Mayor Daley warned Friday that Chicago would kiss its middle class goodbye by allowing teachers — or any other public employees — to live outside the city.
One day after the state Senate voted 40-to-7 to lift the residency requirement for teachers in the Chicago Public Schools, Daley lambasted the idea as the beginning of the end.
“Go to Detroit, St. Louis, the rest of ‘em. When they allow government employees to live outside the city, they lose all their middle-class.”
Mayor Richard Daley, talking to reporters. Read the whole story in the Sun-Times.
Unbelievable!
Joe,
while Da Mare was engaging in a bit of hyperbole methinks he was on to something. There are large areas of the SW and NW sides loaded with government employees forced to live in da city because of residency requirements. I also suspect that many of the people living in middle class Chatham and some other middle income areas of the black south side are also impacted by the residency rule.
Do you think the folks living in the western end of Mount Greenwood are doing it because they enjoy the fine architecture and relative lack of public train transportation?
Do you think many of them enjoy forking over thousands of dollars a year in private school tuition?
There are roughly 80,000 people impacted by the residency requirement. Add in their spouses, significant others, mistresses, children etc and it’s likely “residency” keeps well over 100,000 people living in the city.
Over a period of time most of those folks would abandon “da city” for those exciting places with outstanding architecture such as Tinley Park or Downers Grove.
That would ultimately harm the viability and tax base of our fine Gotham like city.
In any case at this point it’s an academic discussion. Mike Madigan is NOT going to allow that to be voted on in the House of Pancakes(Representatives). While his district straddles the city/suburban border the ward he directly controls is loaded with city employees. I’m sure he wants to keep them there.
IrishPirate,
Just think of the implications for political campaign “volunteers.” They’ll clog the highays driving in from the suburbs to get out the vote.
There is a good reason for requiring city employees to live in the city. It gives them a stake in the welfare of the city. For example, public school teachers living in the city are likely to be more concerned about the qualtity of city schools than teachers that communte in from the suburbs, put in their required hours, and then leave.
No one can blame the middle class for not staying in this city.
They don’t make enough to raise a family in this city. They can’t afford private schools and they aren’t well connected enough to get on their kids into the magnet schools. The curriculum in the regualar schools is so diluted and they are in bad neighborhoods. This is a nation wide problem. The cities have a high population of very well off and very poor with a a very thin middle class.You have to be rich to live in an nice area(LP, Lakeview, Kenwood etc.) that isn’t gang infected. People want their children to have a backyard, living in towers is only okay for singles, and young couples.
The liberals/ Democrats have no one else to blame but themselves. They need to make this city more middle class friendly. Lower the property taxes, add more charter, selective enrollment schools to get around the teachers union, gentrify more neighborhoods close to downtown.
Futuredoc,
Why would Chicago cut property taxes when it cannot pay for the services it currently renders? I mean cutting taxes always sounds like a good idea but you have to think about the city’s expenses and income if you want long-term liability. Besides, I wonder whether the middle-class is inordinately burdened by the property taxes – it seems more likely that they’ll have less expensive homes and thus pay lower taxes. The sales taxes should in theory be much more regressive on the middle class than property taxes.
It’s quite strange that you bring up gentrification of more neighborhoods close to downtown as some kind of solution, as everyone knows that this activity makes property more expensive and thus less attainable to the middle class.
CaptainVideo – I don’t buy your argument. Carried to the logical conclusion, you would require all public employees to live within the *neighborhood* where they worked so they have this psychic stake in where they work. Its similar to the ridiculous argument that we should manufacture everything we consume within in this country – neigh this state – neigh this city – neigh this neighborhood. It just doesn’t work.
“It’s quite strange that you bring up gentrification of more neighborhoods close to downtown as some kind of solution”
Gentrification brings the city the badly needed tax revenue to provide for high quality services throughout the city. The more expensive buildings pay higher property taxes, and higher income people spend more on goods and services, which creates more sales taxes. They demand services that create jobs and make all kinds of amenities, which make city living more attractive, economically viable.
Only limited parts of the City, such as, for example, the areas adjacent to the lake and the areas reasonably close to downtown are amenable for gentrification, and in those areas gentrification should be strongly encouraged. This includes preventing NIMBY’S from blocking the construction of medium and high rise buildings in those areas.
CaptainVideo – Interesting point, but that isn’t what futuredoc seems to be suggesting.
He says you have to be rich to live in areas like LP, LV, etc. that aren’t gang infested, which the middle class cannot afford. In this context he suggests gentrifying downtown areas – to get out the gangs and paradoxically make such areas more affordable. This, in his mind, would make the city more middle-class friendly.
Your point only makes city living more attractive to the affluent, since all the poors are ferreted away in outlying neighborhoods/suburbs and then bussed in to provide the services the affluent purchase. This is not in the spirit of making the city more affordable or attractive for the poor to live in (although I suppose it would make it more attractive for them to work in, but not more affordable because of the increased commute). This is why I doubt your reading of futuredoc is correct.
Lincoln Park, Lake View and the Gold Coast have sizable middle-class populations.
Some of them have been there for an extended period of time as the area became very pricey around them. Most of them are single, divorced or elderly living in the very many small apartments and condos in the area. Check out the income distributions and the unit-size mix in these areas – or just walk the areas and look at the housing and the shops / services and you’ll see that.
“all the poors are ferreted away in outlying neighborhoods/suburbs and then bussed in to provide the services the affluent purchase”
The majority of the city is not suitable for gentrification. The tax revenue from the gentrified areas provide the city with the means to improve the quality of services throughout the city, both for middle income neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.
CaptainVideo – Yes, because clearly the affluent will not fight tooth and nail, largely successfully, to keep the benefits of their tax dollars within or close to the neighborhoods where they reside.
I don’t see why we should force city employees to live in the city. The stake they hold should theoretically be quite high because if they don’t do a good job, they won’t be employed any longer. That’s how it works for the rest of us, at least. We need to show the city worker’s labor unions some tough love, IMO. Simply living in an area doesn’t make me perform any better in my job because if I do a poor job, the effects are spread out. I will only be incentivized to do a good job if I can be easily fired for poor performance.
To :br_add
Glad to see someone agreeing with me for change, captain video clearly didn’t understand my post.
When you pay tens of thousands of people way more than they are worth then you end up with situations like Greece, California, and Chicago. In short, unions have ruined this city and are close to taking down the state as well. Teachers unions make it impossible to fire anyone for anything, public employee unions have bloated payrolls and pensions and trade unions would rather not work than accept a pay cut – like at the convention center. Unions don’t want to give other people the opportunity to undercut them either – so no Wal-Mart. Middle class taxpayers bear the brunt of this in excessive taxes, poor schools, and less choice for goods and services. Thanks to Comrade Daley and his enablers in Springfield, Illinois and Chicago will be the next Michigan and Detroit soon enough.
Mark,
You lose all credibility when you use terms like “Comrade Daley.”
Oh, I meant capitalist-loving, freedom fighting Daley. The guy always willing put civic interests ahead of personal political considerations. What was I thinking??
Mark, you realize privatization also brings corruption, right? You might want to brush up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hired_Truck_Program
Privatization doesn’t bring corruption. Corrupt politicians bring corruption. And Daley is the King Poo-Ba of them all.
Mark is definitely right.