I don’t think one can find a better argument for stripping aldermen of their de facto veto power over developments in their ward than Ald. Tom Tunney’s proposal to downzone the property at 2840 N Broadway that was reportedly being considered by Wal-Mart.
Let’s leave aside the question of whether this is anything more than a bald move to protect a group of East Lakeview merchants who’ve managed, against all odds in a dense, affluent community, to create and maintain a third-rate retail environment along Clark and Broadway.
Let’s leave aside also the frightening message this sends to businesses considering Chicago as a venue.
Focus on the location of this property, and the interests of the broader community of businesses and residents immediately across Diversey in Lincoln Park that would benefit from Wal-Mart’s presence. Under the current system, an Alderman they have no say in electing can arbitrarily change zoning rules in a way that costs them.
Will we ever see an end to the corrupt madness of aldermanic prerogative?
If Tunney is so concerned about the impact increased commercial usage will have on traffic and crime in the neighborhood, why won’t he agree to scale back the three restaurants he operates in Lakeview?
I’m not going to pass judgement on whether Tunney is right or wrong to take this action, but whom is better to take this action than him? A mayor who looks at things at a macro level (Wal-Mart feeds him city-wide job stats, regardless) or an alderman who is intimately aware of the impact of a big box retailers on that particular stretch of road and small businesses?
If you’ve ever driven through the Clark, Diversey, Broadway intersection, it’s hard to say that location won’t have some kind of major impact with a new grocery store there. Down the street, however, is the location of the dormant Dominick’s space, which was fine in a less-crowded space back-in-the-day.
Tunney tends to have a good deal of pressure from the Lake View Citizens Council in his ear and he holds a lot of talks before making decisions, from what I can tell. I hardly doubt he’s making a renegade political move without the input from the neighborhood and he certainly can’t please everbody, but he hasn’t blocked every big box plan that’s hit the ward (re: Clark/Addision hotel development).
And while I won’t debate the “third-rate” comment about that retail area since I don’t compare too many retail hoods, I do have to ask what you’re comparing it to? The bustling retail of the Gold Coast or the retail deserts of Humboldt Park?
As for my personal opinion, I’d have to say I don’t care if a Wal-Mart is placed in Lake View, but I do care if it causes a major disruption of it’s traffic, small business economy, and quality of life. That’s what I want Tunney to be concerned with and it appears he is making a decision to block it. I hardly think Lake View will suffer as a result and I don’t think it sends a message to anyone but Wal-Mart that they are welcome or not. Trader Joes, Jewel, Roundy’s, Whole Foods, and numerous smaller grocers are doing business just fine.
The flip side of this is that I don’t really think a mini-Wal-Mart would have a bigger impact than a Jewel, Trader Joe’s, Target, or Dominick’s in that same space, but Wal-Mart’s history in other locales precedes them. Thus they find resistance from communities regardless of the reality.
How is this spot zoning anything new? It can always be changed back up for the “right” tenant. Edgewater is a worse case example than this of stymied development.