the city started an effort to adopt the International Building Code, but obstructionists jumped in and said that we'll only partly adopt it and blend it with our own. The effort simply died. Where does your pal Reilly stand on that?
The zoning code just got a re-write, in theory. All they did was shuffle it up and re-organize it. There are still significant omissions, and the aldermen like it that way.
And as for housing affordability, just go get an Econ 101 text book and read up on the laws of supply and demand.

If you want to keep developers in check, then write a law to get them in check, otherwise its jsut the same old same old.

"...abolish aldermanic prerogative on zoning and landmarks issues. It's a root cause of corruption and contributes to disrespect for rule of law."

"...disrespect for rule of law."

You mean like the Landmark Protection Ordinance?

That so many 'developers' don't give a shit about?

That so many 'developers' wish would never have been enacted?

That so many 'developers' find it so difficult, short of bribing the alderman, to get around?

That so many 'developers' hate, because it, occasionally, prevents them from tearing down a building that happens to sit on prime location land?


"The cinder block McCondos are are the logical, inevitable manifestation of archaic building and zoning codes. There's a reason they all look the same. It's what the codes demand."

Bullshit.

Utter Bullshit.

Nothing in the building code 'demands' that a developer build an ugly, piece of cheap shit monolith.

PROFITS are what determine the type and quality of what kelly's benevolent developers build, where they build it and what they're only too anxious to tear down.

PROFITS.

"And as for housing affordability, just go get an Econ 101 text book and read up on the laws of supply and demand."

That's right, kelly, you stick to Economics 101, while the rest of the world actually thinks about the details and complexities of living.

Reilly did the right thing. Saving the Lake Shore Athletic Club building serves the well-being of the citizens of the 42nd Ward. Furthermore, the Central Area location of the building makes it important to the entire city. Northwestern and Fifield have no "right" to demolish the building. Kelly, your dead wrong about the value of landmarking. Landmarking is fair to all parties when done according to a legitimate protocol. Saving these historic buildings draws people to our city and improves the quality of life as we experience these buildings every day. However, I am with Kelly about the rezoning mess in the city. Bad rezoning for developments is a moneymaker for Alderman, zoning attorneys, and developers, with citizens and taxpayers getting screwed and our city often getting uglified in the process.

With regard to comments about the current development process fostering corruption and profit for aldermen, attorneys, etc...that's probably true in most wards - but folks should be reminded that Alderman Reilly pledged to refuse contributions from real estate developers. That's quite evident in his recent actions re: the Lake Shore Athletic Club.

If Alderman Reilly is consistent in his dedication to honestly, fairly and intelligently represent both the specific interests of his ward's residents and the city's residents as a whole, not only will he be a 'keeper', as in worthy of reelection, but he may be the guy who'll have a chance of being successful at making a run for the mayor's office.

> ... developers will actually have to justify their plans before he signs off on them. ...

> Whatever you think of Reilly and his bluster, it should be noted that this last comment is PR-speak for a middle finger directed at Natarus.

Putting the "I" in Alderman

OK but I also couldn't help noticing that in that last comment Reilly refered to himself 4 times. What we are witnesing is Reilly quickly assuming the mantle of Little Mayor - Zoning & Development Czar of the 42nd, a role which is no where in state or city laaw.

"Landmarking is fair to all parties when done according to a legitimate protocol."

There is no legitimate protocol. Any alderman on a whim can landmark any building, or worse yet, any entire district. Under Chicago's illegitmate landmarks protocol, the power and corrupt temptations for the alderman has increased exponentially. Just in the Tribune today, there's an article about additional indictments against former Alderman Troutman. They list her corrupt actions and one of them was blocking a demolition. She made $20,000 on the deal. This goes on every day.

"There's a reason they all look the same. It's what the codes demand."

can you back that up with some actual language from the codes?

I see no reason outside of serious corner-cutting for the flat-chested, no-bay-window aspect, for starters.

and let's not forget they had to actually pass a law to force the McCondo people to waterproof the cinderblocks - that to me says these are pirates, not legitimate businesspeople to be respected.

what happens when all these crappy buildings fall apart in 30 years after Chicago winters and expansion/contraction of that substandard exterior material?

Or is part of the endless-job-plan, like using nasty asphalt on the streets which needs to be replaced/fixed every few years?

Kelly, do you know ANY history about the collusion of developers, politicians and straight-up gangsters as far as zoning and law goes?

Were you shipped here from a Quaker community or something, seriously, help us out - where did you develop this hilarious idea that the deck is stacked against developers?

Of course there's collusion of developers, politicians and straight-up gangsters as far as zoning and law goes. That's my whole point. All industries have bad players. There are people who will label sugar water as fruit juice. It doesn't make all juice producers bad. A fish in a polluted pond can't do a whole lot about the pollution. The source of the pollution is aldermanic prerogative on zoning and landmarks issues.

The reason all McCondos look the same is this. Because of a stupid fire that happened 132 years ago, the Chicago building code, unlike almost every newer U.S. city, requires that every low rise building larger than a bread basket have brick and/or block exterior walls. When a businessman is operating under tight margins, he puts block on the sides where most buyers don't mind. The smarter ones waterproofed the block, but the building department never asked for it, so the ignorant didn't.
The market for buildable lots is tight and efficient. There are no cheap deals, and in order to pay for the high priced land, one has no choice but to fill out the entire allowable zoning envelope. When you look at a McCondo, you see a 3 dimensional mock up of the legal zoning envelope which is simply a flat chested box. The required front, side, and rear setbacks are defined as vertical flat plains. The maiximum height is a horizontal flat plain. There are no allowances or bonuses for architectural interest like turrets, spires, and bay windows. If you want to provide those things, then you have to carve them out of your allowable floor area, and that's a deal breaker.

there aren't "bad players" it's a bad system, what exists are some decent players in a sea of slime.

"one has no choice but to fill out the entire allowable zoning envelope"

yes, there is a choice - it's called rehabbing buildings instead of just tearing them down to replace them with buildings with more units.

you talking in circles around what we all know, that developers want to maximize profit, and need to be forced with a cattle prod to obey even the current letter of the law, much less the spirit.

unlike most other industries, that profit comes at the expense of everybody else's quality of life, from congestion on the streets, to overtaxing infrastructure, to raising property taxes for everyone by continuing to put upward pressure on the price of a lot, to stealing people's sunlight by building towering buildings over their homes.

but it's gonna change - see the 32nd ward, surprisingly (not), the people moving into many of these neighborhoods know the difference between smart and respectful urban planning, and the lowest common denominator, which is a quick profit.

ok Comrade Carter. You win.
I think I'll just go apply for CHA housing now.

"The market for buildable lots is tight and efficient. There are no cheap deals...."

Not exactly true, as you well know.

You're just not looking in the right neighborhoods.

There are extremely cheap and buildable lots all over this town, (and you know where they are), you developer folks just don't want to build in 'those' neighborhoods.

How about it, all-knowing Kelly, fill us in on WHY developers aren't interested in building in areas where the land costs are low.

Comrade nothing, I'm no Socialist, nor do I believe govt is the best way to address all of society's problems - it is unfortunately all we have to turn to however when corporations run amok due to their superior ability to lobby and have their interests represented.

what I truly despise is corporate welfare, which has far out-trumped social welfare since the days of the railroads.

while the CHA housing gets torn down, Chicago merrily hans out millions in developer subsidies via TIFs

Read this for a better understanding of how we got to where we are today:

http://www.unequalprotection.com/summary.shtml

"How about it, all-knowing Kelly, fill us in on WHY developers aren't interested in building in areas where the land costs are low. "

they are building everywhere- drive west down the Loop streets and there's butt-ugly cinder block condos a plenty, they just can't milk the land for as much profit in those areas.

it's as clear as this: it isn't the responsibility of the City's populace to provide endless opportunities for quick profits to flippers and developers. many of us struggle to survive every year as we work normal jobs that offer modest cost-of-living increases, and don't even give me that crap about risk - risk is what cops, teachers, firefighters know, and apparently even owning a home here is a risk, as the property taxes can kick you out of it pronto. we hear tax increases might be kept to "only" 7% - if we're lucky.

people don't get 7% raises every year, it's not possible without further firing up inflation.

so cry me a river about the poor, broke condo builders - they should learn to stop using the golden goose as a personal punching bag.

the 32nd Ward has been developers dream ward for a long time. Get what you want, when you want, at the expense of everyone else, without strings attached. At the expense of everyone else. thanks to Teddy M Gabinkski & pals, now we get to endure crappy developments and beat up streets. That ward was sold out to developers a long time ago and now they are marching west toward new neighborhoods.

no kidding. it's being on the "fringe" (as they call it) of the development that's truly annoying, it's a guarantee you'll get the lousiest projects as they have absolutely no respect for the people who live there.

here's a nice piece that should be run daily in our local rags:

Couple's once-quiet neighborhood became a nonstop construction zone

http://www.suntimes.com/news/neighborhoods/457699,...

excerpt:

...There are city laws that require these workers to keep job sites
clean and safe, to control construction dust, clean sidewalks and alleys every day and not to start work until 8 a.m. But getting them
to do that, and rounding up city workers to enforce the rules, can be a full-time job, the Rhodeses say.

Lots of folks are in a similar spot. They don't know what's required of the work crews next door. And when there is trouble, some people don't know whom to call for get help. While the city's blanket answer is for folks to call 311 to get relief, Sue Rhodes can tell you the non-emergency line doesn't always provide a swift (my comment: or ANY) response.

"You call 311 and what happens is they take the information and hang
up," Sue Rhodes says of her experience. "They route it to the
department it's supposed to go to. That takes a day or two, and it
gets put on a list. And it will be another week or two before someone
responds. The only good it does is to make a record of your call."

That's why she contacted me, figuring her trial-and-error education in dealing with "derelict developers" could help folks in other neighborhoods with similar woes. She's a lawyer and recommends people dealing with construction next door obtain the building permits, get phone numbers for the property owner and general contractor and grab a copy of the city's construction cleanliness ordinance -- so you know
the rules and can demand that workers follow them.

Keep posting comments here; as you can see, we're sorely in need of sane, intelligent, innovative and honorable input.

Kelly, the reason why housing affordability isn't covered in Econ 101 is because there are confounding factors beyond supply and demand. Supply in this case creates its own demand, in that supply brings with it amenities (typically services, like shops), which spur more demand. Similarly, there is an ample supply of sites ready to fulfill the demand for condos on the near north side, including some also along Lake Shore Drive. Just because it's easier to knock down the Lake Shore Athletic Club doesn't mean that it's any less profitable to redevelop it. And who's to say that the overall value of the entire area isn't improved by having a mix of new and old, short and tall?

Real estate markets are highly imperfect and deserve more scrutiny than an Econ 101 student can give.

Guess what, nobody cares.

Fuck you.

it's odd someone would bother posting that nobody cares, when they are obviously interested enough to continue reading all these posts...

I can understand why aldermen order their apologists to spew propoganda that makes the private sector the scapegoat for unpopular developments. They're making too much off this aldermanic prerogative thing to ever give it up. Think of it. Troutman made $20K off one single blocked demolition deal. If on average, the aldermen make $20k every 2 weeks for shenanigans, that's $104 million per year flowing in to their offshore accounts and secret land trusts. No point in complaining about something that ain't going away.
It's probably better to make an issue of the city's weak ethics ordinance that doesn't require aldermen to report their assets on their annual financial disclosure.
These guys can and do buy real estate in their own wards or their buddyies' wards through secret land trusts. They upzone the property and flip it to a builder for huge profits, and not even the FBI can incover it.

'orion' is our resident machine shill, his comments are generally void of value, other than to be occasionally amusing.

On the bright side, he rarely posts more than a few words, or sentences.

Well, kelly's getting a little better at being less dishonest, that's a plus.

However, if those developers she's touting for weren't so ready and willing to pony up the swag, how would our politicians be able to feed their children?

FYI
There's a reason they call it the law of supply and demand and not the theory of supply and demand, but it's not expected that someone who attended the worst school system in the country would know that.

Kelly, the problem with your argument is that as you mentioned earlier, the zoning and building codes are dinosaurs, they've always been here.

Yet it isn't until recently that developers really started to push the envelope in terms of throwing as much cinderblock as legally possible on a 125 x 25 lot.


land has always been at a premium/in tight supply in the city, and I have my doubts that human beings suddenly all decided they don't like fresh air and open green space.

so the question is, what changed?

a hint might be our good Mare's building department lackeys, who for years claimed they couldn't even keep tabs on builders to enforce height restrictions (how long does it really take to check to see how tall a building is? it's not like the building can hide or run away, it's a sitting duck violation). and who ultimately determines how many of those staff are on hand, and how seriously and to what focus they should take their jobs?

they seem pretty damned good at catching my neighbors when they're engaged in such high-level chicanery as replacing stairs without a permit - why are so they inept at the larger problems? the history of graft of course comes to mind - people seem to agree that Chicago "used" to be one of the most corrupt cities in the world, but they aren't so good at explaining when exactly those practices ended.

as I see it, it's simply a case of greed.

as such, no reason to entertain or enable it.

"No point in complaining about something that ain't going away."

that's the best you got? good grief, why not just start sending your paychecks directly to City Hall?

this is a democracy - we get the govt we deserve, as we are ultimately responsible for installing/removing the politicians.

what did you do in the recent elections to make a difference?

In our ward, we forced the incumbent into a run off, but the forked tongue bitch prevailed with a little help from $700,000 in campaign spending. She's one of those anti-property rights demagogs who blame every thing on the boogy men in the private sector, yet coincidentaly, her spouse is a realtor.

kudos to ya for that. just gotta try harder next time. : )

Ideally, there should be a balance between the interests of developers and the interests of the citizens of a respective neighborhood. That balance tilted too far in favor of developers in the 42nd Ward. However, with Reilly taking a stand about the Lake Shore Athletic Club, we may have more reasonable days ahead. Reilly will likely side with developers during some future controversies and will likely be justified in doing so. The anti-high-rise NIMBY's should not rule the ward. But the citizens are right about the Lake Shore Athletic Club and Reilly listened to them.

In the 32nd Ward, thank God residents wised up to Matlak at last. Perhaps it was just that a critical mass of savvy residents moved into the ward combined with the local newspapers reporting all of the Matlak hi-jinx. Developers in that ward have gotten away with startlingly ugly developements with alderman-facilitated demolitions and upzonings that have harmed many blocks.

Reilly, Waguespack, Fioretti, and other newly-elected Aldermen know that the rezoning game can come back to bite them. Time will tell if they have learned their lesson.

Yeah, people wised up to matlak/gabinski but its too late. He wiped out the ward, the realtors and developers on the "in" got what they wanted, no questions asked. What's left, empty condo buildings, torn up streets that will cost millions to fix, foreclosures, cinder block garbage that Carter is right about: falling apart in 15 years or less.
We need new policies for starters, and penalties to stop the developer madness. It's not NIMBY, its about common sense.

"this is a democracy - we get the govt we deserve, as we are ultimately responsible for installing/removing the politicians."


At the risk of being accused, again, of posting my idea too often, I submit, for your opinions, the following:


"The simple, and incredibly effective beginning of a solution, to our present, political morass, is, amazingly, one that seems to be beyond our ability to appreciate and act on, namely, FIRE THE BASTARDS, and deal with those who replace them in the same manner, should THEY prove to be no better.

1) REGISTER TO VOTE

2) Determine who the INCUMBENTS are and make a list of same before every election.

3) Bring this list with you when you GO TO VOTE on election day

4) With few exceptions, DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENT

5) If there are 2 or more CHALLENGERS listed for a given office, cast your vote according to this formula:

a) If the INCUMBENT is listed FIRST, vote for the CHALLENGER who is listed LAST

or

b) If the INCUMBENT is NOT listed first, vote for the CHALLENGER who IS LISTED FIRST

In the beginning of this 'house cleaning' process, don't concern yourself about who the challengers are, focus on voting out basically ALL INCUMBENTS, as the incumbents are the people who have brought us to the present sad state of affairs.

Don't waste your time, efforts and hearts on buying into the false premise that those presently in public office can be 'persuaded' to do anything substantially different than what they have been doing, they've proven themselves to be both incompetent and dishonest 'employees' and deserve only to be fired.

If you MUST reelect any given incumbent, think long and hard about your reasons to do so, compel that specific incumbent to give you those reasons, by studying their past actions, the effects and effectiveness of same and demanding they provide believable proof that they will not continue the failed and harmful activities of their fellow, soon-to-be former 'public servants'.

Talk is cheap and plentiful.

Feeble excuses abound.

We will always have the government we deserve, and what we deserve will always be the result of the efforts we choose to make, or fail to make."


and


"Well....
June 25th - 10:27 p.m.

"But I don't have the broad brush you have - I need an alternative to vote for."

And THAT'S the crux of the problem.

Sort of the political version of inertia.

I have suggested that the political answer to overcoming this inertia is to engage in a strategy of voting out ALL incumbents, making very few exceptions, to stimulate public and media interest, as well as encourage those "most decent people" to believe that they've got a chance to get elected.

The objection to this strategy that I've read the most is the fear of electing "someone so inexperienced", but I find that we can't afford to let the reality of "...we need them replaced by decent people, and no decent person would participate in such a corrupted process." to enable this inertia to continue.

We, as citizens, have to take the chance of voting out practically all incumbents, if only for the effect this will have on both inspiring the voters to participate and encouraging those citizens who want to run for office to do so.

Changes can't happen overnight, but the beginning of change can.

All it will take is a concerted effort on the part of enough citizens, both those who are registered, but rarely vote and those who haven't bothered to register, because of the reasons you've stated, ie., few people worthy of being voted for.

If you truly want to effect changes, you'll have to have more faith and courage, and take a chance on cleaning out all of the incumbent, political hack 'professionals', as 'risky' as this might appear to you to be.

Our founding fathers took far greater and substantial risks to create a country of rights and freedoms, we owe it to their legacy to do a lesser version of the same.

We're blessed with the opportunity to do so WITHOUT the need for bloodshed, so, why don't we just do it?

HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT may seem extreme, but, in reality, what we've accepted as government is truly the 'extreme' reality."


and



"Thanks
June 26th - 11:29 a.m.

Thank you, sincerely, for your honest and respectful opinions concerning my humble attempts and concepts.

I may have a greater estimate of the effectiveness of this comment board, in reaching people interested in social, economic and political changes, than either you do or is warranted.

The difficult part of cleaning up our currently polluted governments seems to be in inspiring enough citizens to take action, and this is why I've suggested what is, to me, the least difficult means, namely:

just remember to vote for only challengers, regardless of party affiliation

if presented with the option, vote for candidates from any 'party' BUT the Dumbocrats and Retardicans

concentrate your votes in multiple candidate races by using the formula -

If incumbent is listed FIRST, vote for challenger listed LAST

or

If incumbent is NOT listed first, vote for challenger who IS LISTED FIRST

seek to fire as many incumbents as possible and deny retention to all offices you have the opportunity to

shake things up in the simplest way possible

avoid getting distracted by personalities and mud-slinging, the typical techniques used to manipulate and deceive

by-pass the usual behaviors exploited so effectively by those in power

force those in power to choose between respecting the will of the voters or denying the validity of the election results, thus showing themselves to be what they effectively are, dictators disguised as public servants

One wouldn't bother to drip drops of clean water into a glass filled primarily with urine, one would empty the glass, wash it thoroughly, then fill it with clean water

repeatedly voting out all Dumbocratic and Retardican incumbents will, in time, open up the door to those 'clean water' candidates we so badly need

refusing to continue to be fooled is the only way to no longer be fools."


I welcome the perspectives of others, as I am fully cognizant of the fact that, while I may believe that I've vetted this strategy for all of it's strengths and weaknesses, I am but one mind, with only the experiences I have had to guide me.

"re stop
May 30th - 5:21 p.m.

My intended audience, if you're correct, has been focusing on individual, incumbent politicians for decades, buying into the false premise that an incumbent office holder has, somehow, earned the 'right' to be re-elected, unless that person has done something or things to warrant being 'fired'.

This premise is what is responsible for all of the lousy 'representatives' we have been burdened with for generations.

Before you point out that these 'public servants' were duly elected by the 'people', let's examine that assumption.

First, ask the question, 'How many citizens are, at any given moment in time, qualified to vote, ie., 18 years of age or older, citizens, whether born or naturalized and residents of the area holding an election.

Think of that number as 100% of all eligible voters.

Next, I believe we can safely propose that, as a rule, no more than 50% of the whole are registered to vote at any given time, for any given election.

So, we start with only half of all eligible voters are registered.

Then, we can also safely propose that, of those 50% who are registered, usually only half of those voters actually show up at their respective voting places and casting their votes.

Thus, we see that approximately 25% of all eligible voters actually vote in any given election.

Since, at most, a candidate needs only 51% of voters to choose him/her to win, we can safely conclude that a mere 13% of the total number of eligible voters are deciding who are elected public servants are.

Granted, many will say that the 50% of eligible voters who don't register are, theoretically, expressing and enjoying their right to vote by not voting, and that the 25% of the whole, who are registered, but don't vote, are doing the same.

What I wonder is, why would 75% of those eligible to vote choose not to, choose to either register, but not vote, or not even register at all.

I don't believe it is because 75 out of 100 citizens are making this choice voluntarily, at least not as the word is defined in Webster's.

I believe, and propose, that most of the 75 out of 100 don't vote, or register to vote, because they have concluded that their vote doesn't matter, won't change anything, isn't important and isn't worth the time and effort it takes to participate.

In this, they are substantially correct, as the present public perceptions of the accepted political practices is designed to discourage the majority of citizens from participating in the political process.

Your focus on individual candidates is the crux of the problem, however counter-intuitive that sounds.

We can only afford to focus on the individual candidates when we have honest, intelligent, ethical and naturally helpful candidates to consider.

We waste our time and energies considering and analyzing the 'professional' politicians, as they all, with few exceptions, are cut from the same cloth and want us to believe that there are no other kinds of cloth to cut from.

The typical 'professional' politicians are rank opportunists, willing to act in a hurtful/harmful manner as easily as act in a helpful/harmless manner.

The typical 'professional' politician is only honest and forthcoming when he/she is forced to be, defaulting to dishonesty, deception, misdirection, stone-walling and blatant double-dealing as the rule, rather than the rare exception.

This is what the voters, both the 25% who routinely vote, and the 75% who do not, should be focusing on.

This is the fresh, honesty and plain truth presumption that all voters should take with them into the voting booth, every election, with the challenge to the INCUMBENTS to ALWAYS have to convince enough voters that THEY DESERVE to be re-elected.

This is why the entrenched incumbents strive to keep the public believing that the challengers should be the ones who have to convince voters to elect them, why the entrenched incumbents promote the wide-spread belief that they have to have screwed up really bad to warrant the voters firing them.

Until such time as enough voters open their eyes and realize that, contrary to the 'professional' politicians assertions, THEY are OUR EMPLOYEES, not our 'leaders', 'masters', 'betters', or 'bosses', we will continue to be led, like sheeple, down that primrose path to poverty.

In the 'private sector', one's employer requires that the employees efficiently produce value for their pay.

In the 'public sector', we, the employers, seem to accept much less value from our employees, our 'public servants', than we would ever think to accept from our employees, should we own a business.

We seem to accept much less value for our tax dollars from our 'public servants' than we would ever accept from our local store, contractor, service provider, etc..

The reason we accept paying so much, for so little, is, I believe, to be found in our generational conditioning to see and accept our 'government servants' not as our employees, but as our 'leaders/masters/bosses/superiors.

They are anything but......

Focus on firing all incumbents.

Use the outlined, mathematical formula.

Register to vote and Vote on Election Day.

See what will happen when the entrenched incumbents are shown the door.

Should the newly elected challengers FAIL to PROVE they DESERVE to keep their jobs, vote THEM out, using the same strategy.

REPEAT AS NEEDED, for as long as it takes to inspire honest people to enter what will be true public service.

The experience of seeing your vote result in change will inspire more and more citizens to participate, will force any who are elected to be much more responsive to the desires of the people, and will allow us to truly know what a democracy actually is."

> ... it should be noted that this last comment is PR-speak for a middle finger directed at Natarus.

Reilly's press release on the occasion of his much-awaited decision on the Lake Shore Center is not so much a final jab at Natarus, or a bold step forward for community-based planning, as it is Reilly hanging out his shingle, putting developers on notice there's a new sheriff in town, announcing River North Development Czar Now Open for Business Under New Management.

I guess that kelly has finally figured out that she's way out of her league, trying to pass off asinine and absurd 'arguments' as intelligent and honest discourse.

Maybe she should have coffee and a donut with randy gordon, they'd have fun seeing who's bullshit is covered with more frosting.

So, Reilly blocked the demolition of this building, contrary to what Steve Rhodes reported he would do several months ago.
Rhodes, at the beachwood reporter, told us that Reilly was more than happy to become another Burt Natarus.

So, seeing as how Steve Rhodes was completely and totally wrong, when will we see a retraction and apology from Mr. Rhodes? Reilly did exactly what he said he was going to do. Learn more about the issue, and make a decision. He chose well, but Rhodes slandered him nevertheless.

> "As I continue to review development proposals for the 42nd Ward, I will do so in an open, objective and transparent manner," Reilly said in his statement. "Each project that I review will receive careful consideration and I will work hard to carefully weigh each decision by balancing the needs of the business community with the needs of local residents and the best interests of the city of Chicago."

I ... I ... I ... I

... not exactly ...

"We the People of the 42nd Ward ... "

"Each project that I review will receive careful consideration and I will work hard to carefully weigh each decision by balancing the political contributions from the business community with the political contributions from local residents."

You're a fucking POLITICIAN, asshole, you CANNOT, by definition, be SLANDERED.

AND, who's to say your decision wasn't STRONGLY influenced by both the reporting of this issue and your constituents' response to said reporting?

Buck up, bunky, and show a little backbone here.

You did the right thing, so far, and the few honest reporters in this town ill be watching what you do in the future, as will those pesky constituents of yours.

1. Be a man and identify yourself. For all I know you're Rich Miller.
2. He hasn't blocked demolition. As Lynn Becker has written, he is now in a position to say, "Well, I tried."
3. I didn't report the story you are referring to. An angry constituent close to the situation wrote a screed. Learn to tell the difference.
4. Reilly indeed was influenced by the pressure brought to bear. He was about to get lambasted in public by one of the major players in terms not unlike those written at The Beachwood Reporter.
5. Reilly has always been free to ask for a retraction, clarification, or to respond in any way to any of our coverage. He hasn't done so. We don't make retractions asked for by other parties and nothing we have written has been shown to be untrue.
6. We stand by our coverage.

1. You've got to be kidding. "Be a man"? By "identify"ing myself?
Why? Do you really think that's gonna be a good idea, for you?

2. ".... seeing as how Steve Rhodes was completely and totally wrong, when will we see a retraction and apology from Mr. Rhodes?"

and then,

"He hasn't blocked demolition. As Lynn Becker has written, he is now in a position to say, "Well, I tried."

So, what's your fucking point?

Or do you have one?

3. Who the fuck said you did?

Your post had the flavor of Brendan's, seemed to be touting for Reilly, so, now you're taking another perspective, we're all supposed to be able to follow your disjointed posting style and figure out what you're trying to say?

4. And......?

5. So what?

6. Again, so what?

Nitpick your hearts out, your efforts change little to nothing, because you don't have a clue how to attack the fundamental sources of the problems.

Or you don't want to.