Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Four months ago a group of aldermen fought Mayor Daley over how ambitious the city should be in spurring construction of affordable housing. The debate was more impassioned than typical policy discussions in City Council. In other words, there was a debate. But this one came far closer to getting personal than usual, with aldermen who typically yield to the mayor suggesting he was too cozy with developers and realtors to be willing to craft effective housing legislation. Then all but one of them voted to pass Daley's measure.
It's fair to say that the level of interest was a little lower when the council's 14-member housing committee met this week to hear an update on the city's affordable housing record. One alderman--committee chairman Ray Suarez--was around for all of the 15-minute report, and for most of it he was the only member of the council present. Three others--Lona Lane (18th), Sharon Denise Dixon (24th), and Ariel Reboyras (30th)--each showed up for a few minutes apiece.
Suarez, briefly accompanied by Reboyras, set the tone for the meeting shortly after he'd gaveled it to order. Introducing Ellen Sahli, the Department of Housing's acting commissioner, Suarez said, "We are looking forward to listening to what a great job she's doing, and what a great job the city's doing on behalf of housing."
The alderman paused a moment to address classes from Columbia and Harold Washington colleges that were sitting in the audience. "Welcome to seeing government in action," he said.
Suarez told them that the city was in the middle of a five-year, $1.5 billion affordable housing plan. "We have a policy here, and the policy here is that we listen to the report, and we ask questions, and we're very respectful of each other, and it's worked very well."
Sahli said the city "committed" more than $67 million to help preserve or build 4,200 affordable units in the first half of the year, putting it in position to meet its 2007 targets of $300 million and 7.930 units. She went into detail with several projects in the works, noting that the apartments created would rent for between $721 and $1,000 a month while condos would be kept affordable for families of four making $75,400 (which, by the city's calculations, means they'd list around $183,000). Houses and two-flats would sell for $195,000 to $265,000.
In May, council critics deemed these prices, and the income levels of the families targeted, too high for working families in Chicago, where the median household income is about $41,015. This time, Suarez was the sole alderman in the room when she finished.
Naturally, no one had any questions, since no one was there to ask them. So Suarez offered his analysis of the report. "This is, I believe, a very motivating report, because it shows that the city of Chicago is working. It shows that we have an interest in people," he said. "The problem is that more can be done--we can always do more. But there is not a free ride. When we do more, we have to be able to get different levels of funding to make this a reality. But for those of you here for the first time, there isn't a city in the country doing more for affordable housing. Community advocates want us to do more, and we'd like to. But the only way to do more is with money, and we're stretched thin."
Kevin Jackson, executive director of the Chicago Rehab Network, offered a critical voice, testifying that many of the city's projects were well-intended but still too costly for thousands of working-class and low-income families. Additionally troubling to Jackson was the fact that only a fraction of the rental apartments created by city programs were open to any low-income family in the city--the rest are being built as part of public housing redevelopment projects. The city simply needs to devote more money to affordable rental housing, Jackson said, or leave more families at risk of housing crises. "CRN must reiterate its call for the city to replace resources that are allocated to the CHA plan from [Department of Housing] funds in order to meet pressing housing needs for all Chicagoans."
The other three aldermen had walked in during Jackson's presentation, and Dixon asked Sahli for clarification about the paperwork for a project in her west-side ward. Then Suarez wished good luck to a housing department staffer who was leaving for a new job: "Best of luck to you, God bless you, and aldermen Dixon, Lane, and Rebroyas move that we adjourn."
At some point, wouldn't you just fold up your knuckleheaded political stance and realize that that you are mostly responsible for yourself? Perhaps notice that the swindlers in politics are in their chosen carnival trade because they have no concerns with much of anybody.
JBP
Kozicki says:
"If ... people don't like the Mayor and other elected official,then simply run against them---period."
Great idea.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Without disagreeing with you, I must point out the obvious.
This town is already heavily segregated, by race, by economic condition, by ethnicity and by political persuasion.
There are so many tangled webs being woven, by the insects that pass themselves off as servants of the public, (no offense intended to the web-weavers of the insect world), that it's understandably difficult to separate one from another.
I failed to mention that, relevant to an income tax, the web-weavers don't really need a city income tax, all they need is to solidify their influences over the state government, to gain benefits from the increases in state income tax revenues that an increase in wealthy residents of this city would bring.
Destroying the dynamic character of Chicago is certainly one of the risks these schemers appear to be willing to take.
The sad state of our public transportation systems makes one wonder if the goal is to reduce the availability of open access, for some citizens, to certain areas of the city, ie., is this the beginning of a transformation of the system into a limited shuttle service, from the areas where the working poor reside, to the areas where the working poor labor, with few stops in between?
Racial, ethnic and economic 'cleansing' can be a subtle process, hardly noticed until it is an accomplished fact.
The web-weavers don't need direct force to do this, economic forces are working all too well.
"Most of these comments are completely ridiculous."
Wow.
What a way to start off a comment, ridiculing the comments of others.
And I guess you now expect others to take your comment seriously?
It's one thing, to specifically criticize comments of others, it's another, to call them ridiculous, sans any specificity whatsoever.
As for the reasons and causes of the lack of 'affordable' housing, let's look at both ends of the problem.
Housing is affordable when:
1) one earns enough to pay the cost, (and still have enough to buy food, pay utilities, etc.)
2) the cost is compatible with one's income.
So, since it's not always true that 'you get what you pay for', (sometimes you get far less than you pay for, rarely far more), the rise in property values results in both higher property tax bills and fewer residents being able to afford living in the city, at least in those areas of the city where property values have risen.
What the person of limited means is faced with, is the choice between living in those areas that their means permits them to afford, (not usually the most desirable areas to live in), or to move to those areas outside of the city that they can afford.
The statement that "The economic conditions that made the city OVERLY affordable..." implies that the costs of living in the city has been low, obviously, not the fact.
The 'affordability' you are referring to has actually been the availability of large amounts of borrowed money, at artificially and temporarily lower interest rates, thus, enabling those who would not be able to borrow these higher sums of money, at market interest rates, without the artificially low rates being made available to them.
The widespread foreclosures on these loans, once their 'adjustable' rates were 'adjusted', showed us all how fragile a house of cards had been built.
Housing is all simple mathematics and a study in basic human nature.
Everyone generally wants more for less.
Everyone, generally, wants to give less and get more.
On both sides of the consumer/producer equation.
The main complaint seems to be the apparent excessive greed exhibited by those on the supply side of the housing equation.
How about addressing that greed?
Last night I was at a wedding in Chicago. The crowd was mostly white (Irish, German Polish and some Italians) from Chicago people in between the ages of 29 to 50ish(most college educated). Natuarlly we got into the conversation of the Mayor.(I naturally brought him up) The subject turned to the Mayors spending habbits and affordable housing.They all agreed he is mis-managing our (taxpayers) money.But the majority of the males who vote said they don't care about the corruption as long as he keeps pushing the blacks out of Chicago. (they all used more colorful words). I was sort of surprised , because I thought things have changed. Not overwhelmingly, but some of the HATRED. But as I just witnessed, NOTHING has changed when it comes to insecurity and ingnorance.
I guess one could say that the sentiments you relate hearing are the dark side of democracy.
The thing to ponder is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the theoretical checks-and-balances of our form of democracy, can, if honestly adhered to, in spirit and in word, provide us all with something far better than mere, majority-rules democracy.
So, the fact that there are still an abundance of assholes among those of European descent, while not all that surprising, doesn't mean that their asinine views must be the rule of the land.
Granted, there are some very real and valid criticisms that can be appropriately directed at those not of European descent.
The traditional 'minorities' have shown, time and time again, that they are often their own worst enemies.
Just like those 'white' citizens who don't vote, don't register to vote and don't exercise the power of their pocketbooks, however meager that power may seem to be, those not of European descent have failed to act in unity for their own benefit.
There are many true things that can be said, as well as many false things.
None are without faults, none are innocent, none are perfect, or anything close to perfect.
To be honest with ones' self is very difficult, especially when the truth is not what one wants it to be.
Divided we fall, united we stand.
How can we ever be united by our distinct differences?
Thus, we must fall, every last one of us, of whatever heritage.
Too much luxury housing
PROPERTY TAXES ARE TOO HIGH
Substandard new construction by politically connected builders
Too much regulation, fees, fines, housing court, building inspectors--it is like a totalitarian state--it is sick
Amazing, isn't it, how effective economic forces can be, on controlling and leveraging human behaviors.
Add the old standards of manipulation, appeal to the worst in human nature, toss in a little prejudice, a bit of fear, a dash of envy, frustration and resentment, and, presto, you've got the recipe for the flesh and blood version of purgatory.
Enforce the draconian laws you use to control and exploit the populace, (a populace well conditioned to comply with the rule of law, without questioning the nature or purpose of that law), and you have an effective totalitarian state, without the need for use of blatant and egregious government directed violence.
The only minor threat to this state that remains is the unused power of the citizens' Right to Vote.
Will enough citizens ever experience sufficient misery to motivate themselves to exercise their Right to Vote in such a way as to force, at the ballot box, the end to this effectively totalitarian condition?
Link to agenda & audio courtesy of AlderTrack
http://aldertrack.typepad.com/aldertrack2/2007/09/...
rights social justice. I am a tenant’s advocate. I
have rented bad property. Building safety regarding structure and tenant
safety, currently are non-issues.
The only improvement I saw in the landlord conduct and cosmetic changes to
the
property was when I got the city to act. I found that using tenant groups and
tenant attorneys to have been a costly waste of time. Only the city can force
an owner to bring the building and unit up to code. The Chicago Landlord
Tenant Ordinance is not being enforced. A good landlord is protected from bad
tenants as good tenants are protected from bad landlords. Currently, when a
tenant withholds rent for a loud and or bad unit and building, the eviction
court judge kicks the tenant out. No proof from the city building department
to the tenant nor the judge showing that the issues exist or not is shown nor
providing a report from a public repairperson. How is this fair? Everything
is
turning condo and what is left to rent, is nowhere near being safe nor in
code
compliance. I want to let people know that unless the city is forced to
answer
to what has been done to tenants and how bad buildings are allowed to remain
open and collect rent money, nothing will change. The city is not building
new
apartments and the city is not bringing existing apartments up to code.
Illegal conversions get rented and buildings are left in horrid conditions.
Units are not being shown vacant and the next tenant has to endure what the
previous tenant accepted. Why is the city missing all of these fund raising
opportunities when property has to have city building annual inspections and
tenants are free to call the city for unit and building inspections? Mayor
Daley is not providing new housing for renters and Mayor Daley is not
responding to tenants about building and unit and management complaints.
My goal
Is to have the city show us respect. HUD can not intervene. I hope that if
more people question the double standards and the lack of code enforcement,
the city will be forced to act. I can not do this alone. I am good at this
but
I need some funding. We have to have a home as our foundation. The home is
our
sanctuary and sadly today, housing needs take a back seat. I think I can do
something. I want to publish easy to interpret guidelines as to what should
be
provided, what should not be happening, and let people understand what
Mutual respect means. I want to save our rental housing and not lose out to
what we can have due to lack of city response (that is the corruption) and
tenants who impose what they compromise. Right now renters are stuck with an
unresponsive city when the owner is lame or they are dealing with resentment
from tenants. As soon as a tenant has a need; a bad owner decides to provide
less. What is not being provided starts to spread in the entire building.
This
is not fair. I would rather have safe affordable heated housing and have
mutual respect amongst tenants and the owners then what is happening now.
What
I want to do from a housing point is to showcase publicly what has to be
provided and what should have never been allowed. I have constantly
questioned
the double standards and why the city was not collecting money from the
fines.
The city to a police officer to the building manager to a tenant have no
right to take away your rights when a place has to follow the city codes and
ordinances. The more you learn, the more you question, and
hopefully changes will result. The Mayor’s Office is claiming that more
rental housing will be provided. This is not happening. And why not bring up
to code property that is salvageable? Mayor Daley’s office has said that 10
percent of the new condo buildings would be for affordable renting. If an
apartment slum or not, had say 100 units (think about the illegal conversions
and include no separation between the units) yet the place still housed,
badly
at that, 100 units, folks still had a place to call home. And then to
due payoffs and things, the city allows the apartment to close (funny how a
place is found dismal by the city when convenient) a company builds a place
that has let us say 40 condo units, or even 86 condo units, - how does
setting
aside the claimed 10 percent for renters to rent, cover what was taken? I
want
renters to stop being gullible about the lack of remedies and lack of
building
and code enforcement. I want to get people to work together. We need a
guarantee that our housing will not disappear. Renters and owners who are
following the codes and ordinance need to know that laws matters and they
work. Thank you. Renee
McManus
I am a tenant’s advocate.
I have rented bad property.
Building safety regarding structure and tenant safety, currently are non-issues.
The only improvement I saw in the landlord conduct and cosmetic changes to the property was when I got the city to act.
I found that using tenant groups and tenant attorneys to have been a costly waste of time.
Only the city can force an owner to bring the building and unit up to code.
The Chicago Landlord Tenant Ordinance is not being enforced.
A good landlord is protected from bad tenants as good tenants are protected from bad landlords.
Currently, when a tenant withholds rent for a loud and or bad unit and building, the eviction court judge kicks the tenant out.
No proof from the city building department to the tenant nor the judge showing that the issues exist or not is shown nor providing a report from a public repair person.
How is this fair?
Everything is turning condo and what is left to rent, is nowhere near being safe nor in code compliance.
I want to let people know that unless the city is forced to answer to what has been done to tenants and how bad buildings are allowed to remain open and collect rent money, nothing will change.
The city is not building new
apartments and the city is not bringing existing apartments up to code.
Illegal conversions get rented and buildings are left in horrid conditions.
Units are not being shown vacant and the next tenant has to endure what the previous tenant accepted.
Why is the city missing all of these fund raising opportunities when property has to have city building annual inspections and tenants are free to call the city for unit and building inspections?
Mayor Daley is not providing new housing for renters and Mayor Daley is not responding to tenants about building and unit and management complaints.
My goal is to have the city show us respect.
HUD cannot intervene.
I hope that if more people question the double standards and the lack of code enforcement, the city will be forced to act.
I can not do this alone.
I am good at this but I need some funding.
We have to have a home as our foundation.
The home is our sanctuary and sadly today, housing needs take a back seat.
I think I can do something.
I want to publish easy to interpret guidelines as to what should be provided, what should not be happening, and let people understand what Mutual respect means.
I want to save our rental housing and not lose out to what we can have due to lack of city response, (that is the corruption), and tenants who impose what they compromise.
Right now renters are stuck with an unresponsive city when the owner is lame or they are dealing with resentment from tenants.
As soon as a tenant has a need, a bad owner decides to provide less.
What is not being provided starts to spread in the entire building.
This is not fair.
I would rather have safe affordable heated housing and have mutual respect amongst tenants and the owners then what is happening now.
What I want to do from a housing point is to showcase publicly what has to be provided and what should have never been allowed.
I have constantly questioned
the double standards and why the city was not collecting money from the fines.
The city is a police officer to the building manager, to a tenant have no right to take away your rights when a place has to follow the city codes and ordinances.
The more you learn, the more you question, and hopefully changes will result.
The Mayor’s Office is claiming that more rental housing will be provided.
This is not happening.
And why not bring up to code property that is salvageable?
Mayor Daley’s office has said that 10 percent of the new condo buildings would be for affordable renting.
If an apartment, slum or not, had, say, 100 units, (think about the illegal conversions and include no separation between the units), yet the place still housed, badly
at that, 100 units, folks still had a place to call home.
And then, due to payoffs and things, the city allows the apartment to close, (funny how a
place is found dismal by the city when convenient), a company builds a place that has, let us say, 40 condo units, or even 86 condo units, - how does setting aside the claimed 10 percent for renters to rent, cover what was taken?
I want renters to stop being gullible about the lack of remedies and lack of building and code enforcement.
I want to get people to work together.
We need a guarantee that our housing will not disappear.
Renters and owners who are following the codes and ordinance need to know that laws matters and they work.
Thank you.
Renee McManus
Chicago (RTLO) and high taxes will eventually elimanate all but the biggest/more expensive landlords.