A friend and avid reader requested comment on the City of Chicago's upcoming regime change.
First, we congratulate Mayor Richard M. Daley on 21 years of service to the city. We wish him well. Thanks for the memories.
And tax increases. And massive deficits. And more tax increases to cover them. And the lakefront monstrosity that Soldier Field became. And Meigs Field's midnight closure. And the fact that the "Parking meter revenue" line item on the city's balance sheet will show "$0.00" until 2083, barring any change.*
Any alderman has a built-in political base that gives him or her an advantage in the mayor's race over a less-organized candidate. Unfortunately, aldermen are part of the problem that helped us reach this point: the city's horrible financial situation. No thank you, Ald. Burke.
We like Sheriff Tom Dart. But Dart and White House Chief of Staff Rahm "Rahmbo" Emanuel are both Daley guys. So it's possible that during Dart's or Emanuel's term, Hizzonerdamare would still be pulling the strings behind the scenes, or sitting at the controls behind the curtain. Pick your metaphor. Either way, it would hardly be the fresh start the city desperately needs.
That's why we believe the best candidate would be one who comes from Chicago's extensive business community. He would happily sink $5-$10 million of his personal wealth into the race to raise his public profile, create name recognition and get voters and the media talking. Of course, this person could be female, too.
With that much money, this candidate would probably be on a first-name basis with the mayor. But he also would be powerful enough in his own right that he need not heed the mayor's command.
In some ways, Mayor Daley made Chicago better. In others, we will be paying for his mistakes for decades to come. The financial mess is inexcusable. In light of the political hacks we have come to expect running Chicago, we fear for more of the same.
*Change meaning a lawsuit successfully negating the lease or LAZ Parking abandoning it due to decreased profitability.
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
There you go again, Your Honor
As if! As if we didn't have enough evidence that Chicago's elitist City Council has nothing but disdain for the proletariat class it is elected to serve. The new handgun ordinance, passed on the mayor's orders in the wake of the city's handgun ban being overturned in court, is designed to prevent a citizen from using his gun to defend himself. Are the alderman subjected to the same limits they forced on their peasants? Unlikely--after all, they excluded themselves from the handgun ban during its 28-year existence.
The city's Legal Department, led by Mara Georges, will spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have defending the law in court from challenges. These challenges come from citizens who dare to defend themselves from the thugs who own the streets in so many Chicago neighborhoods. What is the point, really, of a one handgun per month purchase limit? Of banning handgun possession on a porch or in a garage? The mayor's attempts to disarm the people are baffling. Restricting each residence to one operational handgun (the others disassembled) makes perfect sense if one presumes more working handguns endanger the residents. That's up for debate, and that decision should be up to the individual homeowner, not Hizzonerdamare.
Another part of the law bans gun stores within the city limits. This is almost certainly unconstitutional as a gun is now a legal product in Chicago. Mara Georges' reasoning was, Well, no alderman would allow a gun shop in his ward, so we decided to ban them.
How preposterous. And arrogant. This motley City Council crew of 50 men and women will not be aldermen forever. With luck, many will pursue other opportunities next year. Considering how popular urban gun ownership is, it's very possible a new, pro-gun alderman would welcome a gun store in his ward. The city ordinance doesn't allow for such an eventuality. The alderman would need to introduce a waiver to the law and persuade his colleagues to pass it.
Just as there are liquor stores and automobile dealers within the city limits, gun shops deserve an opportunity to conduct business. Mayor Richard M. Daley may not like it. When the law is thrown out, he'll find it's not always his call.
The city's Legal Department, led by Mara Georges, will spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have defending the law in court from challenges. These challenges come from citizens who dare to defend themselves from the thugs who own the streets in so many Chicago neighborhoods. What is the point, really, of a one handgun per month purchase limit? Of banning handgun possession on a porch or in a garage? The mayor's attempts to disarm the people are baffling. Restricting each residence to one operational handgun (the others disassembled) makes perfect sense if one presumes more working handguns endanger the residents. That's up for debate, and that decision should be up to the individual homeowner, not Hizzonerdamare.
Another part of the law bans gun stores within the city limits. This is almost certainly unconstitutional as a gun is now a legal product in Chicago. Mara Georges' reasoning was, Well, no alderman would allow a gun shop in his ward, so we decided to ban them.
How preposterous. And arrogant. This motley City Council crew of 50 men and women will not be aldermen forever. With luck, many will pursue other opportunities next year. Considering how popular urban gun ownership is, it's very possible a new, pro-gun alderman would welcome a gun store in his ward. The city ordinance doesn't allow for such an eventuality. The alderman would need to introduce a waiver to the law and persuade his colleagues to pass it.
Just as there are liquor stores and automobile dealers within the city limits, gun shops deserve an opportunity to conduct business. Mayor Richard M. Daley may not like it. When the law is thrown out, he'll find it's not always his call.
Chicago's 2011 budget $700 mil in hole
Where did the money go?
What is the price of corruption?
What is the City of Chicago's projected budget deficit for 2011?
There's a question with an answer. It's a mind-boggling $700 million. Assuming a population of 2.9 million, each resident would need to donate $241.38 to the city to balance the budget. ($659.18 per capita.) A grand for a family of four.
Remember the telethon for Detroit in Robocop 2? This is far worse.
It's almost inconceivable that the city's budget situation has reached this nadir. City residents spend thousands of dollars every year on taxes and fees. Vehicle sticker, handgun ownership fee, sales tax, restaurant tax, liquor tax, gas tax, parking garage tax, parking tickets, traffic tickets, red-light camera tickets, and amusement tax (a portion of the ticket price of a movie, sports event or show). Businesses in the city pay for operators' licenses, liquor licenses and an employee head tax. There are probably other examples. Tourists and business visitors are hit hard, with steep airport, hotel and car rental taxes and fees.
Parking meter revenue is not part of that list because the city doesn't see it. Mayor Richard M. Daley and a compliant City Council sold the parking meter revenue to LAZ Parking for 75 years. They sealed that deal less than two years ago, in December, 2008. Now the Sun-Times reports 90 percent of that up-front money is gone. Of course some of it was intended for immediate budget deficit needs. But all of it? Even if the city drained the fund to prop up its 2011 budget, a $520 million deficit would remain. And the parking meter revenue would still be off-limits for 73 years.
How did the city financial situation get this bad, this fast? There are two costs that are difficult to quantify but play major roles in budgeting malfeasance: corruption and the lack of any political opposition in the city.
There is a corruption scandal linked to Hizzonerdamare's office about every six months. It's always about money--lots of it--and contracts.
In other large cities, proposed budgets with their tax and fee increases are subject to lively debate. In Chicago, the budget is whatever the mayor wants it to be. As a result, there is no control--no system of checks and balances to fight tax/fee increases or egregious spending. The result is predictable: a $700 million shortfall.
What is the price of corruption?
What is the City of Chicago's projected budget deficit for 2011?
There's a question with an answer. It's a mind-boggling $700 million. Assuming a population of 2.9 million, each resident would need to donate $241.38 to the city to balance the budget. ($659.18 per capita.) A grand for a family of four.
Remember the telethon for Detroit in Robocop 2? This is far worse.
It's almost inconceivable that the city's budget situation has reached this nadir. City residents spend thousands of dollars every year on taxes and fees. Vehicle sticker, handgun ownership fee, sales tax, restaurant tax, liquor tax, gas tax, parking garage tax, parking tickets, traffic tickets, red-light camera tickets, and amusement tax (a portion of the ticket price of a movie, sports event or show). Businesses in the city pay for operators' licenses, liquor licenses and an employee head tax. There are probably other examples. Tourists and business visitors are hit hard, with steep airport, hotel and car rental taxes and fees.
Parking meter revenue is not part of that list because the city doesn't see it. Mayor Richard M. Daley and a compliant City Council sold the parking meter revenue to LAZ Parking for 75 years. They sealed that deal less than two years ago, in December, 2008. Now the Sun-Times reports 90 percent of that up-front money is gone. Of course some of it was intended for immediate budget deficit needs. But all of it? Even if the city drained the fund to prop up its 2011 budget, a $520 million deficit would remain. And the parking meter revenue would still be off-limits for 73 years.
How did the city financial situation get this bad, this fast? There are two costs that are difficult to quantify but play major roles in budgeting malfeasance: corruption and the lack of any political opposition in the city.
There is a corruption scandal linked to Hizzonerdamare's office about every six months. It's always about money--lots of it--and contracts.
In other large cities, proposed budgets with their tax and fee increases are subject to lively debate. In Chicago, the budget is whatever the mayor wants it to be. As a result, there is no control--no system of checks and balances to fight tax/fee increases or egregious spending. The result is predictable: a $700 million shortfall.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
SCOTUS shoots down Chicago
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in MacDonald vs. Chicago, a landmark case in which the defendant argued for the ability to deprive its citizens of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves with handguns. The Supreme Court affirmed that Chicago is indeed part of the United States, and regardless of the wishes of its mayor, its citizens are entitled to exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves.
Not so fast, said the City Council. After first considering a limit of one handgun per person (illegal), the aldermen settled on one handgun per person per month. I'm glad I'm not limited to one blog post per month; or one members' meeting of The V Show Fan Club per month. Those limits would infringe on my First Amendment rights. The City Council's law infringes on Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights. Is there a constitutional difference? We'll soon find out. One alderman--Robert Fioretti (2nd), as I recall--warned gun advocates about taking the City to court. Of course, Alderman. The little people wouldn't dare assert their constitutional rights. The law enacts a $100 gun possession license valid for three years. Since this is more than the cost of processing, the license fee is illegal: the city cannot charge its citizens to invoke their Second Amendment rights. The law bans more than one gun in the home being operational; the others must be disassembled. Who is going to enforce that? Stormtroopers? (G-d forbid.) My sense is people who own more than one consider their firearms like fire extinguishers; they want one at the ready on each floor in case of intruders. I don't see how this part of the law is at all helpful in quelling crime; it seems only helpful in weakening law-abiding homeowners. The law also bans gun possession in garages, porches and outside staircases. So criminals know they're safe in those parts of a residence, where the Second Amendment doesn't apply. The law bans gun sales in the city--certainly unconstitutional. The city cannot ban from sale an item the U.S. Supreme Court insists is legal.
"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations," squealed Ald. Joe Moore (49th). Because they're illegal, Alderman. Because they restrict your peasants' constitutional rights. Because they want the same right your long-serving colleagues kept for themselves 28 years ago while banning it for their constituents.
On an issue seemingly controversial in the city, in which two residents successfully defended themselves with handguns they owned, and in which the Chicago Tribune estimates there are 100,000 handguns, this ordinance passed 45-0. I wonder if the aldermen excluded themselves from these restrictions like they did from the original 1982 handgun ban.
Quick question: how does one bring home his just-purchased gun from a gun store outside the city? If it is concealed in one's vehicle and one is stopped by police, who conduct a "probable cause" search, then the concealed weapon violates the state's ban on concealed weapons. If it is in plain sight, and the police see it from their vantage point outside the vehicle, then it violates the city's law against possession away from home. And how does one transport the weapon to the city's mandated target practice sessions? I would love to see the trial for the possession charge.
This is just another example of Chicago's City Council doing the bidding of Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley with no debate or public input. If the Tribune's estimate is true, perhaps 10 percent of homeowners protect themselves with handguns. Shouldn't they have a say in how their Second Amendment rights are being trampled upon?
Not so fast, said the City Council. After first considering a limit of one handgun per person (illegal), the aldermen settled on one handgun per person per month. I'm glad I'm not limited to one blog post per month; or one members' meeting of The V Show Fan Club per month. Those limits would infringe on my First Amendment rights. The City Council's law infringes on Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights. Is there a constitutional difference? We'll soon find out. One alderman--Robert Fioretti (2nd), as I recall--warned gun advocates about taking the City to court. Of course, Alderman. The little people wouldn't dare assert their constitutional rights. The law enacts a $100 gun possession license valid for three years. Since this is more than the cost of processing, the license fee is illegal: the city cannot charge its citizens to invoke their Second Amendment rights. The law bans more than one gun in the home being operational; the others must be disassembled. Who is going to enforce that? Stormtroopers? (G-d forbid.) My sense is people who own more than one consider their firearms like fire extinguishers; they want one at the ready on each floor in case of intruders. I don't see how this part of the law is at all helpful in quelling crime; it seems only helpful in weakening law-abiding homeowners. The law also bans gun possession in garages, porches and outside staircases. So criminals know they're safe in those parts of a residence, where the Second Amendment doesn't apply. The law bans gun sales in the city--certainly unconstitutional. The city cannot ban from sale an item the U.S. Supreme Court insists is legal.
"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations," squealed Ald. Joe Moore (49th). Because they're illegal, Alderman. Because they restrict your peasants' constitutional rights. Because they want the same right your long-serving colleagues kept for themselves 28 years ago while banning it for their constituents.
On an issue seemingly controversial in the city, in which two residents successfully defended themselves with handguns they owned, and in which the Chicago Tribune estimates there are 100,000 handguns, this ordinance passed 45-0. I wonder if the aldermen excluded themselves from these restrictions like they did from the original 1982 handgun ban.
Quick question: how does one bring home his just-purchased gun from a gun store outside the city? If it is concealed in one's vehicle and one is stopped by police, who conduct a "probable cause" search, then the concealed weapon violates the state's ban on concealed weapons. If it is in plain sight, and the police see it from their vantage point outside the vehicle, then it violates the city's law against possession away from home. And how does one transport the weapon to the city's mandated target practice sessions? I would love to see the trial for the possession charge.
This is just another example of Chicago's City Council doing the bidding of Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley with no debate or public input. If the Tribune's estimate is true, perhaps 10 percent of homeowners protect themselves with handguns. Shouldn't they have a say in how their Second Amendment rights are being trampled upon?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Is registration safer?
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Mayor Richard M. Daley seems resigned to his favorite law's fate. Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban, enacted with the hope of reducing violent crime, will most likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court before it adjourns for the summer. In the interview, Hizzoner Da Mare indicated he will require handgun registration. This is necessary, he says, to protect emergency response teams who need to know if a home is armed.
In another report, the same newspaper estimated there are 100,000 illegal handguns in homes all over Chicago. Obviously, most of these are not registered because it is currently impossible to register a new handgun legally in Chicago. (Handguns owned before the ban went into effect are legal.) Let's say there are one million households in Chicago. Maybe ten percent of these have guns. Once the ban is overturned and a registration law goes into effect, how many of these gun owners will bother to register them? Registration fee, licensing fee, fingerprinting fee--for a right that the Supreme Court says is really none of the city's business?
Mayor Daley can blather all he wants about the need for registration to protect cops and firefighters. When one considers that only a percentage (small percentage?) of handguns in the city will be registered, his pronouncements make about as much sense as his certainty that the handgun ban reduces crime.
In another report, the same newspaper estimated there are 100,000 illegal handguns in homes all over Chicago. Obviously, most of these are not registered because it is currently impossible to register a new handgun legally in Chicago. (Handguns owned before the ban went into effect are legal.) Let's say there are one million households in Chicago. Maybe ten percent of these have guns. Once the ban is overturned and a registration law goes into effect, how many of these gun owners will bother to register them? Registration fee, licensing fee, fingerprinting fee--for a right that the Supreme Court says is really none of the city's business?
Mayor Daley can blather all he wants about the need for registration to protect cops and firefighters. When one considers that only a percentage (small percentage?) of handguns in the city will be registered, his pronouncements make about as much sense as his certainty that the handgun ban reduces crime.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Self-defense in the city
Back when I was young, ignorant and naïve, I supported a national handgun ban. It sounds good in theory; guns kill people, so if there are no more guns, violence drops sharply. This theory works perfectly in Mayor Richard M. Daley's dream cloud.
In practice, there are 250 million guns in the U.S. About one-third of American households are armed. No one proposes sending the National Guard to conduct house-to-house search-and-confiscate missions, so those legally-owned guns are here to stay. Local handgun bans prove fruitless as legal weapons in the next town are portable.
During a period of living in the city unarmed, defenseless and dependent upon public transit, I realized weapons neutralize the thugs' physical superiority. Inside one's home, a gun-owners' advantage is even more pronounced. A home invader, desperate as he is for valuables and cash, isn't interested in a gunfight he may lose.
Two final notes.
I have never seen gun-ban advocates suggest that police be disarmed. So they understand intuitively that to keep the citizenry safe, someone needs to pack heat. Since the police can only respond to a violent crime in progress, that someone might as well be us law-abiding citizens.
There were two recent incidents in which Chicago residents defended themselves with weapons they owned illegally. One, an 80-year-old African-American war veteran, shot an intruder who shot out a window to enter his home. The other, a 27-year-old resident of South Austin, shot someone fleeing police who broke into his home. In both cases, Chicago Police did not charge the men with possession of illegal firearms. Why not? Because a citation or arrest--for men using firearms to protect their homes--would create a media sensation and embarrass the Office of the Mayor.
So the secret is out. Chicagoans need not fear prosecution for using handguns in self-defense--which is the reason law-abiding citizens purchase them.
In practice, there are 250 million guns in the U.S. About one-third of American households are armed. No one proposes sending the National Guard to conduct house-to-house search-and-confiscate missions, so those legally-owned guns are here to stay. Local handgun bans prove fruitless as legal weapons in the next town are portable.
During a period of living in the city unarmed, defenseless and dependent upon public transit, I realized weapons neutralize the thugs' physical superiority. Inside one's home, a gun-owners' advantage is even more pronounced. A home invader, desperate as he is for valuables and cash, isn't interested in a gunfight he may lose.
Two final notes.
I have never seen gun-ban advocates suggest that police be disarmed. So they understand intuitively that to keep the citizenry safe, someone needs to pack heat. Since the police can only respond to a violent crime in progress, that someone might as well be us law-abiding citizens.
There were two recent incidents in which Chicago residents defended themselves with weapons they owned illegally. One, an 80-year-old African-American war veteran, shot an intruder who shot out a window to enter his home. The other, a 27-year-old resident of South Austin, shot someone fleeing police who broke into his home. In both cases, Chicago Police did not charge the men with possession of illegal firearms. Why not? Because a citation or arrest--for men using firearms to protect their homes--would create a media sensation and embarrass the Office of the Mayor.
So the secret is out. Chicagoans need not fear prosecution for using handguns in self-defense--which is the reason law-abiding citizens purchase them.
Tax the parking contractor
A friend came up with a solution to Chicago's parking contract problem. Besides numerous complaints about egregious rate hikes and meter boxes in what had been free zones, the real problem is the contracts' chief benefit is almost gone. The 75-year contract provided the city with billions in upfront cash in exchange for relinquishing meter revenue, with regularly scheduled rate hikes, for the next 75 years. While there was an understanding that some of the upfront cash would be spent right away to balance the city's budget, there was also an expectation that the city would bank the remainder for a "rainy day fund." Instead, Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley is thinking exactly the opposite: that future boom times will be needed to refill the coffers of the parking contract account. (By the way, how many tax cuts did the city allow in the boom 1990's? That's what I thought. And the mayor appears unopposed for re-election in a mere eight months.)
So my friend suggests passing a state law that levies an annual fee of $100 million on parking contractors for cities of more than one million people. There is only one such city in Illinois. I told him that if such legislation passed, LAZ Parking, the contractor, would sue. My friend, an attorney, believes the legislation would withstand a legal challenge. Whether it would withstand vigorous, vehement opposition from the mayor is another matter. If it passed, LAZ would likely be forced to abandon its control of Chicago's parking meters, ceding meter revenue back to the city. While this would be a revenue bonanza for the city, it would seriously undercut the mayor's ability to make deals with other contractors. The contractors would hesitate, fearing an unpopular deal would be made prohibitively expensive by the clowns in Springfield.
Some conspiracy theorists, including The Parking Ticket Geek, believe that forcing out LAZ was the city's plan all along--to make a sucker deal look like a dream deal. I find that hard to believe. But the Illinois Statehouse could end LAZ's meter box reign--and return meter cash receipts to the cash-starved city.
So my friend suggests passing a state law that levies an annual fee of $100 million on parking contractors for cities of more than one million people. There is only one such city in Illinois. I told him that if such legislation passed, LAZ Parking, the contractor, would sue. My friend, an attorney, believes the legislation would withstand a legal challenge. Whether it would withstand vigorous, vehement opposition from the mayor is another matter. If it passed, LAZ would likely be forced to abandon its control of Chicago's parking meters, ceding meter revenue back to the city. While this would be a revenue bonanza for the city, it would seriously undercut the mayor's ability to make deals with other contractors. The contractors would hesitate, fearing an unpopular deal would be made prohibitively expensive by the clowns in Springfield.
Some conspiracy theorists, including The Parking Ticket Geek, believe that forcing out LAZ was the city's plan all along--to make a sucker deal look like a dream deal. I find that hard to believe. But the Illinois Statehouse could end LAZ's meter box reign--and return meter cash receipts to the cash-starved city.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Speak softly and pack heat
The Chicago Tribune printed my letter in its Feb. 9, 2010 edition. A little background: On Jan. 31, the Tribune ran an article profiling Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident who owns rifles but would like to purchase a handgun to protect his home. He and his wife have suffered several home invasions. With the assistance of a legal team, McDonald is the named plaintiff in McDonald vs. Chicago, a case challenging Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear beginning March 2. Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley, who enjoys taxpayer-funded 24-hour armed police protection, vehemently opposes having the law being repealed or ruled unconstitutional.
The letter-writer I refer to, Irving Maslow of Northbrook, had yet another letter published near mine in the Feb. 9 newspaper. He still opposes handgun ownership.
Dear Editor:
Colleen Mastony's excellent profile of Otis McDonald ("The Public Face of Gun Rights," Page One, Jan. 31) offers an opportunity to respond to a Voice letter that appeared Jan. 9. A gentleman from Northbrook states simply, "Guns should be banned everywhere by law" and is absolutely sure they are never used in self-defense because he has never heard anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
This gentleman doesn't offer a suggestion of what to do with the 200 million handguns currently in circulation in America, the vast majority of which are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In the safety of his low-crime Northbrook community, surrounded by other low-crime communities and miles removed from Chicago's dangerous neighborhoods, surely he can't imagine needing to defend oneself and one's home, as Mr. McDonald does on a constant basis. A handgun can be "used" in self-defense simply by announcing to an intruder or would-be attacker, "I am armed." Such incidents rarely show up in statistics. A handgun is a solitary woman's best friend, as well as anyone else who wants to protect him/herself.
The Northbrook letter-writer wants American troops to protect us. Right. Police respond to draw chalk outlines. It's up to us to protect our own homes and families with the best defense available: handguns.
The letter-writer I refer to, Irving Maslow of Northbrook, had yet another letter published near mine in the Feb. 9 newspaper. He still opposes handgun ownership.
Dear Editor:
Colleen Mastony's excellent profile of Otis McDonald ("The Public Face of Gun Rights," Page One, Jan. 31) offers an opportunity to respond to a Voice letter that appeared Jan. 9. A gentleman from Northbrook states simply, "Guns should be banned everywhere by law" and is absolutely sure they are never used in self-defense because he has never heard anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
This gentleman doesn't offer a suggestion of what to do with the 200 million handguns currently in circulation in America, the vast majority of which are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In the safety of his low-crime Northbrook community, surrounded by other low-crime communities and miles removed from Chicago's dangerous neighborhoods, surely he can't imagine needing to defend oneself and one's home, as Mr. McDonald does on a constant basis. A handgun can be "used" in self-defense simply by announcing to an intruder or would-be attacker, "I am armed." Such incidents rarely show up in statistics. A handgun is a solitary woman's best friend, as well as anyone else who wants to protect him/herself.
The Northbrook letter-writer wants American troops to protect us. Right. Police respond to draw chalk outlines. It's up to us to protect our own homes and families with the best defense available: handguns.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Mr. Ricketts: Demand 55 night games at Wrigley
As the Ricketts family takes control of the Chicago Cubs, an ownership era comes to a close (1981-2009). A new one begins, and the owner has a large stack in his in-box already. Among the issues that confront him: what to do about that dump Wrigley Field.
A Sun-Times article said the new owner has a plan for a $250 million renovation for the main grandstand that would be complete in time for the renovated ballpark to host the 2012 All-Star Game. (I believe the next two are scheduled for Phoenix and Anaheim.)
My suggestion for the owner is to call a meeting with Ald. Tom Tunney (44th--the ballpark's ward) and Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley. As calmly as possible, Ricketts should explain to Ald. Tunney and Mayor Daley he will not put one dime into the ballpark unless the night game restrictions are lifted. There are two restrictions: the number of night games per season (30) and the days of week (Monday through Thursday only, with exceptions permitted for ESPN Sunday Night Baseball). I believe very strongly these restrictions wear the Cubs down in the heat of the summer and are actively keeping them from pursuing a world championship. I also believe very strongly a majority of Wrigley residents favor more night games. The neighbors who originally forced the restrictions on the Cubs when the Cubs installed Wrigley's lights in 1988 have had 22 seasons to make peace with night games. It's high time the Cubs' home schedule look like its rivals' home schedules.
I wouldn't object to a gradual lifting of the game limit, by five games per season. But the Friday/Saturday night ban must be lifted immediately, in time for the 2010 season. If the alderman and mayor refuse, that's fine. The Ricketts can afford to build a 21st-Century replica of Wrigley Field in the northwest suburbs. Then the mayor would need to figure out how to replace that missing geyser of tax revenue the Cubs produce: property taxes, entertainment taxes (tickets), excise taxes (beer, hard liquor), and sales taxes (tickets, concessions). There's even a parking tax when the Cubs operate their night-game parking lot at Lane Tech.
With its fantastic new scoreboard and new upper deck, Wrigley Field was state-of-the-art in 1938. Now it's an aging dump with abhorrent restrooms and substandard facilities and amenities. If the Ricketts can renovate the ballpark and make it look new, more power to them. If not, it's time to move on.
A Sun-Times article said the new owner has a plan for a $250 million renovation for the main grandstand that would be complete in time for the renovated ballpark to host the 2012 All-Star Game. (I believe the next two are scheduled for Phoenix and Anaheim.)
My suggestion for the owner is to call a meeting with Ald. Tom Tunney (44th--the ballpark's ward) and Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley. As calmly as possible, Ricketts should explain to Ald. Tunney and Mayor Daley he will not put one dime into the ballpark unless the night game restrictions are lifted. There are two restrictions: the number of night games per season (30) and the days of week (Monday through Thursday only, with exceptions permitted for ESPN Sunday Night Baseball). I believe very strongly these restrictions wear the Cubs down in the heat of the summer and are actively keeping them from pursuing a world championship. I also believe very strongly a majority of Wrigley residents favor more night games. The neighbors who originally forced the restrictions on the Cubs when the Cubs installed Wrigley's lights in 1988 have had 22 seasons to make peace with night games. It's high time the Cubs' home schedule look like its rivals' home schedules.
I wouldn't object to a gradual lifting of the game limit, by five games per season. But the Friday/Saturday night ban must be lifted immediately, in time for the 2010 season. If the alderman and mayor refuse, that's fine. The Ricketts can afford to build a 21st-Century replica of Wrigley Field in the northwest suburbs. Then the mayor would need to figure out how to replace that missing geyser of tax revenue the Cubs produce: property taxes, entertainment taxes (tickets), excise taxes (beer, hard liquor), and sales taxes (tickets, concessions). There's even a parking tax when the Cubs operate their night-game parking lot at Lane Tech.
With its fantastic new scoreboard and new upper deck, Wrigley Field was state-of-the-art in 1938. Now it's an aging dump with abhorrent restrooms and substandard facilities and amenities. If the Ricketts can renovate the ballpark and make it look new, more power to them. If not, it's time to move on.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Guns in the City
From Chicago Tribune Voice of the People, July 18:
Make city safer
July 18, 2009
Make city safer
This is in response to "Weekend sees rash of killings; 11 people slain, dozens injured in city violence" (News, July 7). Most were shooting victims.
The prevalence of shootings in a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country shows that these restrictions are meaningless; they also provide the best argument for Illinois to join the majority of the states by permitting qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Mayor Richard Daley is busy rhapsodizing about the virtues of blowing taxpayer dollars to host the 2016 Olympic Games in the city. Why would the committee that decides where the games will be held want to put athletes and staffers in Chicago where the odds are too high that they will be shot or killed by some moron?
I truly love Chicago and I fully acknowledge that our suburban enclaves wouldn't be worth much if they were not located near the city. However, my trips to the city have dropped sharply as the sales taxes have soared, as parking lot and parking meter prices have spiked, as the potholes have become more numerous and deeper, and as violence soars out of control. I suggest that the mayor forget the Olympics and redirect his considerable enthusiasm toward casting a new marketing plan for the city. The new plan should focus upon making the city a safer and more economical venue for those who want to come into town for recreation and fun. Ideally they could do this while legally packing a pistol in their belts or purses -- just in case.
-- Charles F. Falk, Schaumburg
Make city safer
July 18, 2009
Make city safer
This is in response to "Weekend sees rash of killings; 11 people slain, dozens injured in city violence" (News, July 7). Most were shooting victims.
The prevalence of shootings in a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country shows that these restrictions are meaningless; they also provide the best argument for Illinois to join the majority of the states by permitting qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Mayor Richard Daley is busy rhapsodizing about the virtues of blowing taxpayer dollars to host the 2016 Olympic Games in the city. Why would the committee that decides where the games will be held want to put athletes and staffers in Chicago where the odds are too high that they will be shot or killed by some moron?
I truly love Chicago and I fully acknowledge that our suburban enclaves wouldn't be worth much if they were not located near the city. However, my trips to the city have dropped sharply as the sales taxes have soared, as parking lot and parking meter prices have spiked, as the potholes have become more numerous and deeper, and as violence soars out of control. I suggest that the mayor forget the Olympics and redirect his considerable enthusiasm toward casting a new marketing plan for the city. The new plan should focus upon making the city a safer and more economical venue for those who want to come into town for recreation and fun. Ideally they could do this while legally packing a pistol in their belts or purses -- just in case.
-- Charles F. Falk, Schaumburg
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
City Hall corruption
My friend and former high school classmate Matt's comment after I posted an article about people close to the mayor being convicted and sentenced to prison, while Hizzoner Da Mare stays above it all:
Ken, know this. While I am no fan of the mayor, he is a product of Chicago politics... The Chicago Political Machine. Changing a part will not fix the machine. How do you change something that has foundations as old as the city itself? The unions and how corrupt they've become are an equal part of the travesty. Hope you're well.
********
Matt is correct. Corruption is part of the Chicago culture. And that is what we need to change. Too many people here sigh, shake their heads, wring their hands, and simply assume that corruption, graft, greed and payoffs are simply the cost of keeping the city running. And that there's nothing that can be done about that. It isn't true. I don't have all the answers. There is no Holy Grail (or if you prefer, silver bullet). We see the costs every year as the city continues to fall apart, the budget is a mess, and taxes go up--every year. Was it this bad during the Daley-free interregnum, 1976-1989? NO, it wasn't. The three mayors balanced budgets. Taxes weren't so high. The city wasn't broke, and the mayors didn't resort to selling off huge pieces of the city (Skyway, Midway Airport, parking meters) for short-term financial gain. It can be done. Once we view corruption as something to be defeated rather than something to live with/deal with, the high cost of corruption can be redirected to something more substantive: our pocketbooks.
Ken, know this. While I am no fan of the mayor, he is a product of Chicago politics... The Chicago Political Machine. Changing a part will not fix the machine. How do you change something that has foundations as old as the city itself? The unions and how corrupt they've become are an equal part of the travesty. Hope you're well.
********
Matt is correct. Corruption is part of the Chicago culture. And that is what we need to change. Too many people here sigh, shake their heads, wring their hands, and simply assume that corruption, graft, greed and payoffs are simply the cost of keeping the city running. And that there's nothing that can be done about that. It isn't true. I don't have all the answers. There is no Holy Grail (or if you prefer, silver bullet). We see the costs every year as the city continues to fall apart, the budget is a mess, and taxes go up--every year. Was it this bad during the Daley-free interregnum, 1976-1989? NO, it wasn't. The three mayors balanced budgets. Taxes weren't so high. The city wasn't broke, and the mayors didn't resort to selling off huge pieces of the city (Skyway, Midway Airport, parking meters) for short-term financial gain. It can be done. Once we view corruption as something to be defeated rather than something to live with/deal with, the high cost of corruption can be redirected to something more substantive: our pocketbooks.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Does anyone still use in-line skates?
It was beautiful in Chicago today with highs in the low 70's under perfect, cloudless blue skies. Can't ask for better than that. I wanted to do something outdoors, but not just sitting outside reading the paper. So I went hunting for my circa-1994 Rollerblade in-line skates, which I certainly have not used since 2004 and possibly years before that. I laced them up, added helmet, wristguards and mp3 player, and hit the suburban concrete. Except for soreness just below my inside ankles, they felt good. I think they need a tuneup and wheel rotation. I was able to maintain my balance except for one near-spill, thank G-d. I went 3½ mi. or so as others enjoyed the weather, playing driveway hoops, walking dogs and babies, playing street lacrosse, or riding bikes. It was a typical nice-weather suburban scene. Not particularly interesting but quaint nonetheless.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Shuls in Rogers Park, Lincolnwood vandalized
The Chicagoland Jewish community is abuzz with the news that Palestinian sympathizers vandalized five shuls over the holy Sabbath last weekend. Some vandals broke plate-glass windows, and others spray-painted "Death to Israel" on shuls' front doors. Jewish organizations, including schools, are taking extra security precautions. After all, Hamas targets children. The Hamas rocket launcher operators and suicide bombers are heroes to these vandals. There's no reason they would hesitate to target Jewish children.
This seems like a great time to start packing heat.
But no.
We can't do that.
Not in Chicago, we can't.
We can act like the vandals and antisemites expect us to act--frozen with fear. We can check our backs as we walk down California Avenue. We can wave to the cop cars conspicuously parked at various locations around the neighborhood. We can walk in groups. Some of us will stop going to shul; I remember someone telling me that she stopped going because "I don't want to be killed." And that was several years ago. It doesn't stop.
This is all window dressing. Without guns inside and outside our homes, we are giving up our best defense--our best way of defending ourselves against extreme violence. If the vandals, who most likely live in Rogers Park or nearby, knew that we were a well-armed community, they wouldn't be so quick to throw bricks through our synagogue windows or spray-paint synagogue doors. They would worry about getting shot. I have heard (but cannot verify) that some shuls practice a bit of civil disobedience--one guy in the shul wears a gun during services. And he's not a cop. He's just a member--a "minyanaire" regular, maybe a shul officer--who is always there and always carrying. He helps protect the shul. Meanwhile, willingly or not, he is giving Hizzoner Da Mare the finger. Mayor Richard M. Daley, Mr. Anti-Gun himself, who has 24-hr. protection--two cops on him at all times, thanks to the taxpayers of the City. Da Mare, who doesn't think the people should be permitted to defend themselves.
The National Rifle Association's lawsuit against the city to overturn its handgun ban should go to trial sometime this year, with a decision, I hope, by summer. Other cities, like Evanston, have capitulated and rewritten their handgun bans. Mayor Daley wants to spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have to fight this case in court. Why? It would make great television for the parents of a murdered child, c'v', to ask him that question. A child killed for the crime of being Jewish. I hope we never, ever have that opportunity.
This seems like a great time to start packing heat.
But no.
We can't do that.
Not in Chicago, we can't.
We can act like the vandals and antisemites expect us to act--frozen with fear. We can check our backs as we walk down California Avenue. We can wave to the cop cars conspicuously parked at various locations around the neighborhood. We can walk in groups. Some of us will stop going to shul; I remember someone telling me that she stopped going because "I don't want to be killed." And that was several years ago. It doesn't stop.
This is all window dressing. Without guns inside and outside our homes, we are giving up our best defense--our best way of defending ourselves against extreme violence. If the vandals, who most likely live in Rogers Park or nearby, knew that we were a well-armed community, they wouldn't be so quick to throw bricks through our synagogue windows or spray-paint synagogue doors. They would worry about getting shot. I have heard (but cannot verify) that some shuls practice a bit of civil disobedience--one guy in the shul wears a gun during services. And he's not a cop. He's just a member--a "minyanaire" regular, maybe a shul officer--who is always there and always carrying. He helps protect the shul. Meanwhile, willingly or not, he is giving Hizzoner Da Mare the finger. Mayor Richard M. Daley, Mr. Anti-Gun himself, who has 24-hr. protection--two cops on him at all times, thanks to the taxpayers of the City. Da Mare, who doesn't think the people should be permitted to defend themselves.
The National Rifle Association's lawsuit against the city to overturn its handgun ban should go to trial sometime this year, with a decision, I hope, by summer. Other cities, like Evanston, have capitulated and rewritten their handgun bans. Mayor Daley wants to spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have to fight this case in court. Why? It would make great television for the parents of a murdered child, c'v', to ask him that question. A child killed for the crime of being Jewish. I hope we never, ever have that opportunity.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Detroit Red Wings 6, Chicago Blackhawks 4
Nine hours after leaving Andersonville early Thursday morning, I parked on Argyle Street to meet my friend for the game viewing party we were to attend in Lakeview. What a beautiful place these guys had! It was on Waveland Avenue, just across the street from Wrigley Field Gates J and K, which are bleacher entrances. The Waveland Avenue circus atmosphere before and after Cubs games was in full force today. I saw the fighter jets roar overhead after the national anthems, and I could hear the crowd after the (too few) Blackhawks goals. I walked right past the NHL refrigeration truck that controlled the ice temperature.
When are the Blackhawks going to beat the Red Wings? Sometime this season, please? They seem to have "two-goal-lead-itis." They had a two-goal lead Dec. 6, too, and that one was in the third period. Today's only lasted until the second. The Red Wings are a far superior team; they're 4-0 against the Blackhawks so far this season. The Hawks need to figure out how to reach the Wings' level of play.
The NHL worked hard to dress up that dump Wrigley Field as much as possible for the Winter Classic today. One nice addition was the two video screens the NHL installed for the fans' benefit. Could the Cubs possibly do the same? Nah....more fun to keep fans in the dark!
From my vantage point across from that bleacher entrance, I could see the queue for the men's room. This reminded me again how disgusting the men's rooms at Wrigley Field are. There aren't enough of them, and they have troughs instead of individual stalls. What a horrid health code violation! I firmly believe once the Cubs receive permission from the city to renovate the ballpark, they should completely raze the main grandstand and rebuild it. Fans need modern amenities and conveniences, such as: clean restrooms, wide concourses, more concession stands, decent gift shoppes, comfortable seats with cupholders and decent, unobstructed views, and seat numbering systems that actually make sense. The main grandstand was never designed to hold 35,000 people 81 times a year. That's what the Cubs demand of it, and it's not holding up its part of the bargain. Not at all. (Actually, the Cubs added the upper deck 22 years after the ballpark opened, so it's not surprising they don't work together well.) "Disgusting" is not the same as "charming." Please.
I love hearing Red Wings fans crowing about their city. None of them live in Detroit. They live in East Side suburbs. None of them ever set foot in Detroit unless they're visiting MGM Grand or attending a game (Lions, Tigers and Wings, oh my!). They're terrified of their crime-ridden city. Two entire generations of Detroit-area suburbanites have lived outside of Detroit their whole lives--since 1967. Very sad.
When are the Blackhawks going to beat the Red Wings? Sometime this season, please? They seem to have "two-goal-lead-itis." They had a two-goal lead Dec. 6, too, and that one was in the third period. Today's only lasted until the second. The Red Wings are a far superior team; they're 4-0 against the Blackhawks so far this season. The Hawks need to figure out how to reach the Wings' level of play.
The NHL worked hard to dress up that dump Wrigley Field as much as possible for the Winter Classic today. One nice addition was the two video screens the NHL installed for the fans' benefit. Could the Cubs possibly do the same? Nah....more fun to keep fans in the dark!
From my vantage point across from that bleacher entrance, I could see the queue for the men's room. This reminded me again how disgusting the men's rooms at Wrigley Field are. There aren't enough of them, and they have troughs instead of individual stalls. What a horrid health code violation! I firmly believe once the Cubs receive permission from the city to renovate the ballpark, they should completely raze the main grandstand and rebuild it. Fans need modern amenities and conveniences, such as: clean restrooms, wide concourses, more concession stands, decent gift shoppes, comfortable seats with cupholders and decent, unobstructed views, and seat numbering systems that actually make sense. The main grandstand was never designed to hold 35,000 people 81 times a year. That's what the Cubs demand of it, and it's not holding up its part of the bargain. Not at all. (Actually, the Cubs added the upper deck 22 years after the ballpark opened, so it's not surprising they don't work together well.) "Disgusting" is not the same as "charming." Please.
I love hearing Red Wings fans crowing about their city. None of them live in Detroit. They live in East Side suburbs. None of them ever set foot in Detroit unless they're visiting MGM Grand or attending a game (Lions, Tigers and Wings, oh my!). They're terrified of their crime-ridden city. Two entire generations of Detroit-area suburbanites have lived outside of Detroit their whole lives--since 1967. Very sad.
Monday, December 15, 2008
What is the purpose of a stop sign?
I think my disagreement with a couple of friends—okay, more than a couple—stems from a disagreement about the purpose of a stop sign. For me, a stop sign is to prevent side street traffic from interfering with traffic on major thoroughfares. It could also be used to prevent accidents at intersections of two side streets, but a four-way stop sign should only be used in extreme circumstances—certainly not at nearly every intersection in a neighborhood, as is found in, say, West Rogers Park. A stop sign should not be used:
To protect a park, which has pedestrian traffic a few hours a day in warm-weather months
To protect a school, which has pedestrian traffic two hours a day, 180 days a year
To help people cross a major street. Illinois law already requires motorists to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, so a stop sign is redundant.
As I’ve previously noted in this blog, Chicago residents whine to their aldermen about allegedly dangerous intersections. The alderman quickly install stop signs to placate the masses. Former Ald. Burt Natarus (42nd), whom I couldn’t stand, loved doing this. So did former Ald. Bernie Hansen (44th) and his successor, Ald. Tom Tunney. So does Ald. Bernie Stone (50th). Main thoroughfares that motorists once navigated rather quickly are now stop-and-go ordeals that are no better than side streets and often worse. I would support electric or temporary stop signs that were operational only when pedestrians were actually using the crosswalk. But a 24-7 stop sign is terribly unfair to motorists forced to stop and check for pedestrian traffic all hours of the day and night when there are precious few pedestrians to begin with. Why do commuters on their way to catch a train at 7:15am in the dead of winter need to stop for a playground stop sign? It’s ludicrous and a terrible imposition of government—the tyranny of a few determining the laws for the rest of us.
A few final notes:
Streets with bus routes should never have stop signs. That includes Touhy and California Avenues.
Aldermen should not have the right to install stop signs without expensive traffic studies that their budgets cannot afford.
Major streets with traffic lights should not have stop signs.
Streets with long stop sign-free stretches, like Touhy Avenue between Western Avenue and I-294 (9 mi.), should never have stop signs.
Stop signs waste motorists’ fuel and time and inflict more wear and tear on their vehicles. Government and neighborhood groups should be working together to remove stop signs, not install more. Fewer stop signs would mean the remaining stop signs receive more motorist compliance. As it stands, motorists pay less and less attention to stop signs as they continue to sprout like weeds around town. This makes our streets less safe for pedestrians—the opposite of the stated goal of the fanatical stop sign activists.
To protect a park, which has pedestrian traffic a few hours a day in warm-weather months
To protect a school, which has pedestrian traffic two hours a day, 180 days a year
To help people cross a major street. Illinois law already requires motorists to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, so a stop sign is redundant.
As I’ve previously noted in this blog, Chicago residents whine to their aldermen about allegedly dangerous intersections. The alderman quickly install stop signs to placate the masses. Former Ald. Burt Natarus (42nd), whom I couldn’t stand, loved doing this. So did former Ald. Bernie Hansen (44th) and his successor, Ald. Tom Tunney. So does Ald. Bernie Stone (50th). Main thoroughfares that motorists once navigated rather quickly are now stop-and-go ordeals that are no better than side streets and often worse. I would support electric or temporary stop signs that were operational only when pedestrians were actually using the crosswalk. But a 24-7 stop sign is terribly unfair to motorists forced to stop and check for pedestrian traffic all hours of the day and night when there are precious few pedestrians to begin with. Why do commuters on their way to catch a train at 7:15am in the dead of winter need to stop for a playground stop sign? It’s ludicrous and a terrible imposition of government—the tyranny of a few determining the laws for the rest of us.
A few final notes:
Streets with bus routes should never have stop signs. That includes Touhy and California Avenues.
Aldermen should not have the right to install stop signs without expensive traffic studies that their budgets cannot afford.
Major streets with traffic lights should not have stop signs.
Streets with long stop sign-free stretches, like Touhy Avenue between Western Avenue and I-294 (9 mi.), should never have stop signs.
Stop signs waste motorists’ fuel and time and inflict more wear and tear on their vehicles. Government and neighborhood groups should be working together to remove stop signs, not install more. Fewer stop signs would mean the remaining stop signs receive more motorist compliance. As it stands, motorists pay less and less attention to stop signs as they continue to sprout like weeds around town. This makes our streets less safe for pedestrians—the opposite of the stated goal of the fanatical stop sign activists.
Monday, December 8, 2008
How much for valet parking?
There’s a certain cachet for valet parking—drop off the car right in front, have it waiting when leaving. If there’s no velvet rope line, there’s no need even to bring one’s coat inside. My friends were extolling the virtues of valet parking at Zella Saturday night, on Clybourn near Armitage Avenue. I parked on the street a block away and braved the cold for all of two minutes. Is it really worth $10 plus tip? For me it depends on how bad the parking situation is. In a downtown or heavily congested entertainment district, it’s likely there is no nearby parking. So valet means paying the guy to park one’s car illegally, which he gets away with since he’s the valet. Does that involve "tipping" police? Sounds like a great scam to me. Has anyone had good or bad experiences with valet parking he or she would like to share? And is there valet in Chicago under $10?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Could an armed citizenry stop a terrorist AK-47 attack?
I’m not sure we’ll ever find out.
I would have been very interested if Mayor Richard M. “No Guns” Daley had a security meeting with Chief of Police Jody Weis after the Mumbai attacks last week. “How can we protect the people of Chicago from such an attack?” One or two years ago, I read a magazine article that suggested several inexpensive soft-target attacks in the U.S. One was launching a heat-seeking missile from a Southern California beach at a passenger aircraft on its takeoff path. Another was the kidnap and murder of a congressman. Two more were detonating bombs aboard approaching ships near New York Harbor and the Houston refineries. The fifth was an automatic-weapon attack by multiple terrorists at a crowded shopping mall in December, with a bomb timed to detonate at the loading dock right about the time the SWAT team would show up.
It’s the last one that most concerns me. Unlike another terrorism-prone country, we don’t have metal detectors at shopping-mall entrances. (They would come after an attack.) How to stop an attack once it is in progress? It only takes a few minutes—often less time than emergency response takes to show up—to inflict high numbers of casualties. A terrorist group would be far less likely to plan an attack on civilians whom they know are likely to be armed, and vice versa. That increases the probability of an attack within the City of Chicago. In Texas, where law-abiding citizens can legally pack heat, I imagine terrorists would be concerned about being shot and take their murderous plans elsewhere.
I never thought I’d say anything complimentary about Texas.
I would have been very interested if Mayor Richard M. “No Guns” Daley had a security meeting with Chief of Police Jody Weis after the Mumbai attacks last week. “How can we protect the people of Chicago from such an attack?” One or two years ago, I read a magazine article that suggested several inexpensive soft-target attacks in the U.S. One was launching a heat-seeking missile from a Southern California beach at a passenger aircraft on its takeoff path. Another was the kidnap and murder of a congressman. Two more were detonating bombs aboard approaching ships near New York Harbor and the Houston refineries. The fifth was an automatic-weapon attack by multiple terrorists at a crowded shopping mall in December, with a bomb timed to detonate at the loading dock right about the time the SWAT team would show up.
It’s the last one that most concerns me. Unlike another terrorism-prone country, we don’t have metal detectors at shopping-mall entrances. (They would come after an attack.) How to stop an attack once it is in progress? It only takes a few minutes—often less time than emergency response takes to show up—to inflict high numbers of casualties. A terrorist group would be far less likely to plan an attack on civilians whom they know are likely to be armed, and vice versa. That increases the probability of an attack within the City of Chicago. In Texas, where law-abiding citizens can legally pack heat, I imagine terrorists would be concerned about being shot and take their murderous plans elsewhere.
I never thought I’d say anything complimentary about Texas.
Great parking spot just asking for trouble
I found a great parking space in Lincoln Park last night, just a block from Mad River, my destination. After depositing my last two quarters, I realized the meter didn’t acknowledge my four bits. So I dutifully called “311” (non-emergency) to report the broken meter. The nice lady took down the location and meter number, and then warned me that I would get a ticket anyway, and that reporting the problem proved that I knew the meter was broken, so I shouldn’t be parking there. (So parking there should be permitted IMHO.) I was out of quarters! Happily, the guy in front of me left right after my phone call ended, and his meter had 42 minutes left. That kept me safe until 8:54, and I prayed the PEA and police wouldn’t bother for the final six minutes. No ticket. Phew.
Monday, November 10, 2008
New stoplight at 2300 W Irving Park Rd
Driving to Lakeview on the 30th, I noticed a new stoplight ready to go online at Irving Park Road and Oakley Avenue, halfway between Western Avenue and Leavitt Street.
Sitting and sputtering along at about 6 mph on eastbound Irving Park that night, I can say with absolute confidence the last thing Irving Park needs is yet another stoplight. Irving Park tends to be heavily congested between its Kennedy Expressway ramps (at Pulaski) and Lake Shore Drive, and often for several miles west of the Kennedy as well. It’s bad for everyone except residents of Oakley Avenue who want to turn left. So thousands of motorists, truckers and bus riders are stopped daily for the convenience of a few.
This is so Chicago. I haven’t been able to track down online the approximate cost of a stoplight installation, but my guess is it is around $100,000 or more. In Chicago, this usually involves three or four posts into the ground, plus the overhead arms.
Having lived in Chicago for more than a decade, I have long decried the explosion of stop-sign installations as they sprout like weeds. Every excuse—a school (kids), a park (kids), a condo complex (old people)—is used, regardless of the actual number of pedestrians. The alderman signs off on the petition, and there’s another 24-hour traffic stop. There are several intersections in Chicago—either T-intersections or bizarre one-way configurations—in which cross-traffic is impossible. So the stop sign is there just for fun or just for the convenience of the occasional pedestrian. If you don’t believe me, I can show you in Rogers Park and the Gold Coast, respectively, these intersections.
2
w
STOP a
(A park is here.) y>>>>One way east>>>>>>>>
t STOP
r
a Fig. 1. A T-intersection with a worthless stop sign.
f
f
i
c
2
w
STOP a
<<<< 1-way west < >>>>One way east>>>>>>>>
y STOP
t
r
a Fig. 2. An intersection with no cross-flow traffic
f and a stop sign.
f
i
c
With the massive increase in vehicles and miles driven in Chicago over the past several years, we need fewer traffic controls, not more. I’m not suggesting uncontrolled intersections, like in Lincolnwood. I’m suggesting far fewer four-way stop signs. Let drivers drive! If an intersection doesn’t warrant a traffic signal, remove it and post stop signs at the minor street so the major-street traffic can continue in peace. If kids are crossing the street for a park or a school, then install an electric stop sign activated either by a timer or a janitor. There’s no reason hundreds of Metra commuters driving eastbound on Lunt to the Rogers Park train station at 6:30am in December need to screech to a complete stop for a playground used after school and on weekends when it’s nice out. (There are two of those on Lunt: near Western and near Ridge.) For one driver on one day, it’s no big deal. But the cumulative effect is thousands of dollars lost in time, gasoline and brake decay over the course of a year.
Part of the problem in Chicago is that no one pays attention to crosswalks. If police aggressively ticketed crosswalk violators—and CPD has tried enforcement zones recently—there would be no need for the flurry of stop signs, and “No Turn on Red 7am-7pm” could change to “Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians.” So much friendlier, so much time and gas saved.
Two other complaints about commuting in Chicago:
1. Chicago has no “Yield” signs. They would make slowing for an intersection legal; that’s what most people do at stop signs anyway. There are so many stop signs now they are no longer taken seriously.
2. At intersections with sparse late-night cross traffic, let the signals flash yellow on the major street and red on the minor street 11pm-6am. How much gasoline is wasted sitting at lights with no traffic? It’s outrageous.
Major Chicago streets that were once pleasant thoroughfares with lights every half-mile or so have become stop-sign minefields:
1. Sheffield Avenue
2. Halsted Street
3. Clark Street (the Grace and School signs back up traffic for blocks)
4. Sheridan Road
5. Inner Lake Shore Drive between West Sheridan Road and Belmont Avenue
6. California Avenue
7. Diversey Avenue
8. Randolph Street
9. Lake Street
10. Broadway (that Melrose stop sign is a killer)
Sitting and sputtering along at about 6 mph on eastbound Irving Park that night, I can say with absolute confidence the last thing Irving Park needs is yet another stoplight. Irving Park tends to be heavily congested between its Kennedy Expressway ramps (at Pulaski) and Lake Shore Drive, and often for several miles west of the Kennedy as well. It’s bad for everyone except residents of Oakley Avenue who want to turn left. So thousands of motorists, truckers and bus riders are stopped daily for the convenience of a few.
This is so Chicago. I haven’t been able to track down online the approximate cost of a stoplight installation, but my guess is it is around $100,000 or more. In Chicago, this usually involves three or four posts into the ground, plus the overhead arms.
Having lived in Chicago for more than a decade, I have long decried the explosion of stop-sign installations as they sprout like weeds. Every excuse—a school (kids), a park (kids), a condo complex (old people)—is used, regardless of the actual number of pedestrians. The alderman signs off on the petition, and there’s another 24-hour traffic stop. There are several intersections in Chicago—either T-intersections or bizarre one-way configurations—in which cross-traffic is impossible. So the stop sign is there just for fun or just for the convenience of the occasional pedestrian. If you don’t believe me, I can show you in Rogers Park and the Gold Coast, respectively, these intersections.
2
w
STOP a
(A park is here.) y>>>>One way east>>>>>>>>
t STOP
r
a Fig. 1. A T-intersection with a worthless stop sign.
f
f
i
c
2
w
STOP a
<<<< 1-way west < >>>>One way east>>>>>>>>
y STOP
t
r
a Fig. 2. An intersection with no cross-flow traffic
f and a stop sign.
f
i
c
With the massive increase in vehicles and miles driven in Chicago over the past several years, we need fewer traffic controls, not more. I’m not suggesting uncontrolled intersections, like in Lincolnwood. I’m suggesting far fewer four-way stop signs. Let drivers drive! If an intersection doesn’t warrant a traffic signal, remove it and post stop signs at the minor street so the major-street traffic can continue in peace. If kids are crossing the street for a park or a school, then install an electric stop sign activated either by a timer or a janitor. There’s no reason hundreds of Metra commuters driving eastbound on Lunt to the Rogers Park train station at 6:30am in December need to screech to a complete stop for a playground used after school and on weekends when it’s nice out. (There are two of those on Lunt: near Western and near Ridge.) For one driver on one day, it’s no big deal. But the cumulative effect is thousands of dollars lost in time, gasoline and brake decay over the course of a year.
Part of the problem in Chicago is that no one pays attention to crosswalks. If police aggressively ticketed crosswalk violators—and CPD has tried enforcement zones recently—there would be no need for the flurry of stop signs, and “No Turn on Red 7am-7pm” could change to “Turning vehicles yield to pedestrians.” So much friendlier, so much time and gas saved.
Two other complaints about commuting in Chicago:
1. Chicago has no “Yield” signs. They would make slowing for an intersection legal; that’s what most people do at stop signs anyway. There are so many stop signs now they are no longer taken seriously.
2. At intersections with sparse late-night cross traffic, let the signals flash yellow on the major street and red on the minor street 11pm-6am. How much gasoline is wasted sitting at lights with no traffic? It’s outrageous.
Major Chicago streets that were once pleasant thoroughfares with lights every half-mile or so have become stop-sign minefields:
1. Sheffield Avenue
2. Halsted Street
3. Clark Street (the Grace and School signs back up traffic for blocks)
4. Sheridan Road
5. Inner Lake Shore Drive between West Sheridan Road and Belmont Avenue
6. California Avenue
7. Diversey Avenue
8. Randolph Street
9. Lake Street
10. Broadway (that Melrose stop sign is a killer)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
