Controversial Question: Should Chicago "De-Amalgamate"?

[goat314]

Originally Posted by denizen467

This actually points out one small argument that would support 10023's theoretical idea, because most Chicagoans, including the many suburbanites who consider themselves part of the city, are sick of being somehow personally blamed for these problems, when they have absolutely no role in them or even any contact with the people or decisionmakers involved. The whole country likes to make Chicago and Chicagoans a whipping boy for the problems of these neighborhoods. But the problems of those neighborhoods have their original roots in national, not local, history and policies. It was the South, not the North, where the inception of the underclass first happened. Later a giant Northern Migration happened, and it was bigger than the city could handle; smoother integration might have happened if the proportions had been more manageable. Then there are very recent immigrants from Asia or the Middle East who, if you talk to lots of cab drivers, are practically indignant that suddenly they're supposed feel any guilt in the matter. You can also look at national drug and criminal law policies. So at least the public perception needs to be that it's a national problem, not some kind of special mistreatment by nine million very horrible fellow urban dwellers. Having different geographic names, being in different political units, would help that. It's utterly useless to everybody if the branding of Chicago's economic dynamo is nationally tainted every three weeks by the same three gangs.

On the other hand, we have a system where federal support flows to cities, which have become generally equipped to handle these matters. So it's not clear how the federal government could effectively help those neighborhoods if they were floating around as rickety small suburbs. I would prefer that the South got taxed to help with this but I think they got out of further obligations a century and a half ago.

One can imagine scenarios that would strangle the goose laying the golden eggs.

A lot of what your saying is revisionist history at best. Chicago has a well documented history of very racist activity and even the implementation of racialized housing covenants intended to keep neighborhoods white only.

I don't think people are asking people to take "personal blame" for the problems of the ghetto, but the crimes are a reality of life in Chicago for many people.

I have my own opinions on immigration policy and the "opinions" of immigrants, who feel they have no stake in America's cultural narrative. If they don't want to feel the burden of "America's social problems", I will gladly help them pack their bags and go back where they came from. Like I said, NOT A LIBERAL.

[mrsmartman]

Originally Posted by goat314

A lot of what your saying is revisionist history at best. Chicago has a well documented history of very racist activity and even the implementation of racialized housing covenants intended to keep neighborhoods white only.

I don't think people are asking people to take "personal blame" for the problems of the ghetto, but the crimes are a reality of life in Chicago for many people.

I have my own opinions on immigration policy and the "opinions" of immigrants, who feel they have no stake in America's cultural narrative. If they don't want to feel the burden of "America's social problems", I will gladly help them pack their bags and go back where they came from. Like I said, NOT A LIBERAL.

Another general problem of liberals is that they like to "create" problems out of thin air. The reality is that this is how society works.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by 10023

I think that state governments have outlived their usefulness - issues are either national or local. In the same way, don't local issues really pertain to either the metropolitan area, as an economic unit, or to smaller localities than Chicago's ~230 square miles?

Maybe Chicago needs boroughs...perhaps after consolidating with Cook County.

Thinking about it that's the only real way I could see this working. Admittedly I'm not super familiar with the powers of counties as compared to municipalities in the U.S., but in Ontario many municalities are tiered. In that you have an upper-tier municipality that has control of some regional functions that can vary, but usually include emergency services, regional planning, arterial roads, sometimes transit etc. Within these upper-tier municipalities there are lower-tier ones that have more local control over what happens within their boundaries while conforming to the overall regional planning structure. In terms of property taxes there would be one regional rate, and a separate local rate that is determined at the lower-tier. In theory this lets individual municipalities set different priorities based on need while still receiving the same base levels of service regionally.

If such a thing ever happened with Cook County I could see the need for some sort of redistribution of regional taxes based on need. As mentioned above I doubt some places would be able to adequately cover basic services with their tax base alone. But it could give more flexibility at a local level to direct funding where needed and raise/lower individual tax rates by class. For instance a focus on small business development as opposed to streetscape beautification (just pulling this one out of thin air). Central Chicago may opt for a higher commercial tax rate based on the desirability of the Loop / upscale retail strips whereas an outlying one may lower it to attract small businesses and retain light industry.


This all being said I don't really think this is a good idea or even remotely likely. But despite the connotations some have attached to it can still be an interesting discussion.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Man you honestly think Englewood brings in more tax revenue than it takes away in schools, roads, police etc?

If you're going to single out the shittiest parts of the South Side, then probably no.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by denizen467

... because most Chicagoans, including the many suburbanites who consider themselves part of the city, are sick of being somehow personally blamed for these problems, when they have absolutely no role in them or even any contact with the people or decisionmakers involved. The whole country likes to make Chicago and Chicagoans a whipping boy for the problems of these neighborhoods.

Too bad. If people want to consider themselves Chicagoans, then they have to take the bad with the good. That's the way it goes. If "most Chicagoans, including the many suburbanites who consider themselves part of the city" don't like being associated with the much-publicized troubles of certain neighborhoods, then they should either give up calling themselves Chicagoans or quit complaining and help out.

Not their problem though, right?

[Xing]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don't think most South aside residents particularly care if Chicago is in a league with "alpha" global cities or another Cleveland.

I don't think you've known many southsiders, aside the ones you've maybe seen on the 5 o'clock news.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

ALL cities have their wealthy and poorer, safer and more violent area, without exception. We live in a class ridden society and our cities reflect that reality.

Chicago's problem is that it has done much to little for it's poorer and predominately black areas for decades. How many times have I seen on this and other forums comments about Chicago's horrific murder rate always followed by the caveat "ya, but's just the Southside". Somehow inferring that those areas {and hence people} don't really count. This out-of-sight-out-of-mind mentality is self perpetuating as it further alienates both people and communities that are already the most alienated.

This. The reason Chicago is kinda a blend of a depressed Rust Belt city and a thriving global city is because it has taken the unusual path of hyperconcentrating all the investments in the core and surrounding areas, while allowing the withering of peripheral areas.

Rahm (and predecessor Daley) have spent huge money opening schools in gentrified white areas while closing schools in black and Hispanic areas. They've massively subsidized downtown construction through TIF subsidies and other highly questionable schemes. The parks, streets, sidewalks, everything, are so much nicer in the core and Northside white areas.

There's also an implicit "the real Chicago is downtown; everything else isn't really Chicago" mentality. I even think there are many in power who want these bad areas to further depopulate, as they see them as nothing but burdens. You often see on SSP "Yeah Chicago is declining in population but downtown population growth is growing and that's all that matters" or "Yeah Chicago has a murder epidemic but Lincoln Park/Lakeview are still safe so doesn't matter" type rationalization.

Re. the thread topic, I don't see how de-amalgamation would be good for the region. You would basically be creating much bigger West Side/South Side versions of Gary, IN, and the problems would likely grow.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always had the sense that New York has largely gentrified its way out of these urban issues, and they've moved to places like Newark and Hempstead.

Most of NYC isn't gentrified. The Bronx has barely any gentrification, except the furthest southern reaches. Nearly half of Brooklyn has little/no gentrification. Queens is only gentrified in certain nodes.

Why does the Bronx have a much lower murder crime than Chicago (and I think even Boston or SF) despite huge concentrated poverty? I think there are many variables at work.

NYC has generally done the opposite of Chicago, using the core to subsidize the fringe areas. For example, there are special commercial and residential property taxes, as well as a business incorporation tax, unique to Manhattan and gentrified areas. NYC also requires that new luxury buildings subsidize lower-income housing construction elsewhere. Chicago does the reverse, using citywide TIF to subsidize downtown projects.

Another difference is public housing. Despite all its issues, public housing in NYC is intact, growing and desirable among the poor. Public housing in Chicago is a disaster, and the city basically gave up and destroyed most of the complexes.

A third difference is immigration. NYC just gets a lot more immigration, so there's a constant renewal of neighborhoods. When Puerto Ricans (to take an example) leave the Bronx, they're replaced by Dominicans and Mexicans and Bangladeshis. When blacks or Mexicans leave the South/West sides of Chicago they're replaced by no one.

And, yeah, a final difference is gentrification/wealth accumulation. NYC has just gentrified harder, gained more wealth, in recent decades, and this prosperity has washed over the city to a greater extent.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by goat314

Your assumption is that nobody from the "Southside" contributes to Chicago's global status (Ever heard of the Obamas? Hell, even Kanye West?). Yes, the South/Westside Chicago is where most of the violent crime and poverty is, but is also home to millions of people that contribute to the Chicago economy in terms of the service economy. Writing off everybody as undesirables and undeserving of representation because of where they live, the color of their skin, or the size of their checkbook is insane and something people on this forum would look down on if it happened in another country, but you are advocating for this in America.

You're really saying Kanye West contributes to Chicago being a world-class City? And Obama moved to Chicago after college to a decently nice South neighborhood. Hes not exactly the example of an englewood resident

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC has generally done the opposite of Chicago, using the core to subsidize the fringe areas. For example, there are special commercial and residential property taxes, as well as a business incorporation tax, unique to Manhattan and gentrified areas. NYC also requires that new luxury buildings subsidize lower-income housing construction elsewhere. Chicago does the reverse, using citywide TIF to subsidize downtown projects.



A third difference is immigration. NYC just gets a lot more immigration, so there's a constant renewal of neighborhoods. When Puerto Ricans (to take an example) leave the Bronx, they're replaced by Dominicans and Mexicans and Bangladeshis. When blacks or Mexicans leave the South/West sides of Chicago they're replaced by no one.

This isn't a counter argument to your points because I agree, but do want to point out that NYC is in the enviable position of being able to utilize significant and unprecedented taxes without discouraging and/or driving away private investment/development. I don't believe that Chicago has that luxury, and is forced to use available funding instruments in its development goals for the downtown that may in fact harm poor neighborhoods.

And the immigration aspect is definitely a huge advantage... constant and consistent base economic replenishment in less wealthy areas is an enormous benefit that immigration brings to cities. And in NYC, this is part of the culture... a culture that few other cities in the US understand and accept for their own (and none to the extent as occurs in NYC area).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Xing

I don't think you've known many southsiders, aside the ones you've maybe seen on the 5 o'clock news.

Two of my best friends from college are from Beverly, but I'm sure you'll say that doesn't count.

It's not a comment on Southsiders in particular. It's a comment about anyone (including most Trump voters, in all likelihood) who doesn't have a vested interest in the global cosmopolitan world. And that's fine, it just means that they are probably not all that concerned about whether Chicago is an attractive city for finance, technology companies, global corporations, high end restaurants and shopping, and tourism. But those are precisely the things that will make the city a winner in the 21st century, and not decline like other Midwestern cities.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by 10023

Two of my best friends from college are from Beverly, but I'm sure you'll say that doesn't count.

It's not a comment on Southsiders in particular. It's a comment about anyone (including most Trump voters, in all likelihood) who doesn't have a vested interest in the global cosmopolitan world. And that's fine, it just means that they are probably not all that concerned about whether Chicago is an attractive city for finance, technology companies, global corporations, high end restaurants and shopping, and tourism. But those are precisely the things that will make the city a winner in the 21st century, and not decline like other Midwestern cities.

Two of my best friends are from Beverly too, a very different neighborhood from much of the rest of the southside, although still the southside. I have some friends from Woodlawn too! So similar those two neighborhoods are ! You made a pretentious comment, alongside this predictably pretentious thread, as you continue to perpetuate your pretentious character.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

This isn't a counter argument to your points because I agree, but do want to point out that NYC is in the enviable position of being able to utilize significant and unprecedented taxes without discouraging and/or driving away private investment/development. I don't believe that Chicago has that luxury, and is forced to use available funding instruments in its development goals for the downtown that may in fact harm poor neighborhoods.

And the immigration aspect is definitely a huge advantage... constant and consistent base economic replenishment in less wealthy areas is an enormous benefit that immigration brings to cities. And in NYC, this is part of the culture... a culture that few other cities in the US understand and accept for their own (and none to the extent as occurs in NYC area).

Yeah, I agree with all this. Chicago's prescription for citywide success will likely be somewhat different than in other cities, simply because every city has unique conditions.

And I agree that Chicago probably can't tax its core without consequences, as you see in NYC. You probably also couldn't force developers to build affordable housing as a condition for approval of their market rate housing. Different city, different remedies.

[ChargerCarl]

Whats so bad about Chuy Garcia? I've never heard of him.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by 10023

Two of my best friends from college are from Beverly, but I'm sure you'll say that doesn't count.

It's not a comment on Southsiders in particular. It's a comment about anyone (including most Trump voters, in all likelihood) who doesn't have a vested interest in the global cosmopolitan world. And that's fine, it just means that they are probably not all that concerned about whether Chicago is an attractive city for finance, technology companies, global corporations, high end restaurants and shopping, and tourism. But those are precisely the things that will make the city a winner in the 21st century, and not decline like other Midwestern cities.

Probably because many of them are in poverty and are more worried about making sure food is on the table every night for their kids and not being harmed physically.

So far Chicago's cosmopolitism has done nothing for the residents. In fact, don't right wingers generally like to argue immigration has only made things worse for blacks and not better?

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by 10023

The point is really that you've got different parts of the city with different needs. It's (rather loosely) like the problems of the EU - what works for Germany doesn't work for Greece, and vice versa. People in Chicago's poorer neighborhoods will always feel like they're being ignored. But in the real world, if the city's government refocused its energy (and funds) toward them rather than promoting Chicago's status as a global city, wouldn't everyone be worse off? I don't think most South aside residents particularly care if Chicago is in a league with "alpha" global cities or another Cleveland. It's hard to see how the latter wouldn't be as for the entire region, however.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things which the South and West sides desperately need which aren't necessarily priorities. The teachers unions do no favors to these parts of town, for instance.

Regarding the first bolded part, this is true everywhere. The South and West Sides will not suddenly see their problems fixed by breaking them off from the city. Instead they would be left with rapidly diminishing resources as their tax base continues to shrink, and which they are unable to tax at a high enough of a rate to secure money to use towards the very problems that they have. As the South and West Sides death spiral due to a lack of resources to help themselves, they'll soon look like Gary or East St. Louis. God knows St. Clair County and the state of Illinois don't give a damn about East St. Louis at this point, and I doubt the state or Cook County would act much different in regards to these newly independent sections of Chicago.

Regarding the second bolded part, I think you'd be surprised at how many Chicagoans all over the city do not care about Chicago's global position. I'm in my 20s, and I can't tell you how many people I know who moved to Chicago following college who do not care about Chicago's position in the world. Many moved for jobs, but many more moved for a more exciting lifestyle. Take away their favorite bars, brunch spots, spin studios, boutiques, and hot new restaurants and those people are out the door.

This is partly why certain rebounding and growing again Midwestern cities have an appeal similar to Chicago for people my age. Minneapolis may not be as important as Chicago on the global level, but living in an area like Uptown in Minneapolis is offering many of the same lifestyle amenities that people my age want at arguably a lower price.

I realize there are plenty of people who do move to Chicago for careers in the Midwest that can only be found in Chicago, and I know plenty of those people as well, but I just wanted to highlight that most people aren't caught up in how Chicago measures globally. It's the same in regards to when people start comparing NYC to Chicago. The average Chicagoan doesn't care, and is instead focused on Chicago.

I think that state governments have outlived their usefulness - issues are either national or local. In the same way, don't local issues really pertain to either the metropolitan area, as an economic unit, or to smaller localities than Chicago's ~230 square miles?

Maybe Chicago needs boroughs...perhaps after consolidating with Cook County.

This might be true, but thanks to centuries of constitutional law, they're not going anywhere, nor is the power that they currently wield. It's weaker than it was in America's history, but it's since stabilized. They also might get some powers back depending on what the Republicans do with their control of congress, the presidency, and soon to be SCOTUS. States are also not going to willingly hand over more power to their municipalities that they don't need to.

For example, Chicago's issues are indeed quite local, but Chicago can't do much without state approval in certain cases. Let's say Chicago's finances finally hit the point of no return, guess what Chicago can't legally do as of right now. Go bankrupt. Chicago's bankruptcy would require the approval from Illinois' state government.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's also an implicit "the real Chicago is downtown;

It's the exact opposite for most of the population, actually. Most people think the real Chicago is only in the neighborhoods, so what the SSP members are observing is a change from downtown into a part of the city with more vibrancy than corporate offices (Loop) or small pockets of residential surrounded by vast tracts of vacant industrial or post-urban renewal land/parking lots (the booming River North, West Loop, Streeterville, South Loop). I say this as someone who grew up in downtown Chicago, and knew very few others who did.

Also, they've closed schools on the South Side in neighborhoods dramatically losing population and sent them to better schools in neighborhoods that had retained more population. I went to a public magnet school with kids from the poorest neighborhoods on the South Side, and no one seemed to complain about having to travel further for a better education. I think the problem is that most people aren't looking at this beyond the optics.

Parents on the North Side have been trying to turn around neighborhood public schools for the last fifteen years, often quite successfully, and they quickly are bursting at the seams. This is pretty much exactly happened with South Loop Elementary near where I grew up, for example. The South Loop is now breaking ground on a new school shortly.

The city does quite a bit to encourage investment on the South Side. It's just that for most, the incentives offered don't outweigh the stigma with these neighborhoods. I'm actively trying to invest in some of these neighborhoods though (Woodlawn south on the lakefront, McKinley Park/Brighton Park to the southwest).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Regarding the second bolded part, I think you'd be surprised at how many Chicagoans all over the city do not care about Chicago's global position. I'm in my 20s, and I can't tell you how many people I know who moved to Chicago following college who do not care about Chicago's position in the world. Many moved for jobs, but many more moved for a more exciting lifestyle. Take away their favorite bars, brunch spots, spin studios, boutiques, and hot new restaurants and those people are out the door.

Bingo. People usually move to the bigger cities after college because they want to get laid, have fun nights out, be with their friends, etc.

It isn't because they're trying to make "City X" a "global city"; it's just that this type of city typology fits their needs at that stage of their lives.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Whats so bad about Chuy Garcia? I've never heard of him.

He was the candidate that ran against Emanuel in the last mayoral election. His primary financial support came from public employee unions. Chicago needs weaker public unions, not stronger ones.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by mrsmartman

Another general problem of liberals is that they like to "create" problems out of thin air. The reality is that this is how society works.

Do you realize how ignorant you come across when you generalize about "liberals"?