This quote caught our eye:
"Many people say they support affordable housing throughout the city of Chicago, just no more in the 46th Ward ... What we know is those people will be displaced. If you are not committed to any more affordable housing in this community, you are not committed to diversity."Who said it? Read the article and find out. If you'd like to know more about this candidate, and you'd like to ask her about her vision for the ward, she's appearing Thursday night, 6pm, at the Mercy Housing aldermanic forums, at 4716 N Malden.
(Okay... we've never been good at keeping a secret. It's Emily Stewart.)
If you are not committed to any more affordable housing in this community, you are not committed to diversity.
ReplyDeleteWhen these candidates discuss "diversity", I wonder if they realize that there are different types of diversity: religious, racial, ideological, etc, which need to be addressed and fostered, as well.
I think what she may have meant to say was: "economic diversity".
Adjectives are very important.
Were a candidate truly concerned with promoting "diversity" (rather than lazily utilizing easily-digestible political buzzwords nestled in divisive rhetoric to elicit Pavlovian responses from a specific subset of voters), one could assume that the candidate would ensure such distinctions were reflected in their platform.
Well at least she did not wait until after the election to come clean about her vision for the ward. However, I respectfully disagree with her statement. I like to think as a Clinical Social Worker I have a pretty good understanding of what the word diversity means. My opinion about putting an end to the concentration of poorly run low income housing, SRO’s and social service agencies in the 46th ward has nothing to do with diversity. It does however, have a great deal to do with my years of professional experience in helping to make these types of services safe and effective to those who desperately need them. But those who “volunteer” for social service agencies often don’t understand the necessary structure it takes to make them effective. Lets focus on that Emily, making the services already here effective, instead of blindly adding more “services.” If they are not run well what would be the point? In has been my experience that many of the services in the 46th are run so poorly; there is plenty of work to do before anything new gets added! There are services that are much more poorly run then Somerset House, and that one was closed by the state last year.
ReplyDeleteIf that's what she thinks....I hope she doesn't win
ReplyDeleteMy response is: If you are committed to concentrating even more poverty in a ward that is already saturated with it, you are not committed to the long-term health of the ward nor of any of its residents.
ReplyDeleteThat quote is absolutely Shilleresque. Divisive, judgmental, "if you aren't for this, you are heartless."
Where does it say that Uptown is the only place on the North Side with the obligation and compassion to house those in need? Why is it somehow that much LESS compassionate to ask other neighborhoods to open their arms to those people?
Uptown is far behind the rest of the city in home ownership. Why is it THAT never mentioned when mentioning "diversity"?
If this is an accurate quote from Emily, I see Shiller's thumbprints all over it and I am so very disappointed.
Yo, my thoughts exactly.
ReplyDeleteAfter working in HR for 10 years and providing diversity training to multiple levels of associates and managers, one of the conversations we typically have revolves around all of the diversity dimensions which include: Marital/Family Status, Regional Differences, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Military Experience, Race, Gender, Education, Linguistic Differences, Hobbies & Interests, Ethics & Values, Disability, Color, Ethnicity, Appearance, Age, Politics, Work Background, Religion, Socio-Economic Status, Class and yes, even Income.
It really frustrates me when someone makes a statement like "If you are not committed to any more affordable housing in this community, you are not committed to diversity." Really? Can you please explain to me how affordable housing = diversity?
If you're simply defining diversity by Income, I'd be glad to provide you with some free training on the topic. Name the time and place. I'll be sure to focus on the diversity dimensions before we move on to a much more important topic - inclusion. When we talk about diversity & inclusion, we talk about "little d, BIG I" because inclusion is the real focus for us in the workplace. We hope that our employees feel included, valued and engaged.
I know who I'm voting for and it's someone I know that will work for inclusiveness in the 46th ward. (Here's a hint - it's not Emily Stewart.)
Since I know and respect Emily, I sincerely hope she meant "economic diversity" and and not just diversity in general. Otherwise, her statement is quite demeaning to our lower income neighbors.
ReplyDeleteIronically, adding more affordable housing to our ward would actually make it LESS diverse (from an economic standpoint) since there is an already large population of low income households in Uptown.
I wish organizations like O.N.E. would work with other aldermen and neighborhoods to ensure that lower income families and individuals have housing choices throughout the city. That is the model that Toronto uses - there are affordable housing options throughout the city, and Toronto is recognized as one of the most diverse cities in the world.
I wonder if O.N.E.'s focus areas will change if the 46th ward alderman is not focused on adding affordable housing to the ward.
Otherwise, her statement is quite demeaning to our lower income neighbors.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be demeaning to pretty much everyone, actually.
Ms. Stewart's 'diversity' comments are so ignorant and discredited by the facts on the ground that they hardly deserve comment, but it's an election year so... It's amazing that similar comments carried Ms. Shiller through more than 20 years of misguided urban development. I've never understood why anyone claiming to act in the best interests of the City of Chicago would force the use of prime lakefront real estate to create "affordable housing" for diversity. There are so many parts of the city that do not have Uptown's development potential, or Rogers Park's for that matter, which could use some sort of subsidized economic development from businesses and organizations in the social services sector, or any other for that matter. Those areas have high unemployment rates. Why would you ever intentionally suppress economic development?
ReplyDeleteThe quote in the Windy City Times is incomplete. Ms. Stewart clearly prefaced her statement by explaining that without a commitment to new affordable housing, economic diversity will shrink, because there is a natural attrition that occurs when landlords currently accepting Section 8 vouchers cease to do so in an improving rental market.
ReplyDeleteContrary to popular belief, units are not Section 8 designated. They are inspected and approved for Section 8, but landlords make no long-term commitment to renting to vouchered tenants. As a real estate professional working in Lakeview, I've witnessed firsthand how displacement of low-income residents occurs, and I was impressed that Ms. Stewart understands that you need to nurture some real estate development with contractually set-aside low income units because the Section 8 program does absolutely nothing to prevent displacement.
I agree she should have said "economic" diversity, but I think she does understand that improving the management of existing low-income housing is a top priority.
Ms. Stewart was not on the top of my list going into that forum (which I attended) but she is now. She was bright, articulate, and very realistic, especially about budgetary issues, and about the inviolability of the parking meter lease, which most candidates think the city can abrogate without considering the consequences.
I'm still undecided, but every day of listening to this group of 11 has improved my outlook on my ward, as at least 8, if not more, should be a significant upgrade.
I appreciate Emily’s comment on affordable housing. As we often times forget affordable housing is a huge component to the senior citizen population living in our ward. Senior citizens actually prove to stabilize neighborhoods and communities. Also, as section 8 contracts expire we need a champion to guarantee that these units aren’t lost forever and the diverse populations who can make up the residents of these units are not pushed out from our area.
ReplyDeleteMe thinks Emily is reading this based on the last 2 commenter’s.
ReplyDeleteI think Uptown has a HUGE amount of Section 8 housing that will be with us for a very long time, thanks in part to Helen Shiller. Look at all the buildings she bought using the WY TIF money - guaranteeing them to be Section 8 for at least 40 more years. In addition to that, WY itself isn't going to turnover into market rate anytime soon - if ever. Peter makes too much money getting those vouchers.
To even suggest putting more "affordable" housing in Uptown is irresponsible unless you are a poverty pimp.
Enough is enough.
The negative, personal attacks against Ald. Shiller were sometimes pretty disgusting, and the sentiment was encouraged by the people behind this website. With her retirement, this is a nice opportunity for Uptown Update to adopt a less snarky attitude. Uptown Update cherry picked a quote, apparently out of context, and put it on the website to provoke an overreaction like Shua's. So, really, Uptown Update, what's your point?
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Sun Times endorsement of Emily Stewart. Read what the Tribune had to say. I've recently become aware of her, and she really does not seem like some sort of extremist.
To exaggerate whatever indirect connections exist between violence/gangs and affordable housing is extreme. It suggests that we throw out the baby with the bath water. We should focus on stopping the violence in our neighborhood, not on restricting development of low-income housing.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike and Vera's comments (as well as with Ms. Stewart.) It's imperative that we maintain and improve affordable housing opportunities in the ward.
ReplyDeleteWithout that commitment by the next alderman, the ward will almost certainly head toward the "next Lincoln Park" that so many profess not to want to live in.
Mein Gott!
ReplyDeleteMad scientists have transferred the divisive soul of Helen Shiller into Emily.
The horror..........
At least she didn't use the word "indigenous" regarding anyone.
Oh well few people in this ward had ever heard of Emily before she announced she was running and I expect after February 22 she'll seldom be heard of again.
Unless she becomes the indigenous version of Lars "America First" Daley and becomes a perennial candidate.
It is obvious that there are very different opinions regarding affordable/low-income housing in our ward. This is inevitable in a diverse neighborhood - you get diverse views.
ReplyDeleteI personally think both extreme views are dangerous - adding as much affordable housing as possible and eliminating as much as we can. I think we need to inventory all of the ward's housing stock and complete a comprehensive ward plan for development - all types of development. This is the model followed in neighboring wards.
Clearly, some of the ward's affordable housing is in sub-standard condition. It is vital that the existing affordable housing stock is adequately maintained before we spend additional funds developing new housing. I belive everyone in our ward should have access to well-maintained housing and safe streets. I hope our next alderman works to create a safe neighborhood for our diverse population.
I also think it's counterproductive to say that Uptown will become the "next Lincoln Park." I admire the walkability, lower crime rates and retail-filled streets in Lincoln Park. Why can't we have these elements in Uptown? We can. I truly believe we can maintain the great diversity (economic, racial, age, sexual orientation) in Uptown, and become a desireable place for business to locate. This creates not only businesses to patronize, but jobs for our neighbors.
As far as I am concerned, Housing has gotten TOO affordable in this ward. My condo value has taken a 40% hit, how about all of you??? I desperately look forward to the day where the market rebounds and I can actually move without taking a substantial loss. The only way that is going to happen is if this ward becomes safer, better run, more appealing by means of appropriate retail and entertainment outlets, etc. More affordable housing will not do anything but further hurt and depress this ward.
ReplyDelete@CubReporter - I agree. That's Cappleman's position. He's not an ideologue on one side or the other. He just wants the real data from a market survey (for both retail and housing vacancy rates for all the types of housing currently available in the ward). His view has been that if there are high vacancy rates in certain segments, then we shouldn't be building more because they will just sit empty. After listening to many of the debates and candidate forums, I will probably vote for him because I feel like he looks at both sides of issues and tries to find the rational solution (recognizing that even people who disagree have usually common goals) rather than taking an ideological stance to try to rally votes from one faction versus another. Feel like I can have a real conversation with him even if I differing viewpoint, and after talking with him many times I trust him. I'll be on record as being for Cappleman if I post on UU going forward.
ReplyDeleteCub Reporter: +1
ReplyDeleteAnd, jim ... if the streets are clean and safe, retail is thriving, people are able to live/work within the ward, and those who need assistance are receiving an honest/effective level of such, why would you leave?
Vera, Me et al.... there’s nothing wrong with birds - but too many makes a great thriller by Hitchcock. There’s nothing wrong with water but too much sometimes floods basements. There’s nothing wrong with snow .... you get the drift (no pun intended).
ReplyDeleteSo as you may guess the argument here is not about the value of subsidized low income housing it’s about the concentration. Large concentrations of low income housing like we see in Uptown burdens a community and promotes unhealthy outcomes. That’s not my opinion. That’s a fact and even HUD will not authorize additional housing in neighborhoods with more than 20%. Studies site 15-20% tops is the tipping point. Uptown has over 24%.
I have an empirical/economics related question (surprise): Why do landlords prefer to rent to people without vouchers? It seems to me that people with vouchers will be more likely to pay their rent. Is it because they make bad tenants? If that's the case, shouldn't the CHA offer above-market rates to compensate landlords for the hassle?
ReplyDeleteHousing large groups of low-income residents together just doesn't seem like good policy to me. That doesn't mean we can't have low-income residents in the ward. It just means that we need to find creative solutions to help maintain an integrated neighborhood.
I am all for diversity. Great. Bring it on. Unfortunately, "affordable housing", while bringing diversity, brings filth, gangs, and drugs.
ReplyDeleteYou walk down Magnolia, you know exactly where all the Section 8 housing is because there's trash all over the property. (potato chip bags, liquor bottles, pop cans, etc.) You can literally pic these houses out on the trash alone. That is aside from the fact that bullets are flying all over the Magnolia, Malden, and Sunnyside area. And then we have to put up with them peddling drugs to all the homless and other bums living by the Wilson Red line so that get to see crazy people yelling and begging me for money when I get off the Train.
I am all for equality, but only for the people who see QUALITY in life. I don't necessarily want a upscale, yuppie neighborhood like Lincoln Park. But, I would like to walk home without have to take an alternate route because yellow tape blocking off my street.
Sorry, I don't want "low-income housing" in Uptown. It's a flawed system. Whoever is stopping the flow of Section 8 and Low income housing in this Ward, has my vote.
"HUD will not authorize additional housing in neighborhoods with more than 20%. Studies site 15-20% tops is the tipping point. Uptown has over 24%."
ReplyDeleteWell HUD just approved the place on Magnolia. Does that only apply to "new" housing? Or do rehabs not count?
Why do landlords prefer to rent to people without vouchers?
ReplyDeleteA friend with a rental unit told me her reasons for deciding not to participate in the Section 8 program (in which the gov't pays part of the rent and the tenant pays part). Basically, if the tenant stops paying his part of the rent, the gov't will not help with an eviction and it becomes costly for the landlord. Also, the gov't can stop paying its part of the rent if it finds something it doesn't like about the landlord's property. She felt it was just easier to deal with one party -- the tenant -- rather than two -- the tenant and the gov't.
@ Jason,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, HUD won't participate in financing additional low-income housing when the community already has a density of > 20%. That's why HUD wouldn't be involved with Wilson Yard, and Helen had to go the TIF route.
The work on Magnolia is just providing some upgrades and repairs to existing low-income housing (Voice of the People buildings). And they are also trying to ensure that those buildings remain low-income housing for years to come. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
jason (tfo) - who said HUD approved the properties on Magnolia (and the others acquired)? They were purchased using TIF funds and will be operated by Voice of the People. I know HUD was mentioned in the document submitted to the CDC, but I don't recall seeing anywhere that HUD approved (and therefore funded) this project.
ReplyDeleteHere's something for yall. According to the City of Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance, any building that have 7 or more units cannot discriminate against a potential renter who has a section 8 voucher. A voucher is considered a form of income and income discrimination is protected by the Federal Fair Housing Laws. So, aldermen cannot have an impact on the amount of section 8 units in the ward.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric. I don't like that Section 8=crime, but every time I talk to the local cops, they point to the Section 8 Housing on Magnolia as the problem buildings. I also agree with Eric that the bulk of the litter is centered around those properties. I also notice that the alleys behind Section 8 housing tend to be more cluttered with old furniture and garbage...there has been a green leather couch out there for months now in the Malden-Magnolia alley and for a long time, there was an old toilet.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying everyone in Section 8 is ghetto trash, but I think the problem is more that the bangers are living with Grandma or Mom or another sympathetic relative off the books.
Post 1 of 2:
ReplyDelete@ Miss Kitty,
There is an FHA loan, FHA is part of HUD
The financing for this is crazy. After reviewing the Staff Report for the Hazel Winthrop Apartments Project (“The Report”) I am going to use it to illustrate my point. (DISCLAIMER: There are still a couple holes I haven't figured out.)
I loved how it pointed out the public benefits. Somebody is benefiting but it sure is not the public. Hum. I wonder whom. Lets take a look at the financing.
A new FHA mortgage of approximately $4,315,000 under FHA’s Section 221(d)(4) program will be issued. HUD describes this mortgage in the following manner:
Section 221(d)(4) is used by profit-motivated sponsors. [The program] assist[s] private industry in the construction or rehabilitation of rental and cooperative housing for moderate-income and displaced families by making capital more readily available. The program allows for long-term mortgages (up to 40 years) that can be financed with Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) Mortgage Backed Securities.
Wow. This sounds good so far, for the L.P. at least. Limited Partnerships have limited liability, meaning they are only liable on debts incurred by the firm to the extent of their registered investment and have no management authority. Essentially, this is structured so that an investor can only be liable for the amount of the contributions the Limited Partner puts into it. So let’s see what the LP is putting into the project.
The L.P. appears to be getting an FHA Mortgage insured by the taxpayers – I have not read the actual agreement, but if this is the case the LP can simply walk away from this mortgage. However, the L.P. doesn’t really need to worry about it, because the mortgage is being supported by Net Operating Income (NOI) and Tax Increment Funds (TIF). We all know where the TIF money comes from, but what about the NOI. This is simple, it comes from the taxpayers. Just read the report. “There is a Section 8 HAP contract for the buildings which allows tenants to pay 30% of their adjusted monthly income for rent, and the HAP subsidy pays the remainder rent. At closing, the developer will apply for an extension of the existing Section 8 HAP contract. If approved, the extension will go for a 20-year term. The rents reflected in this chart are inclusive of the 30% the tenant is paying.” So you, the taxpayer are paying 70% of the rent to the L.P.
So it looks like the L.P. is contributing at least a risk here. A risk that the tenants cannot come up with the $335.00 rent for a fully rehabbed 2 bedroom apartment. Well at least that is something right? Lets take a look. To qualify to rent here, you cannot make more than 60% of the local median income. The annual median income for area code 60640 is $40,064.00 meaning that the maximum income you can have is about $24,000.00 per year or $2000.00 per month. If you are making that much, your rent is only about 16% of your income. That’s a pretty sweet deal. Most people pay up to 30% of their income. Also, if you can’t come up with your 30% of the rent, I am sure there is another government agency that can cover this with another handout somewhere. That should be no problem. This is a great deal all around Look at it this way, as a landlord you would be guaranteed 70% occupancy at all time. Sweet. The L.P.’s risk is minimal.
to be continued......
Post 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteMoving on. What about this mysterious Bridge Bond. “The bridge bond will have a principal amount of $1,500,000, and be used during the construction period. It will be repaid with limited partner equity pay-ins”. There we go! The L.P. is liable for the $1,500,000.00 bridge bond! That is their contribution! Not really. Again, I have not read the operating agreement, but essentially the City is borrowing $1,500,000.00 to finance this project with the promise that the L.P. will pay it back.
How will the L.P. pay off the bonds? Well, because the project is be funded by the City, through tax-exempt bonds, it triggers eligibility for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”). There is some irony in the fact that it is often pronounced "lie-tech". So how does a tax credit generate $2,888,669 of equity? What does the L.P. do with these magical tax credits? They sell them. The L.P. will find an investor will make a "capital contribution" to the L.P. in exchange for being "allocated" the entity's tax credits over a ten year period. The buyers of course don’t actually pay full price for the credits however. This is a dollar for dollar tax credit. So if an investor pays $75,000.00 for $100,000.00 in tax credits, they can take $100,000.00 right off of there tax bill. Nice $25,000.00 profit! Who did they make this money from? The taxpayer, of course. One estimate is that the Lie-tech program would cost the federal government $61 billion in lost tax revenue from participating corporations from 2008-2017. Sounds like a lot of money doesn’t it? This estimate must have come from some conservative think tank just trying to keep the people down. Well, no, actually, it came from President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, created by President Barack Obama in 2009.
There is more. These agreements with investors are called “syndication.” Essentially, the developer will enter into a Limited Partnership or Limited liability Company with the L.P. The agreement will provide that 99.99% of the profits, losses, depreciation, and tax credits be allocated to the investor as a partner in the partnership. Where do the profits come from? They come from the rents that you the taxpayer are paying of course.
So now what happens. The L.P. has raised the equity. According to the report, it will raise $2,888,669 of equity. It takes $1,500,000 that it raised from the LIHTC to repay the bridge Bond. The L.P. uses taxpayer money to repay taxpayer money. NICE!! The remaining $1,388,669 will be used for the project.
Are you keeping count? So far the L.P.’s “contribution amounts to a whooping $0.00.
Now all the L.P. has to do is finish the project and collect its $150,000.00 developer’s fee. “The developer will also defer developer fee of $150,000. The developer will have a ten year period in which to collect the fee provided the buildings are performing in the black.” Well that’s nice of them to defer their fee, it provides motivation for the developer to mange the property for 10 years and keep it profitable. Those investors want their money back. Except, one would be stupid not simply create another legal entity yourself to keep the tax credits you sold and take the profits yourself. Do you really think the L.P. goes through all of this just for a $150,000.00 development fee payable in ten years? Yes, you can create another entity and essentially sell the tax credits to yourself. The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich and the taxpayer foots the bill. All is well in America. Our hood gets garbage, and investors can make their yacht payments.
The TIF is only part of it. Taxpayers and people in this Ward are totally in the dark.
I love being lectured at by a 30 year-old who just finished college and just moved back into the ward, as I'm sure all of the long-time homeowners in the ward do.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was 20 years old, I thought I knew everything too. Fortunately, I outgrew it.
Tip to the Stewart campaign:
You can't campaign on an Us versus Them platform and be for diversity.
To Bob Ross,
ReplyDeleteSection 8 DOES offer above-market rents to landlords, who get far more for slum property than such a place would rent for on the "open market".
Section 8 has been instrumental in driving up rents and making life extremely difficult for the working poor and near-poor who do not qualify for subsidies- or who don't want to live with druggies and criminals- and who make just over threshold incomes.
Section 8 has blighted thousands of formerly fine urban neighborhoods across the nation and has made life more expensive for absolutely everyone, both as taxpayers and as market-rate rent payers, while the poor are just as badly housed as ever. It enables careless landlords while punishing those who maintain their property and try to keep rents reasonable for market rate tenants.
You'll notice that 80 years of government subsidized housing, from housing projects and Section 8 all the way through subsidies for home ownership, FHA, and government-chartered GSE's like Fannie and Freddie that have to be backed by the taxpayers, that there are more homeless people than ever and our housing and credit markets are destroyed by bad lending for housing, while housing costs have risen 40% during the past decade during which wages and salaries remained flat and even declined slightly.
How can anyone say that any government housing program has benefited any segment of the population? The only people who have derived any benefit from this socialistic crap are slumlords, corrupt politicians, production home builders who build cardboard subdivisions, and larcenous mortgage lenders. The rest of us get stuck with the bills and a lowered standard of living at much greater cost.
@The North Coast
ReplyDeleteYou raise compelling points. I didn't know section 8 offered above-market rents. I still have a lot to learn about this topic.
I understand the effects of housing subsidies on the housing market. But those effects alone shouldn't stop us from ensuring that everyone has a place to sleep. The question is, how can we minimize the negative effects of housing subsidies?
jason (tfo) - thanks for the research! I appreciate it. I stand corrected ;-)
ReplyDelete=== those effects alone shouldn't stop us from ensuring that everyone has a place to sleep. The question is, how can we minimize the negative effects of housing subsidies? ===
ReplyDelete@Rob Ross -
Well, I'll tell you what you DON'T do. You don't cut funding for job creation by 20 percent to build more public housing, which is what Emily Stewart plans to do.
Honestly, what we should be spending more money on is job creation, job training, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and other supportive services that move people into good-paying jobs and OUT of public housing.
That's the problem with Emily Stewart's approach: she thinks more people in public housing is a good thing, when our goal should be to move people OUT of public housing.
It's almost like she's representing the developers instead of the neighborhood.
@Miss. Kitty - that will be $800.00 ;-)
ReplyDeleteYDD,
"Its almost like she is supporting the developers"
Did you read my posts? Who do you think dreams up these corporate structures? CORPORATE FINANCE ATTORNEYS!!!
I want to point out I am not telling anybody who do vote for. I put two and two together when I starting reading up on her background and positions. I am just disgusted by her position.
@Yellow Dog Democrat
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome.
Sincerely,
Your Foil.
"You don't cut funding for job creation by 20 percent to build more public housing, which is what Emily Stewart plans to do."
ReplyDeleteHuh? Did she really say that? That is too stupid to be true.
The man who starts his campaign a month ago gets a shout out in the tribs endorsement section of Emily Stewart?!? Ha man sorry Emily but this shows how clueless the trib is!!!!!!
ReplyDelete@Jason -
ReplyDeleteCan you break that down into bullet points for me? I'm not that smart.
@Me, et al -
I'm not reading anything into Ms. Stewart's comments. Ms. Stewart think that anyone like me who believes the 46th ward is already supersaturated with public housing is against (economic) diversity.
Who does she think she is to judge me?
Let's look at it from a broader perspective, Emily: If you're for cramming all of the public housing into the 46th Ward, you're against diversity in the rest of the city.
Let's ask Emily Stewart how much affordable housing her good friend Blair Hull has near his place in the Gold Coast.
@Jason - Yes, she did. Emily Stewart want to divert TIF funding from economic development projects to build public housing.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Emily is looking to take direct aim at funds for economic development.
ReplyDeleteOr, at least, I would hope that she isn't.
What I do find interesting is how a candidate can make the following statement:
One way that we will not dig ourselves out of this whole [and yes, I took a screencap] is to begin contributing another $550 million to the City employee pension funds
She's absolutely right.
To that point, we also can't dig ourselves out of debt by funneling money from a system which is helping to generate that debt - and adversely affecting the funding for "necessary services" (TIFs - which, coincidentally enough, draws the same amount of money as the contribution she mentions).
Financing affordable housing is all well and good, but it's not a sustainable revenue generator - and this city needs to either start generating more revenue, or stop generating more debt.
If the city can start generating more revenue, the possibility exists where we can provide a strong enough economic environment that could stave off (at least somewhat) a need for so much affordable housing - which, regardless of your position on affordable housing, is the ultimate goal, isn't it?
On a somewhat unrelated note, I found the following line on Emily's site interesting:
I promise to put my Ward office in the highest crime area of the Ward to increase foot traffic and deter crime.
Not to bring up tired political rhetoric like "failed policies of the past"; but, isn't the alderman's office already in the highest crime area of the Ward?
Honestly, the more I look, the less light I find between Stewart and Shiller.
Which is both surprising and disappointing.
Am I being a bit snarky on some matters with Emily? Sure.
But if a schmuck like me can find holes (or "wholes") in her platform, what are the vultures in Council going to do to her suggestions/recommendations/legislative proposals?
The best ideas in the world aren't worth a darn if you can't execute them - regardless of how bright, young or fresh your face is.
And, if a candidate can't even be bothered to proofread their campaign literature ...