Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Chateau Hotel Update

From Ald. Cappleman's latest newsletter:

"Ald. Cappleman recently convened a meeting with the Dept. of Family & Support Services, BJB Properties (the manager of 3838 N. Broadway, Ltd), Catholic Charities, and other social services to assist with the coordination of moving the residents in the 45 remaining units to safer and affordable housing.

A special thanks to Catholic Charities for taking the lead on working with the remaining residents and the new building owners. This has been crucial to assist the residents with finding more suitable housing at a price they can afford. Once the rehab of this building is complete, we expect the new owners to ensure the building is well managed for the benefit of its tenants and the surrounding community.

In court on April 4th, the judge entered a fine of $18,000 plus $60 court costs against the previous owners of the Chateau Hotel.  These fines will help reimburse past court costs that have occurred over the years. The previous owners will be dismissed from the case upon payment of the fine. The case was continued to June 6th at 11:30 AM for case management.

Last week, Ald. Cappleman worked with the Police and the Dept. of Family & Support Services to coordinate efforts to assist an elderly, fragile woman living at the Chateau who was covered in bed bugs. As a result, the woman was immediately hospitalized. Upon discharge, she will be moving to a safer home."


  1. If this isn't a prime example of "pimping poverty," I don't know what is. I still can't believe that there are groups out there that support places like the Hotel Chateau and the Lawrence Hotel in good faith. What are they thinking?

  2. Revivalist, they think that they are protecting people from a situation they view as worse (living on the streets). I personally don't agree with this viewpoint, but it's worth acknowledging that they typically have good intentions.

  3. Greg, vs. getting eaten alive by bugs... yes, I agree with U.R. it is pimping poverty... organizations like ONE only get funding when they continue the cycle of poverty. If it goes away, so do they. It is in their own selfish interest that they protest changing the status quo in any way. Do think otherwise is to be naive.

  4. if only they would take this hotel & restore it to an actual hotel ... this building wasn't built as a flop house. just because it has spent the better part of the past 40-50 years as such doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be rehabbed & made viable again. this area needs more local hotel options & returning these old hotels to their original use is certainly a good idea.

  5. ONE’s members are so intense. They are highly emotional, overly dramatic individuals whose only means to a solution is intimidation and harassment. Just look at their website. That’s why our elected representatives and businesses want nothing to do with them. They aren’t just frauds, they’re crazy!

  6. Wang, I think you're right. I've seen them operate in my neighborhood. I love it when their volunteers do their annual "landscaping" to the parkway in front of one of their crumbling buildings in Sheridan Park. Within 24 hours, all of their work is pretty much destroyed because nobody in that building cares about the grass. In the meantime, chunks of the building were falling on passersby below. O.N.E.'s solution? They just tore out that part of the building. They're not very good landlords or even respectful neighbors.

  7. Once upon a time, this was a hotel, yes, but an apartment hotel, correct?

  8. So, kick all the poor people out, renovate it, and sell the units to wealthier Chicago residents?

    That plan doesn't sit kosher with me.

    ...anyway, kicking poor people out of Uptown doesn't "fix" the poverty problem.
    Greg, I've lived on the streets, and it's much worse than living in a slum.
    I'd like you to sleep in the rain or snow and then tell me how you feel about slum roofs.

    I'm no fan of O.N.E., but can the personal attacks please [insinuating mental illness of an entire group because they differ politically isn't exactly a light accusation].
    Propaganda and logical fallacies are a bit immature, and honestly insulting when peoples [yes, poor people are people too] lives are on the line.

    Leave non-criminal people alone and only attack the criminals.
    Being poor isn't a crime.

  9. Prometheus, I re-read my comment and can see how you interpreted my comment the way you did. I did not mean to insinuate that living on the street was better than living in one of these buildings.

    Let me re-state my view more clearly: I believe that groups like ONE are not working out of some nefarious intent, but rather out of a practical viewpoint that living in an arguably terrible situation like the Chateau Hotel is still better than living on the street (which I agree with).

    Where my view starts to diverge is that I believe that this is a false dichotomy (these are not the only options). We can help these people into a better living situation and not just push people out onto the streets or leave them living in these dangerous situations.

  10. PC, in this country, we can't force a developer to spend millions of dollars to rehab a building with no government assistance and then rent them back to the same tenants at the same price.

    What is your suggestion about resolving this?