In the South Loop, the aldermanic race is at least partly focused on the quality of residential construction, but what are the hot topics in the 42nd ward, which takes in the lively housing markets of Streeterville, the Loop and River North?
Candidate Brendan Reilly, a former aide to state House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), focuses on Natarus’ campaign contributions in a Chicago Sun-Times story today, charging that Natarus has accepted so many campaign contributions from real estate interests over the years that his objectivity has been “compromised,” leading the alderman to assess each new project in a vacuum without considering the project’s impact on the neighborhood. Reilly reportedly isn’t accepting campaign donations from developers.
Natarus didn’t speak to the Sun-Times for this story, but the paper quotes him as telling the WTTW-TV program, Chicago Tonight, that he has capped contributions from developers at $1,500 and notes that Reilly is no stranger to campaign contributions, having received a helping hand from the Service Employees International Union. Yo wants to hear from folks in the 42nd ward. We’ve heard that congestion is a hot issue in Streeterville but what are the other burning topics of debate? How do you rate Natarus’ performance on development issues?
I actually think Natarus has been decent on development decisions, with one major exception: his encouragement of driving by advocating for more parking than is necessary, and than the Daley administration/DPD would like to see in new developments……my viewpoints on these issues may be in the minority for a US city, but I think driving downtown should always be discouraged by making parking less available and more inconvenient and expensive all the time – I would even be in favor of congestion tax type legislation………..at the same time, I also realize that public transit needs to be improved in the city. What’s needed is a combination push/pull to get people out of their cars downtown – pushing away from automobiles by making driving and parking downtown less attractive while simultaneously pulling toward public transit by improving the CTA making it more attractive…
Building a parking spot for each new condo is a good thing, and it doesn’t add to congestion because the cars are only used on weekends to leave the city. Car ownership is an amenity that most people are accustomed to, and when amenities are taken away, the inner city becomes a less attractive place to live. However, the same amount of parking could be provided in much less space if the zoning code requirements for parking design were removed. They are far too conservative. They apply the same design standards for a small private condo building as they do for a high traffic retail mall. It’s stupid.
Natarus has been ok, but he really needs to retire, and Reilly seems like a rational, intelligent guy. I doubt if he is as anti-development as the rhetoric might sound. It seems like now is a logical time for a change.
Natarus has not capped his donations from developers at $1500 like he says. In fact, if you look at his financial disclosure statements from the past week, he recieved $6000 from a single developer the day AFTER the WTTW interview.
re: “Building a parking spot for each new condo is a good thing, and it doesn’t add to congestion because the cars are only used on weekends to leave the city.”
What planet are you from? Have you ever driven at 5 pm on Halsted and Grand? More cars and more traffic density is not a good thing.
As for Natarus, corruption may or may not be true, but sure seems as if Natarus will do anything, anything a developer asks.
Also, what’s up with the stem cell ballot initiative for the 42nd Ward?
On the topic of contributions, in the 43rd ward, one of challengers is Michelle Smith, and she is running on a radical anti-property rights platform, and she just received $25,000 from Helen Meier of Wilmette. Anybody know who this Ms. Meier is?
Concerning political contributions – the real issue is not accepting money from developers – there is really nothing wrong with that, or accepting money from any business interest in the ward (just as there is nothing wrong with accepting money from any labor interest or some far left activist interest in the ward). The real problem is the continuation of the odd Chicago practice of aldermanic privelege (or prerogative, if you will). There really does need to be a power shift on zoning and development issues – away from the aldermen and toward the DPD (yes I know, the DPD is not perfect, but I do trust the planning professionals there more than I do some alderman who thinks he’s running a direct democracy in his little fiefdom)…(comment not referring specifically to Natarus, but rather this silly tradition in this city that allows aldermen their little power trip…these development decisions need to be made above the aldermanic level…this would also minimize the outrageously high level of influence that overacheiving NIMBY groups have gained throughout the city – we live in an indirect democracy afterall, and although I believe in a stronger planning department, I also think I have more respect for property rights than a lot of neighborhood NIMBY groups and aldermen in this city…….Aldermanic Privelage must go!!
I think Michelle Smith was at the Armitage El stop this morning handing out flyers.
“Building a parking spot for each new condo is a good thing, and it doesn’t add to congestion because the cars are only used on weekends to leave the city.”
ludicrous statement.
when we see largely big box and strip mall-style development on Clybourn and Elston, what do you think this encourages people to do, take the bus?
suburban car culture is NOT what we want for the city.
The single biggest thing that makes me far less patriotic now than when I was a naive kid is aldermanic prerogative (no rule of law). It’s disgusting.
To the anti-parking spot folks: I encourage you to pick any new downtown highrise condo building and stand at the garage entrance/exit at any time of day. You’ll be surprised at how little the cars are used.
In addition to aldermaic prerogative, here’s somthing else that must go – aldermen (roughly 35 of them or so). There is no reason (no good reason, that is), why this city needs any more than 15 aldermen. Does anybody think they’ll ever vote to dramatically reduce the council’s size? Didn’t think so……
PK – I happen to live in a downtown building in the 42nd Ward, and nearly every single car in the parking lot moves in and out every day, (well, except for mine), sometimes multiple times (grocery shopping, eating, kids to school, yadda yadda). Not everyone has the same schedule; perhaps this is why if you stand at the garage door at 4:59 PM, it isn’t opening. Or maybe everyone is just stuck in traffic.
On the other hand, I don’t forsee Chicago following London’s lead and banning car traffic in the city’s core, unfortunately, and cars have to park somewhere. Better inside than on streets.
“To the anti-parking spot folks: I encourage you to pick any new downtown highrise condo building and stand at the garage entrance/exit at any time of day. You’ll be surprised at how little the cars are used.”
I’m not anti-parking, but this statement doesn’t really mean anything, congestion on the streets are how you measure it.
either way, I have to ask, who the hell moves to Streeterville and then complains about density and congestion? this strikes me as similar to the people who move near O’Hare and complain about the noise… if you don’t personally remember George Streeter, I’m guessing the vast majority of the development far predates you.
Seth A.,
“grocery shopping, eating, kids to school, yadda yadda”
Good to hear that there are kids downtown. Take away their mom’s parking spot, and they’re gone.
You deal with the culture you’ve got, not the one of your dreams.
“Aldermanic privilege” I believe got its start during the 1940s/50s when the first public housing projects were proposed for Chicago, and ward bosses in “certain areas” were determined to keep “certain elements” out of their neighborhoods. The rest is a very sad and shameful history.
I’m all for greater use of walking and public transportation and less use of cars, but I’m going to have to agree with PK in this debate. I live in the city, very close to downtown, and own a car….but I don’t use it very often. When I do, it usually involves getting groceries or buying something else in bulk, or if I am going out of town or to the suburbs for whatever reason. The overwhelming majority of my friends and other people I know who live in the city, who own cars, are the same way.
I would say that the majority of traffic in the city doesn’t come from the average joe who happens to live in Streeterville and probably walks to work or the average joe in Wrigleyville who probably takes the el to work….it’s coming from people who are commuting back and forth from the suburbs to the city for work. Having a reasonable amount of indoor parking spots (although far less than what Larry Doody would like) will not have a major impact on traffic in the city as the majority of Chicagoans with cars only use their cars here and there….as opposed to a place like Phoenix or Columbus.
An enormous percentage of our city population have family who live in the suburbs or other places within a few hour radius of the city. You take away their parking spots, and they’ll move out of the city. And then we can end up like Detroit. All of the people ranting about parking spots are idiots for not realizing this.
Don’t forget the people commuting from the city to the suburbs – those pesky reverse commuters.
I did mean to include them, although I don’t know if I expressed that well. But the reverse commuters could either quit their jobs, move to the suburbs, or stay in the city and continue to do the reverse commute. I’d rather keep more people in the city, even if it does mean a few more reverse commuters.
As a resident of the 42nd, and a building that has zero parking for 106 units, I am proud that I don’t have a car. I have at least a dozen Zip Cars at my disposal all parked within a six block radius (which is not that far to those to don’t walk anywhere) of my home. I don’t miss the enormous expense of having to keep a car parked, insured, and maintained. Personally, I don’t know how people can afford cars and live in the city. I make a decent wage, and would have to sacrifice far too much to have a car. I much prefer my electronic toys and gadgets to having a car that I wouldn’t drive but maybe a 100 miles a month.
Manhattanites do quite well without cars, and while I am not trying to compare Chicago to Manhattan… They are the standard that many cities try to emulate as far as urban living goes.
Oh, and not having parking as an option at my building has yet to be an issue on resale, the units turn pretty fast.
Chicago needs a better transit system. That’s all
“You deal with the culture you’ve got, not the one of your dreams.”
recent development has produced this culture, it didn’t happen “organically” or by magic.
“Manhattanites do quite well without cars, and while I am not trying to compare Chicago to Manhattan… They are the standard that many cities try to emulate as far as urban living goes.”
this is the model many of us want to AVOID, not emulate!
Avoid where? In Streeterville? River North? The Loop, perhaps? Come now, that boat sailed a century ago in downtown Chicago. Without our density (the third-highest in the nation), downtown Chicago would be little more than downtown Indianapolis. Have you counted the parking lots there? Or ever tried to take a walk around downtown? If you’re looking to avoid density, why would you want to live in Chicago in the first place? Some of us are quite fond of our density, thank you very much.