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 Hizzonerdamare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hizzonerdamare. 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?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Wrigley costs the Cubs wins, Mr. Ricketts
Let me first note how gracious it was of Mr. Ricketts to respond personally to my letter. As Mr. Ricketts noted in his response, there are many demands on his time due to his position as owner of a Major League Baseball club.
My first point was to suggest a major renovation of Wrigley Field's main grandstand, which I believe has fallen into disrepair. Mr. Ricketts assured me it is perfectly safe. I'm sure he is right. But that solves barely half the problem. The Cubs currently charge top-tier prices (highest in the National League) for a third-rate fan experience. Any baseball fan fortunate enough to visit one of the 24 Major League ballparks built in the last 20 years notices significant differences right away: wide concourses, ample concessions and gift shoppes, clear sight-lines, and fan-friendly scoreboards and video boards. Also, from the owner's standpoint, Wrigley Field cannot produce revenue streams from luxury suites, club levels and VIP seating that other clubs enjoy. Wrigley looks and feels like a 96-year-old ballpark ill-equipped to handle large crowds 81 times a year. Only a major renovation with a rebuilt grandstand, I believe, will bring the Cubs to their rivals' level. Mr. Ricketts seems to think otherwise.
My second point is more serious and more pressing because I believe it affects the Cubs' on-field performance. I humbly suggested to Mr. Ricketts that he lobby the Cubs' alderman for more night games. Bigger crowds, higher television ratings, more television revenue, and fans being able to see games without leaving work early are all benefits of an expanded night-game schedule. The Cubs are also at a competitive disadvantage from playing 45 percent fewer home night games than their rivals. Whether it's five consecutive matinée starts (June 30 - July 4, 2010) or too many night games followed by day games, the players' rhythm is thrown off by their matinée-heavy home schedule. If the shortage of home night games costs the Cubs five wins a year, that's too many. I think it's a lot more. The new ownership group should be doing everything within its power to bring a World Series championship to Wrigley Field. I understand Mr. Ricketts wants to be a "good neighbor," as he put it. But that should not be his first priority. His first priority should be a World Series championship.
Furthermore, it seems the alderman and Hizzoner Da Mare have raised the community concerns regarding night games to mythological levels. Is the whole community against night games? Or is it the Little Old Lady at Addison and Southport? I would love to see a poll of the community; the Cubs might be pleasantly surprised. I attended a community meeting in November, 2003 regarding a proposed increase in night games. Despite the opposition's strong organization--by then it had been functioning for more than 20 years--attendees were overwhelmingly in favor of more night games. "Why stop at 30?" one man asked to resounding cheers. The Cubs have been in the neighborhood since 1916 and have hosted night games since 1988. A whole generation of children--the usual reason given for night-game restrictions--has grown up with night baseball in Lakeview. The Cubs' owners in the 1980's made a grave mistake agreeing to night game limits, and that is now restraining the Cubs' ability to win games.
Forcing fans, especially season ticket-holders, to miss work to attend games is elitist. The White Sox play three games during the business day this season (other than Opening Day, a traditional matinée). The Cubs play 27. Would a fan making a game-day decision prefer a game in the afternoon heat or an evening start with a breeze blowing in off the lake? Through 27 home dates (June 12), the Chicago Tribune reports Cubs' attendance is down 1233 fans from 2009, which the Tribune estimates is a $1.2 million hit to the Cubs' bottom line. That's serious cash, especially when one considers the Cubs are holding the three worst contracts in Major League Baseball: Carlos Zambrano, Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano. The Cubs cannot afford to wait for the current 30 night-game agreement to expire after the 2018 season. Despite Mr. Ricketts' desire to be "good neighbors," the Cubs need to act sooner rather than later. The one constant difference between the Cubs and the 26 teams that have won pennants since 1945 is night baseball. Yes, the Cubs' ownership was cheap and negligent for decades. Yes, the Cubs have had terrible luck. But the Cubs always play with a significant disadvantage because when other teams were busy installing lights and moving to a majority night-game schedule, the Wrigleys stuck it out. Cubs fans are still paying for that 65-year-old mistake.
Remember that banner some Cubs fans paraded through Wrigley Field in 1984? "39 Years of Suffering is Over," it said, referring to the pennant drought.
No, it isn't. And now it's 65 years. 102 years if one is counting championships.
My first point was to suggest a major renovation of Wrigley Field's main grandstand, which I believe has fallen into disrepair. Mr. Ricketts assured me it is perfectly safe. I'm sure he is right. But that solves barely half the problem. The Cubs currently charge top-tier prices (highest in the National League) for a third-rate fan experience. Any baseball fan fortunate enough to visit one of the 24 Major League ballparks built in the last 20 years notices significant differences right away: wide concourses, ample concessions and gift shoppes, clear sight-lines, and fan-friendly scoreboards and video boards. Also, from the owner's standpoint, Wrigley Field cannot produce revenue streams from luxury suites, club levels and VIP seating that other clubs enjoy. Wrigley looks and feels like a 96-year-old ballpark ill-equipped to handle large crowds 81 times a year. Only a major renovation with a rebuilt grandstand, I believe, will bring the Cubs to their rivals' level. Mr. Ricketts seems to think otherwise.
My second point is more serious and more pressing because I believe it affects the Cubs' on-field performance. I humbly suggested to Mr. Ricketts that he lobby the Cubs' alderman for more night games. Bigger crowds, higher television ratings, more television revenue, and fans being able to see games without leaving work early are all benefits of an expanded night-game schedule. The Cubs are also at a competitive disadvantage from playing 45 percent fewer home night games than their rivals. Whether it's five consecutive matinée starts (June 30 - July 4, 2010) or too many night games followed by day games, the players' rhythm is thrown off by their matinée-heavy home schedule. If the shortage of home night games costs the Cubs five wins a year, that's too many. I think it's a lot more. The new ownership group should be doing everything within its power to bring a World Series championship to Wrigley Field. I understand Mr. Ricketts wants to be a "good neighbor," as he put it. But that should not be his first priority. His first priority should be a World Series championship.
Furthermore, it seems the alderman and Hizzoner Da Mare have raised the community concerns regarding night games to mythological levels. Is the whole community against night games? Or is it the Little Old Lady at Addison and Southport? I would love to see a poll of the community; the Cubs might be pleasantly surprised. I attended a community meeting in November, 2003 regarding a proposed increase in night games. Despite the opposition's strong organization--by then it had been functioning for more than 20 years--attendees were overwhelmingly in favor of more night games. "Why stop at 30?" one man asked to resounding cheers. The Cubs have been in the neighborhood since 1916 and have hosted night games since 1988. A whole generation of children--the usual reason given for night-game restrictions--has grown up with night baseball in Lakeview. The Cubs' owners in the 1980's made a grave mistake agreeing to night game limits, and that is now restraining the Cubs' ability to win games.
Forcing fans, especially season ticket-holders, to miss work to attend games is elitist. The White Sox play three games during the business day this season (other than Opening Day, a traditional matinée). The Cubs play 27. Would a fan making a game-day decision prefer a game in the afternoon heat or an evening start with a breeze blowing in off the lake? Through 27 home dates (June 12), the Chicago Tribune reports Cubs' attendance is down 1233 fans from 2009, which the Tribune estimates is a $1.2 million hit to the Cubs' bottom line. That's serious cash, especially when one considers the Cubs are holding the three worst contracts in Major League Baseball: Carlos Zambrano, Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano. The Cubs cannot afford to wait for the current 30 night-game agreement to expire after the 2018 season. Despite Mr. Ricketts' desire to be "good neighbors," the Cubs need to act sooner rather than later. The one constant difference between the Cubs and the 26 teams that have won pennants since 1945 is night baseball. Yes, the Cubs' ownership was cheap and negligent for decades. Yes, the Cubs have had terrible luck. But the Cubs always play with a significant disadvantage because when other teams were busy installing lights and moving to a majority night-game schedule, the Wrigleys stuck it out. Cubs fans are still paying for that 65-year-old mistake.
Remember that banner some Cubs fans paraded through Wrigley Field in 1984? "39 Years of Suffering is Over," it said, referring to the pennant drought.
No, it isn't. And now it's 65 years. 102 years if one is counting championships.
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.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Chag somayach: now you're safe
Community alert for Passover:
"We are pleased to inform you that we have met with the Chicago Police Department, and there will be enhanced coverage around our neighborhoods, including all shuls, over Yom Tov. The additional police presence will be during the times that people will be walking to and from shul, and during the times that people are walking to meals. Also the Chicago Police Department, in conjunction with the Office of the Mayor, announced Jewish homes will be permitted to have loaded firearms on hand to deal with the increased occurrence of home invasions in the neighborhood."
As you may have guessed, the last sentence was my little joke. Of course Jewish homeowners in Chicago are not permitted to defend themselves, their families or their homes with handguns. The city took that right away decades ago, and the mayor is the law's staunchest supporter. Why should he need guns? He has taxpayer-financed 24-hour armed protection. The police presence in Jewish neighborhoods may succeed only in pushing crime to the east, away from the Jews. Nice for the Jews but not nice for ward residents across Western Avenue, who must feel like second-class citizens under their long-serving alderman.
"We are pleased to inform you that we have met with the Chicago Police Department, and there will be enhanced coverage around our neighborhoods, including all shuls, over Yom Tov. The additional police presence will be during the times that people will be walking to and from shul, and during the times that people are walking to meals. Also the Chicago Police Department, in conjunction with the Office of the Mayor, announced Jewish homes will be permitted to have loaded firearms on hand to deal with the increased occurrence of home invasions in the neighborhood."
As you may have guessed, the last sentence was my little joke. Of course Jewish homeowners in Chicago are not permitted to defend themselves, their families or their homes with handguns. The city took that right away decades ago, and the mayor is the law's staunchest supporter. Why should he need guns? He has taxpayer-financed 24-hour armed protection. The police presence in Jewish neighborhoods may succeed only in pushing crime to the east, away from the Jews. Nice for the Jews but not nice for ward residents across Western Avenue, who must feel like second-class citizens under their long-serving alderman.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Public transit: fare increase vs. service cuts
How would the mayor know?
When was the last time Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley took public transit to work?
It's been more than 20 years. He's had taxpayer-funded 24-hour limo service for as long as he's been mayor, and he was elected in 1989.
Once again, the mayor demonstrates how little he knows about real life in the city he runs. Last week, as the Chicago Transit Authority (cta) prepared to cut service frequency on most of its bus routes and all rail lines (except in Skokie), Mayor Daley said service cuts are preferable to fare increases.
For whom?
For people like the mayor who don't ride cta, I guess.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a sense at cta headquarters that now that we can find out via text message when the next bus is coming, we won't mind waiting. A longer wait is still inconvenient, especially when a trip requires more than one ride. And the rush-hour overcrowding on the busses with heaviest passenger demand and all trains will only get worse.
Three dollars a ride would be a lot to take, and there's so much wasteful spending in cta management that must be cut. (A ride is currently $2 or $2.25.) But the alternative, which we riders will face next week (beginning Feb. 7), is going to be worse. Every time cta cuts service, a percentage of its faithful ridership decide it's not dependable and seek other options. It does itself nor its passengers any favors by cutting service.
When was the last time Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley took public transit to work?
It's been more than 20 years. He's had taxpayer-funded 24-hour limo service for as long as he's been mayor, and he was elected in 1989.
Once again, the mayor demonstrates how little he knows about real life in the city he runs. Last week, as the Chicago Transit Authority (cta) prepared to cut service frequency on most of its bus routes and all rail lines (except in Skokie), Mayor Daley said service cuts are preferable to fare increases.
For whom?
For people like the mayor who don't ride cta, I guess.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a sense at cta headquarters that now that we can find out via text message when the next bus is coming, we won't mind waiting. A longer wait is still inconvenient, especially when a trip requires more than one ride. And the rush-hour overcrowding on the busses with heaviest passenger demand and all trains will only get worse.
Three dollars a ride would be a lot to take, and there's so much wasteful spending in cta management that must be cut. (A ride is currently $2 or $2.25.) But the alternative, which we riders will face next week (beginning Feb. 7), is going to be worse. Every time cta cuts service, a percentage of its faithful ridership decide it's not dependable and seek other options. It does itself nor its passengers any favors by cutting service.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
How long will Soldier Field last?
I watched the end of the Chicago Bears' thrilling overtime victory over Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings Dec. 28 from the comfort of my bedroom. I'm sure it would have been quite thrilling to have witnessed the game in person, but I really can't see sitting for four hours in a 20-degree night (plus wind chill) to watch a truly terrible football team. A friend and Bears expert told me the Bears still rank in the top ten (of 32 teams) in terms of stadium revenue. How long will that last? It seems to me that Mayor Richard M. Daley cheated the city by caving into the McCaskey family (Bears owners) demands for a renovated Soldier Field in 2001 after having told the McCaskeys "you can go to Alaska" for years. I'm no fan of public funding, but the total cost of the Soldier Field renovation was $632 million. At about the same time, Houston built Reliant Stadium from the ground up for $425 mil, and that stadium has a retractable roof! So Bears fans continue to pay top prices for tickets (no discounts after nearly three decades of consecutive sellouts and a huge waiting list) to freeze outdoors for nearly half the season. Retractable-roof technology has existed at least since 1989, when SkyDome opened in Toronto.
After another World Series was marred by bad weather in 2008, Sports Illustrated sharply criticized Major League Baseball for allowing numerous new ballparks to open without retractable roofs. Subsidies for the additional cost, which SI estimated at $100 mil each, could come from an MLB fund, the magazine said. I can't vouch for the magazine's math, but I agree that with baseball running from April to November (including the full postseason), keeping players and paying customers comfortable makes sense.* That would seem to be even more important for pro football, with much higher prices and much colder temperatures.
Chicago could have built a retractable-roof stadium, which could have attracted an annual college bowl game, Men's and Women's NCAA Final Four basketball tournaments, and one Super Bowl. (The NFL gives cities cold-weather climates one Super Bowl per stadium built. Keep in mind the Super Bowl is for rich men who play golf, which means Miami, Tampa, Phoenix and sometimes New Orleans. St. Louis is still waiting.) We have none of those tourism-generating events because we don't have a facility that can host them. And Bears fans continue to sit in the cold in a stadium quickly headed toward obsolescence.
Thanks again, Your Honor.
*Except in freezing Minneapolis, where the baseball team is moving from an indoor stadium to an outdoor ballpark. Good luck with April and May ticket sales, Twins.
After another World Series was marred by bad weather in 2008, Sports Illustrated sharply criticized Major League Baseball for allowing numerous new ballparks to open without retractable roofs. Subsidies for the additional cost, which SI estimated at $100 mil each, could come from an MLB fund, the magazine said. I can't vouch for the magazine's math, but I agree that with baseball running from April to November (including the full postseason), keeping players and paying customers comfortable makes sense.* That would seem to be even more important for pro football, with much higher prices and much colder temperatures.
Chicago could have built a retractable-roof stadium, which could have attracted an annual college bowl game, Men's and Women's NCAA Final Four basketball tournaments, and one Super Bowl. (The NFL gives cities cold-weather climates one Super Bowl per stadium built. Keep in mind the Super Bowl is for rich men who play golf, which means Miami, Tampa, Phoenix and sometimes New Orleans. St. Louis is still waiting.) We have none of those tourism-generating events because we don't have a facility that can host them. And Bears fans continue to sit in the cold in a stadium quickly headed toward obsolescence.
Thanks again, Your Honor.
*Except in freezing Minneapolis, where the baseball team is moving from an indoor stadium to an outdoor ballpark. Good luck with April and May ticket sales, Twins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
