"Also on Thursday, Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, hosted about 75 residents and business owners to discuss ways to prevent crimes in the ward, which includes Bucktown."Read how crime is dealt with in other wards here.
"Also on Thursday, Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, hosted about 75 residents and business owners to discuss ways to prevent crimes in the ward, which includes Bucktown."
I really hope anyone wanting run for alderman has plans to POUND Alderman Shiller on her refusal to address violent crime in the ward! I hope they have been keeping track of her responses to media covered events so that she when she says things like "My office is in contact with the police commander each day." "We monitor caps meetings notes." "We regularly meet with ward residents to discuss both planning and their concerns about the ward." They will have a response. Because she will, she had been saying these things for years.
ReplyDeleteThe article only seems to focus on the 32nd ward.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested, the 6th ward is experiencing an upsurge, so there is a special aldermanic meeting next week.
Levois, a favorite blogger of IrishPirate, runs the TheSixthWard blog, and will post some updates on that, as well as some responses to recent crimes.
A lot of parallels between Chatham and Uptown
But do the 6th and 32nd wards have a hippie-dippy chick alderman who ignores crime by explaining, "That's not my reality?"
ReplyDeleteThe 6th has people who assume everyone who has section 8 housing is a criminal, and would like to ship them all to another ward.
ReplyDeleteA difference is that Chatham has been middle class at least since the 50's, and section 8 residents are a relatively new phenomenon
In Uptown, the poor were already here, and it was the middle class who are the more recent arrivals, and somehow missed the people at Broadway at Wilson selling (& other stuff), the noise, crime (and the long time history of it) etc.
We're looking to work together as a community to get the resources we need AS WELL AS stepping up and helping our neighbors.
I have never in my 10 years in the ward, understood how Helen Shillers policies and treatment of her constituents was acceptable. No matter what side your on, she has forgotten that she is an elected official. Her and the Bernie Stones of Chicago are exactly what is wrong here. Lets hope voters at the ward, state, and national level are tired of elected officials forgetting who they work for (and what their responsibilities include).
ReplyDelete"In Uptown, the poor were already here, and it was the middle class who are the more recent arrivals, and somehow missed the people at Broadway at Wilson selling (& other stuff), the noise, crime (and the long time history of it) etc." jp
ReplyDeleteActually, the poor move more often and it's the condo owners who stick around more in the same place. Nice try though.
Regardless, does it really matter who has been here longer? Crime is crime and it's rather insulting to poor people to assume they don't mind it either. Why wouldn't they want what's best for their families, too?
Uptown is full of "Skittles contradictions", such as Sheridan Park (which doesn't touch Sheridan road) or Truman Square (on the other side of Broadway from Truman College).
ReplyDeleteWhile certainly some residences (especially nursing homes, homeless shelters and flop houses) have high turnover, if you've gotten to know residents of places like 4640 or the Twin Towers, many have lived there for years. I am especially thinking of young adults who grew up there and are now graduating college.
Also, in places like 810-826 W. Sunnyside and Sheridan Plaza, there were people who lived there for years who were forced out by the new owners (in the Sunnyside case, the residents were never given the option of 1st refusal as the building went condo)
Meanwhile, the 8 condo units at 4621 and 4627 N. Kenmore have flipped over residents in all of the units...i think one of themhas flipped twice. (One unit is renting out their unit, and the owners haven't lived there for at least a couple of years).
Granted those two buildings are probably atypical (in terms of the 100% turnover), but there are many condo owners who have come and gone...including 2 Shiller challengers (KUZAS! and Nathan), who left soon after their losses.
Due to the real estate bubble, i doubt there's been much turnover the past couple of years (though i have seen 3-4, sometimes more, "for sale" signs in 2 block stretches of Uptown). And there are certainly several longtime owners.
My point in bring it up would be this analogy: someone moving into Pilsen, and being surprised that there are so many people speaking SPanish. People who know, or know of , the area, already knew this, but an outsider who didn't do their homework would be shocked.
And Holey Moley, if the condo owning population is so stable, and the "others" so fluid, why hasn't the anti-Shiller movement NOT been able to garner enough votes to defeat SHiller (approximately the same number for over 8 years)? By your logic, there should be that initial base, plus newcomers. But instead, it seems like some portion of those voters move out, though replaced by the same number that would be active enough to vote against Shiller.
Feb 1999
Cindi Anderson 1,158 10%
Katharine Nathan 2,339 20%
SANDRA M. REED 2,476 21%
Helen Shiller 5,798 49%
That's a total of 5973 anti-Shiller votes
James Cappleman in 2007 recieved only 5287 votes.
And now, there are OTHER people running in addition to Cappleman...which i don't understand. Shouldn't the opposition galvanize around one candidate, like they did with Sandra Reed?
BAck to the topic at hand...sure the Alderman is SUPPOSED to be the leader of efforts to stop crime.
But there is NOTHING stopping the UCC from working with residents of places like 4640 or the 50% of the population living in non-HUD rentals to create forums and long term solutions to help the neighborhood, independent of the Alderman.
So, JP, when YOU moved out and moved to Rogers Park, and then moved again to the south side, that was "a sound financial decision" by a renter... but when homeowners sell and move, it's "flipping"?
ReplyDeleteFlipping double standard is more like it. Something like 20% of the population moves each year. For WHATEVER reason. To condemn homeowners who move as "flippers" is biased, when you yourself have said here how amazing the deals are for you, and that's why you move so much. I guess I could call someone who professes to know everything about a neighborhood he hasn't lived in for ... eight years now, is it? ... flighty and irresponsible. But that would be rude, wouldn't it?
Continually calling people "Anti-Shiller Crowd" and "UCC Crowd" just proves how out of touch you are with Uptown these days. I'll wager that the average UU reader/Uptown resident has no idea who Katharine Nathan is, or Sandra Reed, for that matter. Believe it or not, life has moved on in Uptown without you.
Bring up the bookmarks now, okay? That's current! Well, it was when VCRs were cutting edge and cost a grand.
For the record, I've lived here both as a renter and a homeowner. I moved out of my rental. I haven't moved out of my owned property. I guess I'll just have to shamefacedly wear the title of "fly-by-night renter" if that's the equivalent of "Flipper" to you.
HM and TSN, many poor and working people in Uptown seem to stay with the neighborhood and so maintain some stability in the neighborhood. I think the bigger point is if you are intent in reaching community solutions on crime, instead of lashing out when someone calls HM out on stereotyping of poor people, TSN, you might pay attention to the big picture that this stereotyping as much fuels class division as your belief JP is trying to stereotype condo owners. It seems you want it both ways--don't stereotype condo owners (which is a valid desire on your part), but feel free to throw all poor people and/or renters into one big transient pot.
ReplyDeleteYou'd be surprised at how many people in Uptown who are "poor" and non-owners have been here long enough to see a lot of things change, for good and bad, and I think that's the point. You should be trying to get these folks on your team instead of defending rhetoric that would tend to alienate them from working with you to find a solution to a problem that's affecting everyone in Uptown-- transients, the long time renters and property owners alike.
UW, I see your point, but there are no "teams." You are quick to imply that I look down on renters and poor people. Well, I rented for a long time right here in Uptown. So did my parents. So did my grandparents. Why on earth would you say that I hold myself above renters?
ReplyDeleteAs far as my allegedly looking down on "poor people," consider this: I am classified by the government as the working poor. Last year, if I had made $2000 less than I did, I would fall under the federal poverty line.
So who's stereotyping who?
TSN, if we are talking about working together as a community to deal with what's happening in Uptown, then in that sense we are a team, i.e., a collective--I'm sure you know that's what I meant. If people feel alienated, then that weakens the effectiveness of the community to work toward creating solutions. Also I did not say you looked down on the poor or renters. But please do not deny there is often a strain of superiority among some readers (not necessarily you...) who own, and who act as if renters and/or poor people in Uptown have less of a vested interest in the community because they are presumed transient. That is the stereotyping that IMO was loudly announced in HM's comment, and with which you seemed to concur--not that poor people/renters are bad, but that they do not have as much stake in the community as owners. And when a person suggests that renters/poor people in Uptown are transient (and thus have less of a stake in the community), that, IMO, helps perpetuate the kind of class division you say is perpetrated by Shiller. Renters move, and sometimes buyers move too. That's not that point. As long as we're here in Uptown calling it home, whatever our economic status or homeownership status, we have a stake in having a safe community.
ReplyDeleteNo, I never said that people who are renters have any less of a stake in the community. Why would I? My family has been here for-freaking-ever, and I'm the first one to be a homeowner. We've always been renters and that goes for three generations in Uptown.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did say was that JP is using a double standard. I acknowledge that people move. It happens all the time, for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of people. Yet in JP-World, homeowners who move are "flippers." When questioned as to why he moved, he responded that he could get much more for his money on the South Side. So in JP-Land, when a renter moves, it's smart money. In JP-Land, when a homeowner moves, it can only be because they're eager to flip their property.
THAT's the double standard. When I meet someone, I've never said "Do you rent or do you own?" It doesn't matter to me. I agree, we're all in this together, whether or not you make out your check to a landlord or a mortgage company on the 1st of the month.
Note to self: Stop responding to JP, who will only become more shrill and annoying with his 1997-era Uptown bifocals and insane "divisions" and judgments as we get closer to the election.
UW,
ReplyDeleteThe CURL study has information that people with lower incomes move around more often. Frankly, I don't care.
I never implied that people who move more often have less stake in the community. My point was turning that argument around to the ones who point fingers at condo owners to say they have fewer rights because they weren't here as long as those who are poor. To me, the important thing is that people of all incomes and who have been here for a day or 75 years all deserve to feel safe in their neighborhood and should not be blamed for wanting to call Uptown their home. That's been the theme of just about everything I've ever said on this blog. I don't see it changing.
As long as we're here in Uptown calling it home, whatever our economic status or homeownership status, we have a stake in having a safe community.
ReplyDeleteA-friggin'-men!
Note - the first candidate who can make that same statement while everyone else keeps a straight face will win.
Helen says it quite often, and coming from her, it's little more than a weak punchline to a very bad joke - and everyone knows it.
As an aside, if you don't mind UW, I'd partner "safe" w/"clean".