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
Showing posts with label Mayor Daley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mayor Daley. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
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.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Mayor Daley wants a fiscal guarantee for the Games
I think we all saw this coming.
Since 1984, no city has ever won the Olympic Games without giving the IOC (International Olympic Committee) a fiscal guarantee against any deficit. After telling us for months that the taxpayers would not be responsible for any Olympics-related expenses (while spending $60 million to put the bid in place), the mayor says Chicago won't win the Games without a fiscal guarantee.
Chicago's bid could turn on this issue. The only drawbacks at this point are the missing guarantee and the city's pathetic public transit system. With the president so popular worldwide and the competition being so light, the Games are Chicago's to lose. As Mayor Daley pointed out, the IOC would need to violate its own policy to award the Games to Chicago without a guarantee.
If the City Council decides to add the guarantee to Chicago's bid, I believe the IOC will award the Games to Chicago. I hope there's enough of a public outcry that the City Council will not do so.
Since 1984, no city has ever won the Olympic Games without giving the IOC (International Olympic Committee) a fiscal guarantee against any deficit. After telling us for months that the taxpayers would not be responsible for any Olympics-related expenses (while spending $60 million to put the bid in place), the mayor says Chicago won't win the Games without a fiscal guarantee.
Chicago's bid could turn on this issue. The only drawbacks at this point are the missing guarantee and the city's pathetic public transit system. With the president so popular worldwide and the competition being so light, the Games are Chicago's to lose. As Mayor Daley pointed out, the IOC would need to violate its own policy to award the Games to Chicago without a guarantee.
If the City Council decides to add the guarantee to Chicago's bid, I believe the IOC will award the Games to Chicago. I hope there's enough of a public outcry that the City Council will not do so.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Another Olympics fan weighs in
Mark writes:
I've been following the Olympics issue with some interest. To be honest, I've been torn on the subject, mainly because I come at it from the perspective of someone who was a resident of Lake Placid, N.Y. from 1968 through more than half of 1980. Lake Placid, you'll recall, hosted its second Winter Olympiad in 1980. It is true that anybody who is able to cash in on the Olympics makes out like a bandit, and that includes owners of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses in and around wherever the Games take place. It is also absolutely true that the public gets saddled with the debt. Ironically, it's a Republican style implementation of redistribution of wealth, from the public coffers to private pocketbooks. (Note that Lake Placid, like most of rural New York State, is heavily Republican, and both the 1932 and the 1980 Winter Olympics were welcomed with open arms.) An Olympiad always leaves behind an infrastructure that can be publicly beneficial, assuming there were practical plans in place from beforehand to make that benefit happen. For example, Lake Placid's Olympic Village was destined to become a medium-security prison after the games were over. (Yes, the Soviet propaganda machine had a field day with that when they caught wind of it!) Without that forethought, though, you end up with structures that just sit there and rot afterward - isn't that what happened in Atlanta? The best-case scenario is that amenities like the CTA and Navy Pier see vast improvements that we enjoy, albeit at a cost, after the games are over. My concern, of course, is that since this is Chicago, the games will end up costing the public 10 times as much as they should, and the primary beneficiaries will be Mayor Daley's cronies, who will be allowed to double-dip by getting sweetheart contracts to build the stuff in the first place and then be handed title to the unneeded facilities to dispose of as they like for additional profit.
I've been following the Olympics issue with some interest. To be honest, I've been torn on the subject, mainly because I come at it from the perspective of someone who was a resident of Lake Placid, N.Y. from 1968 through more than half of 1980. Lake Placid, you'll recall, hosted its second Winter Olympiad in 1980. It is true that anybody who is able to cash in on the Olympics makes out like a bandit, and that includes owners of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses in and around wherever the Games take place. It is also absolutely true that the public gets saddled with the debt. Ironically, it's a Republican style implementation of redistribution of wealth, from the public coffers to private pocketbooks. (Note that Lake Placid, like most of rural New York State, is heavily Republican, and both the 1932 and the 1980 Winter Olympics were welcomed with open arms.) An Olympiad always leaves behind an infrastructure that can be publicly beneficial, assuming there were practical plans in place from beforehand to make that benefit happen. For example, Lake Placid's Olympic Village was destined to become a medium-security prison after the games were over. (Yes, the Soviet propaganda machine had a field day with that when they caught wind of it!) Without that forethought, though, you end up with structures that just sit there and rot afterward - isn't that what happened in Atlanta? The best-case scenario is that amenities like the CTA and Navy Pier see vast improvements that we enjoy, albeit at a cost, after the games are over. My concern, of course, is that since this is Chicago, the games will end up costing the public 10 times as much as they should, and the primary beneficiaries will be Mayor Daley's cronies, who will be allowed to double-dip by getting sweetheart contracts to build the stuff in the first place and then be handed title to the unneeded facilities to dispose of as they like for additional profit.
Chicagoans Opposed to the 2016 Olympics
I started a Facebook Group yesterday, Feb. 16, called Chicagoans Opposed to the 2016 Chicago Olympics. We're up to eight members in just one day! Feel free to join! The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will announce the winning bid Oct. 2, 2009. Some of the reasons I hope Rio, Madrid or Tokyo wins the Olympics:
1. Traffic. For 17 days during the Games and for about a week beforehand, Olympic tourists, media, athletes and security will make roadways almost impassable for residents.
2. Security. Chicago will be Lockdown City in a way similar to Washington is when a major international conference is in town. Per tradition, the president will attend the Opening Ceremonies. Beyond that, security is always the primary concern after the 1972 Munich tragedy and the 1996 Atlanta bombing. The world is watching, and terrorists love that.
3. Cost. The official effort to bring the Games here assumes $1 billion in revenue above and beyond every other bid city's estimate, yet there is no guarantee against revenue shortfalls. Where is all this extra money going to come from? Who knows? Will people shell out $1645 for top tickets? The mayor and everyone else involved insist, promise and swear taxpayers will not bear any costs whatsoever. Right. When has that ever been true? Furthermore, the organizers are assuming a massive influx of tax revenue associated with international visitors to Chicago without accounting for thousands of residents leaving town for three weeks. Locals who aren't home aren't spending money, either.
4. Cost overruns associated with upcoming Games. Both the Vancouver 2010 (Winter) and London 2012 (Summer) Olympic Committees are struggling with massive cost overruns. Their costs are soaring with no end in sight. London organizers are quietly regretting their decision to bid for the Games. Why would the 2016 Games be any different?
5. Security cost. The federal government provided security at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City at a cost of $250 million. The security bill for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago is estimated to be $1 billion. That $1 billion would buy a lot of ____________ (pick your favorite federal program, or invent your own).
6. Construction of white elephant buildings we don't need, don't want and won't use. The Chicago bid is planning a number of temporary structures and new construction of permanent buildings near some of Chicago's worst neighborhoods. No one will want to go down there once the Olympics end. Furthermore, permanent buildings along the lakefront will do more damage to our once-proud lakefront skyline. We only need to look at Soldier Field to realize how a bad decision by Hizzoner Da Mare can ruin our skyline for decades.
7. Hassle, headache, nuisance. Why should we put up with all the commotion? Our city regularly and proudly inhales conventioneers, sports fans and visitors of all types on a constant basis, and no one really notices. If the Olympics were to come to Chicago, everyone would notice, and putting up with it would be a major hassle. Going to work downtown or near any Olympic venue would be a major event in itself. Most of us would be unable to acquire tickets for any but the most minor events, so we would watch the Olympics the way we normally do: on tv or online. Does it make a difference if it's in Chicago or elsewhere?
8. Very poor planning. A top Chicago 2016 official referred to Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City in a discussion of transportation. Either he has no idea what he's talking about, or he thinks we're stupid. With guys like transportation director Doug Arnot in charge, the Chicago Olympics is going to make the Iraq war look like a well-executed strategy. Here is why the comparison makes him look so bad:
Los Angeles: the 1984 Games was about one-third the size of the modern Summer Olympics. And L.A. has a much better roadway system.
Atlanta: the 1996 Games was by all accounts a logistics disaster. The transportation failed numerous times. Media, fans and even athletes were stranded, unable to reach event venues.
Salt Lake City: the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City were Winter Games. It is a much smaller set of events and offers no reasonable comparison.
9. We don't need the attention. Cities vie for the Olympics because they want the world's spotlight for 17 days. Is this something we really need? When people living outside the U.S. think of "the States," as they call us, they think of Manhattan, Hollywood and Washington. So Chicago is a second thought. And yet the crowds come anyway. Most visitors live within a 500-mi. radius. They visit for shopping, museums, sports, and the beautiful lakefront. A Chicago Tribune contest in 1987 asked for a new slogan. "Hometown heart, big-town beat" won. Thanks to Al Capone, Michael Jordan and more than a century of government corruption, we're still famous worldwide. There's no reason to pay for additional exposure.
1. Traffic. For 17 days during the Games and for about a week beforehand, Olympic tourists, media, athletes and security will make roadways almost impassable for residents.
2. Security. Chicago will be Lockdown City in a way similar to Washington is when a major international conference is in town. Per tradition, the president will attend the Opening Ceremonies. Beyond that, security is always the primary concern after the 1972 Munich tragedy and the 1996 Atlanta bombing. The world is watching, and terrorists love that.
3. Cost. The official effort to bring the Games here assumes $1 billion in revenue above and beyond every other bid city's estimate, yet there is no guarantee against revenue shortfalls. Where is all this extra money going to come from? Who knows? Will people shell out $1645 for top tickets? The mayor and everyone else involved insist, promise and swear taxpayers will not bear any costs whatsoever. Right. When has that ever been true? Furthermore, the organizers are assuming a massive influx of tax revenue associated with international visitors to Chicago without accounting for thousands of residents leaving town for three weeks. Locals who aren't home aren't spending money, either.
4. Cost overruns associated with upcoming Games. Both the Vancouver 2010 (Winter) and London 2012 (Summer) Olympic Committees are struggling with massive cost overruns. Their costs are soaring with no end in sight. London organizers are quietly regretting their decision to bid for the Games. Why would the 2016 Games be any different?
5. Security cost. The federal government provided security at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City at a cost of $250 million. The security bill for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago is estimated to be $1 billion. That $1 billion would buy a lot of ____________ (pick your favorite federal program, or invent your own).
6. Construction of white elephant buildings we don't need, don't want and won't use. The Chicago bid is planning a number of temporary structures and new construction of permanent buildings near some of Chicago's worst neighborhoods. No one will want to go down there once the Olympics end. Furthermore, permanent buildings along the lakefront will do more damage to our once-proud lakefront skyline. We only need to look at Soldier Field to realize how a bad decision by Hizzoner Da Mare can ruin our skyline for decades.
7. Hassle, headache, nuisance. Why should we put up with all the commotion? Our city regularly and proudly inhales conventioneers, sports fans and visitors of all types on a constant basis, and no one really notices. If the Olympics were to come to Chicago, everyone would notice, and putting up with it would be a major hassle. Going to work downtown or near any Olympic venue would be a major event in itself. Most of us would be unable to acquire tickets for any but the most minor events, so we would watch the Olympics the way we normally do: on tv or online. Does it make a difference if it's in Chicago or elsewhere?
8. Very poor planning. A top Chicago 2016 official referred to Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City in a discussion of transportation. Either he has no idea what he's talking about, or he thinks we're stupid. With guys like transportation director Doug Arnot in charge, the Chicago Olympics is going to make the Iraq war look like a well-executed strategy. Here is why the comparison makes him look so bad:
Los Angeles: the 1984 Games was about one-third the size of the modern Summer Olympics. And L.A. has a much better roadway system.
Atlanta: the 1996 Games was by all accounts a logistics disaster. The transportation failed numerous times. Media, fans and even athletes were stranded, unable to reach event venues.
Salt Lake City: the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City were Winter Games. It is a much smaller set of events and offers no reasonable comparison.
9. We don't need the attention. Cities vie for the Olympics because they want the world's spotlight for 17 days. Is this something we really need? When people living outside the U.S. think of "the States," as they call us, they think of Manhattan, Hollywood and Washington. So Chicago is a second thought. And yet the crowds come anyway. Most visitors live within a 500-mi. radius. They visit for shopping, museums, sports, and the beautiful lakefront. A Chicago Tribune contest in 1987 asked for a new slogan. "Hometown heart, big-town beat" won. Thanks to Al Capone, Michael Jordan and more than a century of government corruption, we're still famous worldwide. There's no reason to pay for additional exposure.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Jews and guns
If one conducts a poll among Jewish-Americans and asks about guns, the response is reflexive. They should be banned; of course I don't own any; Americans should be allowed neither to own nor, it follows, carry them; gun control works.
In 1982, Chicago Mayor Michael Bilandic signed the city's handgun ban into law. Chicagoans who owned handguns at this time were permitted to keep them but not replace them. The city was not about to employ police or security to conduct house-to-house searches for confiscation. State Assemblyman Roland "Tombstone" Burris, of course, who had campaigned tirelessly against handguns, kept his piece until 1994. The ban stands to this day. Furthermore, Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states to prohibit concealed carrying of weapons by law-abiding civilians.
After the Supreme Court ruled against Washington, D.C.'s gun ban last summer, it seems apparent* that outright bans are unconstitutional. Some suburbs near Chicago that had handgun bans on the books, such as Morton Grove and Evanston, changed their laws to allow law-abiding citizens to own handguns.
Eventually, Chicago's handgun ban will be as enforceable as a slavery or adultery law. Concealed carry, the right to arm oneself outside the home, will come into play. It will be up to Jews to participate in this fundamental American right.
Jews are always so worried about an accidental shooting. Does anyone know anyone (or a family member) who G-d forbid actually was involved in such an incident? Maybe, but it's highly unlikely--like knowing someone involved in a fatal commercial aircraft accident. Yes, there was one last week (Feb. 12), sad to say, but that was the first one in two years, after several million flights with a perfect safety record.
However, plenty of people are either victims of violent crime or know people who were. In the religious Jewish communities of Milwaukee (Sherman Park) and Chicago (West Ridge, to the city; West Rogers Park, to the people who live there), violent street crimes and home break-ins occur all too often. What's the solution? 911? Emergency response is rarely fast enough to respond to a robbery or violent assault. Criminals think of Jews as soft, as passive victims who will let criminals do whatever they want. Firearms inside and outside the home will quickly dispel them of that notion.
It is a weakness in our character that we have been victims for more than two millenia. What happens when we dare to fight back? Two results: we win; and we are hated for our survival even more. (That last part gives me some satisfaction, frankly.) Cases in point: the Purim story; the Passover story; the Chanukah story; and the establishment of Israel in 1948 as a sovereign state. Each of those events was on a national level. On a personal level, I believe the same holds true, and we should do whatever we can to protect ourselves and our families. Criminals who prey on Chicagoans are confident that they are, by law, unarmed. When they see a mezuzah on a doorpost, their confidence is raised even higher. They know a Jewish home, even in a municipality where gun ownership is legal, is unlikely to have a firearm inside. West Rogers Park has a gang problem, a street crime problem, and a home break-in problem. The solutions offered by Chicago Police and the community are the same, and I'm sick and tired of them. Walk in pairs; walk in well-lighted areas; leave lights on; lock your doors and windows. And pay $20/mo. to ADT to call police if there's a break-in when you're not home. Thanks.
Once the gun ban is rescinded, criminals would be put on notice: law-abiding citizens in Chicago will be permitted to protect their homes with firearms. That fact alone will help us fight crime. The Jewish community occasionally holds CPR classes and other safety seminars at synagogues. How about gun safety classes? How about field trips to shooting ranges? How about rabbis saying it's a mitzvah for every able-bodied man to learn how to shoot a gun? I'd like to see the Jews of Chicago moving from a reputation of being passive victims to being among the most armed citizens of the city. That will show 'em.
Some community members have taken matters into their own hands. Attend a large synagogue gathering--a shabbos kiddush, a tehillim meeting, or a simcha (wedding or bar mitzvah). Who's packing heat? Can't tell. But someone probably is. Someone is protecting the assembly by keeping a loaded handgun inside his jacket, in the unlikely event, G-d forbid, an intruder enters and wants to start trouble.
Unfortunately, c'v, about every other year, the city of Chicago suffers a series of outdoor sexual assaults of women. Women live in fear as they walk home at night. They are given the same tired advice: well-lighted streets, carry Mace, blah blah blah. They are not permitted to protect themselves properly. I am waiting, waiting, waiting, if this G-d forbid recurs, for a potential victim to blow her assailant's head off. I would love to see her arrested for handgun possession, and then I would pay to see Mayor Daley's reaction at his next press conference. Case closed: the s.o.b. got what he deserved from his next victim (or so he thought). Seriously--what could the mayor possibly say? And under the law, she would be arrested for possession and would face jail time.
I don't know how we can possibly change a centuries-old Jewish mindset of "no guns." I do know it's in our best interest to do so. It means safer homes and safer children. It means when antisemites go hunting for people to assault, they'll think twice before hitting a Jewish community if we're as well-armed as the white supremacists. We need to stop pretending the police can protect us. They can't. They're several minutes away, and that's if we can manage to make the phone call. More often, they respond after the crime to fill out paperwork.
*not apparent to Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley of Chicago, who will spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have to defend in court a gun ban that looks a lot like Washington's.
In 1982, Chicago Mayor Michael Bilandic signed the city's handgun ban into law. Chicagoans who owned handguns at this time were permitted to keep them but not replace them. The city was not about to employ police or security to conduct house-to-house searches for confiscation. State Assemblyman Roland "Tombstone" Burris, of course, who had campaigned tirelessly against handguns, kept his piece until 1994. The ban stands to this day. Furthermore, Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states to prohibit concealed carrying of weapons by law-abiding civilians.
After the Supreme Court ruled against Washington, D.C.'s gun ban last summer, it seems apparent* that outright bans are unconstitutional. Some suburbs near Chicago that had handgun bans on the books, such as Morton Grove and Evanston, changed their laws to allow law-abiding citizens to own handguns.
Eventually, Chicago's handgun ban will be as enforceable as a slavery or adultery law. Concealed carry, the right to arm oneself outside the home, will come into play. It will be up to Jews to participate in this fundamental American right.
Jews are always so worried about an accidental shooting. Does anyone know anyone (or a family member) who G-d forbid actually was involved in such an incident? Maybe, but it's highly unlikely--like knowing someone involved in a fatal commercial aircraft accident. Yes, there was one last week (Feb. 12), sad to say, but that was the first one in two years, after several million flights with a perfect safety record.
However, plenty of people are either victims of violent crime or know people who were. In the religious Jewish communities of Milwaukee (Sherman Park) and Chicago (West Ridge, to the city; West Rogers Park, to the people who live there), violent street crimes and home break-ins occur all too often. What's the solution? 911? Emergency response is rarely fast enough to respond to a robbery or violent assault. Criminals think of Jews as soft, as passive victims who will let criminals do whatever they want. Firearms inside and outside the home will quickly dispel them of that notion.
It is a weakness in our character that we have been victims for more than two millenia. What happens when we dare to fight back? Two results: we win; and we are hated for our survival even more. (That last part gives me some satisfaction, frankly.) Cases in point: the Purim story; the Passover story; the Chanukah story; and the establishment of Israel in 1948 as a sovereign state. Each of those events was on a national level. On a personal level, I believe the same holds true, and we should do whatever we can to protect ourselves and our families. Criminals who prey on Chicagoans are confident that they are, by law, unarmed. When they see a mezuzah on a doorpost, their confidence is raised even higher. They know a Jewish home, even in a municipality where gun ownership is legal, is unlikely to have a firearm inside. West Rogers Park has a gang problem, a street crime problem, and a home break-in problem. The solutions offered by Chicago Police and the community are the same, and I'm sick and tired of them. Walk in pairs; walk in well-lighted areas; leave lights on; lock your doors and windows. And pay $20/mo. to ADT to call police if there's a break-in when you're not home. Thanks.
Once the gun ban is rescinded, criminals would be put on notice: law-abiding citizens in Chicago will be permitted to protect their homes with firearms. That fact alone will help us fight crime. The Jewish community occasionally holds CPR classes and other safety seminars at synagogues. How about gun safety classes? How about field trips to shooting ranges? How about rabbis saying it's a mitzvah for every able-bodied man to learn how to shoot a gun? I'd like to see the Jews of Chicago moving from a reputation of being passive victims to being among the most armed citizens of the city. That will show 'em.
Some community members have taken matters into their own hands. Attend a large synagogue gathering--a shabbos kiddush, a tehillim meeting, or a simcha (wedding or bar mitzvah). Who's packing heat? Can't tell. But someone probably is. Someone is protecting the assembly by keeping a loaded handgun inside his jacket, in the unlikely event, G-d forbid, an intruder enters and wants to start trouble.
Unfortunately, c'v, about every other year, the city of Chicago suffers a series of outdoor sexual assaults of women. Women live in fear as they walk home at night. They are given the same tired advice: well-lighted streets, carry Mace, blah blah blah. They are not permitted to protect themselves properly. I am waiting, waiting, waiting, if this G-d forbid recurs, for a potential victim to blow her assailant's head off. I would love to see her arrested for handgun possession, and then I would pay to see Mayor Daley's reaction at his next press conference. Case closed: the s.o.b. got what he deserved from his next victim (or so he thought). Seriously--what could the mayor possibly say? And under the law, she would be arrested for possession and would face jail time.
I don't know how we can possibly change a centuries-old Jewish mindset of "no guns." I do know it's in our best interest to do so. It means safer homes and safer children. It means when antisemites go hunting for people to assault, they'll think twice before hitting a Jewish community if we're as well-armed as the white supremacists. We need to stop pretending the police can protect us. They can't. They're several minutes away, and that's if we can manage to make the phone call. More often, they respond after the crime to fill out paperwork.
*not apparent to Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley of Chicago, who will spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have to defend in court a gun ban that looks a lot like Washington's.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Now we're getting somewhere: Cubs sold
The Tribune Co.'s sale of the Chicago Cubs to the Ricketts family should be cause for celebration by Cubs fans worldwide. It's time to make progress on two major obstacles possibly keeping the Cubs from winning a World Series: Wrigley Field's night-game limit and its cramped, overcrowded, antiquated main grandstand.
Wrigley Field is a geyser of cash that comes up short. Limiting the Cubs' home schedule to just 30 night games is no way to bring the Cubs to its national following of fans. (Most teams play about 55 of 81 home games at night. The 30-game limit is due to Chicago law specific to Wrigley Field.) Tom Ricketts must get to work immediately on convincing Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) to tell the City Council and Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley that the time for limiting night games has passed, and that the ban on Friday-Saturday night games is absurd.
The other problem is the aging grandstand. Oh, it looks lovely on television. Attending a game and sitting there is another experience entirely. Thousands of seats are limited-view due to the skyboxes overhead that block fans from seeing fly balls. The men's rooms are beyond disgusting: communal troughs instead of individual urinals. The overcrowded concourses make post-game fans' departure resemble a cattle call. And the Cubs miss out on thousands of dollars of concessions revenue every game because there is not enough space to sell food or Cubs gear. It must irritate the Cubs no end to see unauthorized vendors outside the park profit from fans who can't spend enough money inside Wrigley Field.
So the main grandstand needs to go. It will be replaced by a modern edifice with wide walkways, clear sight-lines, spacious gift shoppes, numerous food options, luxury suites, a club level....and clean restrooms. Please.
Wrigley Field is a geyser of cash that comes up short. Limiting the Cubs' home schedule to just 30 night games is no way to bring the Cubs to its national following of fans. (Most teams play about 55 of 81 home games at night. The 30-game limit is due to Chicago law specific to Wrigley Field.) Tom Ricketts must get to work immediately on convincing Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) to tell the City Council and Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley that the time for limiting night games has passed, and that the ban on Friday-Saturday night games is absurd.
The other problem is the aging grandstand. Oh, it looks lovely on television. Attending a game and sitting there is another experience entirely. Thousands of seats are limited-view due to the skyboxes overhead that block fans from seeing fly balls. The men's rooms are beyond disgusting: communal troughs instead of individual urinals. The overcrowded concourses make post-game fans' departure resemble a cattle call. And the Cubs miss out on thousands of dollars of concessions revenue every game because there is not enough space to sell food or Cubs gear. It must irritate the Cubs no end to see unauthorized vendors outside the park profit from fans who can't spend enough money inside Wrigley Field.
So the main grandstand needs to go. It will be replaced by a modern edifice with wide walkways, clear sight-lines, spacious gift shoppes, numerous food options, luxury suites, a club level....and clean restrooms. Please.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Dibs: I'm not going to take it anymore
Tuesday, Jan. 20, 0701 hrs, West Rogers Park. I'm late for shacharis at Agudah Israel of West Rogers Park. Not my normal davening house, but there's a bris milah immediately following davening--the nephew of friends of mine. So I want to attend. The parking trick at KINS* when the north parking lot is full is to park on North Shore just east of California, which requires coming down Washtenaw from Pratt since North Shore is one-way westbound. I sit behind a school bus loading children at the school on Washtenaw. Why is a school bus boarding kids at a school in the morning? Odd. Finally I turn on North Shore. No spots east of California, but a beautiful spot just west of KINS--and there is dibs furniture in the space. A pair of folding chairs. I shoveled this spot, and now I own it, say the chairs.
NOTE: placing dibs furniture to hold public parking spaces for personal use is illegal in Chicago. It is also tolerated in Chicago, and the mayor condones the practice. It is selfish and un-neighborly in my humble opinion. According to law, placing personal belongings on public property makes them hefker--ownerless. Anyone is free to pick them up.
I am fed up. I turn on Mozart and find an open, dibs-free spot a few spaces down from North Shore. I exit the vehicle through the passenger door (my door doesn't open due to snowbank) and walk to KINS. On my way, I glare at those folding chairs and imagine depositing them next to the KINS garbage bins. Does the space "owner" realize how selfish he is?
Mazel tov! The boy's name is Yosef Shragga Knopf. Moshe's New York Kosher catered the breakfast. Fred Eckhouse Photography. Outstanding.
*the large shul building in which Agudah Israel is located.
NOTE: placing dibs furniture to hold public parking spaces for personal use is illegal in Chicago. It is also tolerated in Chicago, and the mayor condones the practice. It is selfish and un-neighborly in my humble opinion. According to law, placing personal belongings on public property makes them hefker--ownerless. Anyone is free to pick them up.
I am fed up. I turn on Mozart and find an open, dibs-free spot a few spaces down from North Shore. I exit the vehicle through the passenger door (my door doesn't open due to snowbank) and walk to KINS. On my way, I glare at those folding chairs and imagine depositing them next to the KINS garbage bins. Does the space "owner" realize how selfish he is?
Mazel tov! The boy's name is Yosef Shragga Knopf. Moshe's New York Kosher catered the breakfast. Fred Eckhouse Photography. Outstanding.
*the large shul building in which Agudah Israel is located.
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.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Parking space dibs
Friday afternoon was hectic. In the space of 90 minutes, I had to drive from Rolling Meadows to Rogers Park and make three stops: the post office; Jewel for some shabbos lunch items; and the Weinribs to pick up some mail and stuff (don’t ask). I pulled onto my hosts’ block at 1521, T-45 minutes to candle-lighting. Plenty of time to shower, shave and dress, right? Plenty of time if I could find a parking space. Oh, my hosts’ block had plenty of spaces—nearly all blocked off with junk so that residents could reclaim them upon return. What a disgusting, un-neighborly and selfish habit that residents engage in to reserve spots they have cleared of snow and ice. In my rear-view mirror, I saw a van pull out. I pulled to one side thinking I could take his space. But he paused to dump some of his basement garbage (large pieces of cardboard, in this case) onto his spot. If I had parked there, I would have risked vandalism to my vehicle: air out of tires, eggs and honey on the windshield, or worse. I did find a dibs-free spot just a few doors down from my host, so I lucked out. But I was not too happy at my hosts’ neighbors demonstrating just how selfish they can be. (My hosts do not participate in dibs despite owning two vehicles and parking them on the street.)
Reserving parking spaces with basement garbage is technically illegal in Chicago but condoned by the mayor.
One of my friends disagrees with me strongly on this. “What about the grandma who can’t walk far to her vehicle?” he asks. He may have a point. (As an aside, I also don’t think people should be able to reserve 24-hr. handicapped parking spaces on city streets. These spaces typically stay long after the owner dies, happily used by the owners’ children.) But most people who stake claims to parking spaces are able-bodied. If every able-bodied male on a block would simply clear two parking spaces instead of just his own, there wouldn’t be a problem; the street would be clear. I was proud of the fact that my block in Rogers Park was dibs-free. A friend and I “enforced” our dibs-free zone on neighboring blocks last winter by helping ourselves to the junk that people left on the street. (Items left on the street are legally “hefker,” ownerless.) I considered doing that on my friends’ block Saturday night, but I didn’t want to put wet garbage in my car trunk.
Reserving parking spaces with basement garbage is technically illegal in Chicago but condoned by the mayor.
One of my friends disagrees with me strongly on this. “What about the grandma who can’t walk far to her vehicle?” he asks. He may have a point. (As an aside, I also don’t think people should be able to reserve 24-hr. handicapped parking spaces on city streets. These spaces typically stay long after the owner dies, happily used by the owners’ children.) But most people who stake claims to parking spaces are able-bodied. If every able-bodied male on a block would simply clear two parking spaces instead of just his own, there wouldn’t be a problem; the street would be clear. I was proud of the fact that my block in Rogers Park was dibs-free. A friend and I “enforced” our dibs-free zone on neighboring blocks last winter by helping ourselves to the junk that people left on the street. (Items left on the street are legally “hefker,” ownerless.) I considered doing that on my friends’ block Saturday night, but I didn’t want to put wet garbage in my car trunk.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Chicago parking meter rates to quadruple next year
In justifying the quadrupling of parking meter rates when the City of Chicago hands over parking meter management to a private firm, Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley insisted that 80 percent of the meters are downtown, and the neighborhoods aren’t really affected. Actually, the Tribune reported, the exact opposite is true—80 percent of the meters are in the neighborhoods. This makes the mayor a Big Fat Liar, horribly misinformed, or just plain stupid. I’ll take the first option for $100, Alex.
My mom made an excellent point: by selling off the city’s resources to private firms, the mayor is mortgaging the future of the city for quick financial gain. His financial management of the city is so miserable we have already endured numerous tax increases during his administration, plus the revenue loss from the sale of the Chicago Skyway, Midway Airport, and now all the parking meters. Future mayors are going to be hunting for fresh revenue sources because this mayor is selling all the revenue sources we currently have.
My mom made an excellent point: by selling off the city’s resources to private firms, the mayor is mortgaging the future of the city for quick financial gain. His financial management of the city is so miserable we have already endured numerous tax increases during his administration, plus the revenue loss from the sale of the Chicago Skyway, Midway Airport, and now all the parking meters. Future mayors are going to be hunting for fresh revenue sources because this mayor is selling all the revenue sources we currently have.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Cook County's obscene and disgusting tax rate
It is a strategic mistake to walk willingly into a policy debate with a master debater, political genius, American University alumnus, Democratic policy wonk, and former senior class president like, say, Matt DeLeon. However, I felt Matt’s comment about my intent to shop out of state deserved more than a one-line clever comeback.
Matt's comment:
Can't have reform without revenue. Just ask the new Health Board, which submitted a budget that is $40 million more than last year's.
And be honest--what other taxes have been raised by Cook County other than the sales tax?
And when was the last time the sales tax was raised?
How about never, since its inception--in 1992.
When was the last time your Cook County share of property taxes was raised? Try 1996.
Maybe it isn't Stroger?
Better hurry on that out of state shopping--other governments are raising their sales tax now, as well.
Matt,
I can't disagree with you more on tax policy. I feel like “Toddler” Stroger rammed through his tax increase just to hire more of his friends and relatives to numerous high-paying jobs under his control. What else would he do with an extra $192 mil (in the black)? Oh, hire another 1000 workers. I read a whole list of tax-free revenue adjustments in a Tribune editorial of which Stroger could have taken advantage to avoid a tax increase, suggested by a Cook County Board member. Sales taxes are regressive and hurt low-income families more than anyone else. Why are sales taxes here the highest in the country, Matt? Do we deserve that? The rate increased 133 percent, from 0.75 to 1.25 percent. That’s excessive, egregious and outrageous—and smaller than what Toddler wanted! Okay, so it had been at the same rate for 15 years, but my tax philosophy is different from yours: I don’t think it should ever be raised. In fact, I’d like to see a tax cut, thank you very much. Toddler is going to lie low about tax increases until his 2010 reelection, and then he’ll announce another tax hike, to 1.75 or 2 percent. No, I really think it is Stroger and his yes-men underlings. I was horrified by his 2006 election that convinced me more than ever the voters here absolutely love big government and higher taxes. (Not to mention nepotism and replacing one taxaholic—John—for another.) Are the schools any better? Is Stroger Hospital any better? In Chicago, Cook County and Illinois, I think taxes pay for more greed, corruption and stop signs.
I believe the Cook County entertainment tax (on movies, sports events, concerts and even non-profit theatre productions) is currently three percent, and yes, that was a recent increase.
Hamilton County in southwestern Ohio has a tax rate of 6.5 percent (including Ohio sales tax). Even if the City of Cincinnati tacks on an extra one percent (not sure about that), it’s a bargain for Chicagoans accustomed to paying 10.25 percent, plus a one percent penalty for eating out, plus a 0.25 percent penalty for eating out downtown, plus more for alcohol, plus more for soft drinks, plus 8 percent (city) and 3 percent (county) for entertainment tickets, etc., etc.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/mar/02/news/chi-countybudget-sundayfinalmar02
Matt's comment:
Can't have reform without revenue. Just ask the new Health Board, which submitted a budget that is $40 million more than last year's.
And be honest--what other taxes have been raised by Cook County other than the sales tax?
And when was the last time the sales tax was raised?
How about never, since its inception--in 1992.
When was the last time your Cook County share of property taxes was raised? Try 1996.
Maybe it isn't Stroger?
Better hurry on that out of state shopping--other governments are raising their sales tax now, as well.
Matt,
I can't disagree with you more on tax policy. I feel like “Toddler” Stroger rammed through his tax increase just to hire more of his friends and relatives to numerous high-paying jobs under his control. What else would he do with an extra $192 mil (in the black)? Oh, hire another 1000 workers. I read a whole list of tax-free revenue adjustments in a Tribune editorial of which Stroger could have taken advantage to avoid a tax increase, suggested by a Cook County Board member. Sales taxes are regressive and hurt low-income families more than anyone else. Why are sales taxes here the highest in the country, Matt? Do we deserve that? The rate increased 133 percent, from 0.75 to 1.25 percent. That’s excessive, egregious and outrageous—and smaller than what Toddler wanted! Okay, so it had been at the same rate for 15 years, but my tax philosophy is different from yours: I don’t think it should ever be raised. In fact, I’d like to see a tax cut, thank you very much. Toddler is going to lie low about tax increases until his 2010 reelection, and then he’ll announce another tax hike, to 1.75 or 2 percent. No, I really think it is Stroger and his yes-men underlings. I was horrified by his 2006 election that convinced me more than ever the voters here absolutely love big government and higher taxes. (Not to mention nepotism and replacing one taxaholic—John—for another.) Are the schools any better? Is Stroger Hospital any better? In Chicago, Cook County and Illinois, I think taxes pay for more greed, corruption and stop signs.
I believe the Cook County entertainment tax (on movies, sports events, concerts and even non-profit theatre productions) is currently three percent, and yes, that was a recent increase.
Hamilton County in southwestern Ohio has a tax rate of 6.5 percent (including Ohio sales tax). Even if the City of Cincinnati tacks on an extra one percent (not sure about that), it’s a bargain for Chicagoans accustomed to paying 10.25 percent, plus a one percent penalty for eating out, plus a 0.25 percent penalty for eating out downtown, plus more for alcohol, plus more for soft drinks, plus 8 percent (city) and 3 percent (county) for entertainment tickets, etc., etc.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/mar/02/news/chi-countybudget-sundayfinalmar02
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
