Constitutional convention

My mother roomed with Zorita "Zoe" Wise in Hyde Park in the 1940s when they were both idealistic college students, even before Zoe met her future husband Abner Mikva. They were involved in political organizations even then. And I personally remember everyone in our family -- children included -- working very hard at Dawn Clark Netsch's first political campaign office in Old Town. The Mikvas and the Netsches were dreamers once upon a time. Their present-day position requires some explanation.

Once in the clouds, it is difficult for a person to see clear to the ground, where the rank-and-file citizen is stranded. Netsch and Mikva have traveled for too many years in the glamorous, rarefied air of our state's realpolitik, and my experience has shown me that they are out of touch with the people's needs in many ways.

"Lakefront liberal" is now an oxymoron. The people who power these organizations understand the system too well to do us any real good. They are blinded either by their loyalties -- as I believe Mikva and Netsch sometimes are -- or else by their ambitions -- as is the younger generation that is sucking up to them. This has gradually redefined what "liberal progressive Democrat" means in Illinois and across the country. It is time to step back and take a very close look at things. A constitutional convention will do that.

Netsch and Mikva deserve our gratitude for their decades of service and their consistently progressive platforms. But they are out of touch. They do not appear to be willing to acknowledge that our political system is rotten to the core. The movement of massive campaign dollars coming from powerful interests is impossible to resist, because if you resist you will not survive politically. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to oust an elected official who is doing wrong for our state. But that is the only power Netsch and Mikva trust us with. It's like giving us a rubber hammer so we won't hurt ourselves.

Many people I worked hard for to get into office over the years have the appearance of serving us well, and when I confront them they do make a persuasive point that they are indeed accomplishing some things. But the fact is that they are bound by masters more powerful than they are. These masters permit them to make the appearance of achieving big things for their constituency, but they do not let them get uppity.

When all is said and done, they cannot buck the status quo in meaningful ways, for fear of losing their funding or being targeted by a bigger fish. They are too cautious, because they want to stay in office for a very, very long time. But this is inconsistent with the notion of democracy -- of "people rule" -- because enough time in Springfield, swimming in corporate lobbyists and cocktail parties (not to mention all of the out-and-out bribes), will take the "person" out of even the most moral of us.

The question of a constitutional convention hinges on this schism of ensconced politicians on the one hand, and the average citizen on the other hand.

This is our best opportunity to bring real real people to the table, to put them on a level playing field with all of the vested interests, from big corporations to fat-cat politicians to -- yes, admit it -- often myopic big-media outlets. A constitutional convention gives you and me the opportunity to make real change, to dream of a future where people can once again believe in the political system.

Stop the Boot! Sign the petition!

My old friend the Parking Ticket Geek has had his great site up, theexpiredmeter.com, since March. I have always admired this masked crusader for the intrepid way he deals with parking tickets. Now he's on a mission to stop Mayor Daley's two-ticket Denver boot proposal.

PTG tells me that Daley's plan -- which we all know is just more of the same revenue-at-all-costs (to us) doctrine that the mayor has espoused since taking office -- will hit working-class folks the hardest, but it will also take its toll on all neighborhoods. He urges everyone to sign the online petition right away to "Stop the Boot."

Lincoln Parkers are particularly aware of the problems with parking tickets. You will recall in 2006 when I publicized a screwup around Lakeview and nearby streets, where hundreds of cars parked on blocks with the experimental new street-cleaning signs were ticketed on the wrong day! The city was unapologetic, suggesting people simply pay the tickets, until we raised holy hell and they backed down.

The Parking Ticket Geek is reporting on and answering questions about this sort of mess full time, and a lot of us are grateful. One amazing story similar to our Lakeview eruption involves a renegade towing company, reportedly acting on Mayor Daley's orders to boost tows, hitting an entire block of cars in Pilsen one quiet weekend morning. District 12 police took the residents' side and ordered the cars be taken off the hook.

We can only guess who did this...

Who would be motivated to chop down a beautiful 35-foot elm tree on Lincoln Avenue in the middle of the night?

I was actually up late because of the usual 3 a.m. wake-up call by the thousands of winos. I saw a drunk kid surfing on top of a moving Flash taxicab, straddling the topper light, and I pointed it out to some cops, who pursued the cab up Lincoln Avenue. Someone then smashed the cab's window out with his foot in front of Children's Memorial, with the cops right there, and the three young men riding in the cab just walked away while the poor Jordanian driver was busy pursuing the vandal. Naturally, they stiffed him on the fare. Didn't even help him.

But this kind of lawlessness is pretty much a nightly occurrence on Lincoln Avenue, where our public servants assume everything's just fine here. Last week, it was firetrucks and cop cars lining the street, bedlam in front of Halligans. The cops ordered me not to film it -- I don't even want to ask. And of course the piss on the walls flows like water here. I feel like I'm living in Beirut, but then who the hell cares what I think? I'm not some alderman or anyone who matters. My dad didn't matter much either; in fact, he used to drive for Flash. In any event, none of that is out of place here on Lincoln Avenue, one of Chicago's rowdiest night-life strips.

No, but when I saw a tree lying across most of the street at 2438 N. Lincoln Ave., I knew that it was something more out of the ordinary and I walked over to investigate. It was directly in front of Soiree, the new bar on the 2400 block.

Strangely, the Water Management worker who'd stopped and made the call about the tree to the police noticed that all of Soiree's cafe boxes were surrounding the tree while it was still standing, "to hide it," he supposed. I think the worker may actually have seen the tree fall. (He moved it out of the street onto the sidewalk.) A worker at Clark's across the street said it fell around 4 a.m. and there was not a soul in sight.

Who could have done this? The only people I can think of who would have a motive is the owners of the Soiree nightclub themselves. I have seen this kind of thing before: a business gets an expensive new sign or awning and they don't like how the tree on the street obstructs the view. So they do a little vigilante justice on the tree. The last time I saw this was about three years ago, on the 2200 block, the day after a nail salon got its new sign.

Now, the one three years ago was sawn through, and then a car hit it and knocked it down. It was a much smaller tree. But this tree in front of Soiree was obviously done with a hatchet. Every year I log a friend's land in the Upper Peninsula and we use chainsaws, and only occasionally axes to trim. Chainsaws are very, very fast: even on a thick 80-foot spruce it takes just a few seconds. Why would someone use a hatchet? So as to make a few inconspicuous cuts at a time, instead of all at once? And to make it look more like a prank rather than a very deliberate act?

It had to have been cut after the bar closed, between about 2 and 3:30 a.m., or at least late, perhaps with whomever was doing it surrounded by Soiree's boxes. How did they escape detection? It would have taken some time to do. But surrounded by the boxes, it could have been done in stages. With an axe, you can get a few chops in and just put it down if someone appears to be coming. No electrical cords, no sound, no mess.

What's more, as you can see from this picture (click it to enlarge), the cutting was done with considerable care. Cutting in the wrong direction would have sent the tree right through the awning, destroying it! Once you have most of the chopping done, the "felling cut" can be made on the other side and it would take only an inconspicuous push to get the tree to fall. This was methodically done. The crime was engineered.

Soiree just got their awning up, just after the filming of Untouchables ended two weeks ago, and just in time for Taste of Lincoln Avenue this weekend. (There was even a sign on the poor tree declaring No Parking this weekend.) How convenient that the tree should come down at just this time! You can imagine how much Soiree would want their sign to stand out, with thousands of drinkers milling around in front of it. They certainly wouldn't want some big elm to obscure it. And you can be sure that this elm was blocking the hell out of it.

Who else would have any motive to do such a dickheaded thing?

Don't people realize it's a serious crime to do this, to cut down a public tree like this?

I guess it doesn't matter much, because the bar sucks. Yelpers already hate it, proclaiming it's lame. It's cheezy and overpriced, with its "ghetto" back room, on a lifeless street during an economic recession. It will likely go belly-up within a couple of years. The new elm I ordered this morning (311 Ref. No. 0801429883) to be planted will be there for many decades after the punk who chopped it down is dead and rotted away.

Shit II & III

(Well, it's certainly not the second and third time I've had to clean human excrement from my Lincoln Park alley -- it's the second and third time I've publicized it online. The first time, I got shit for it from Chuck Eastwood... The first image here is from March. The second is from this weekend. At least the second time they wiped themselves with napkins.)

I went to the 1812 CAPS meeting last week (Armitage to Fullerton, Clark to Sheffield). Residents on the 900 block of West Webster were complaining about the nearby State nightclub. The owner is a cousin of State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, whose bank's business ethics have been questioned. Costa somehow magically got a liquor license over the unanimous objections of neighbors, who are now living in a hell that begins to bear some similarity to what we have experienced on nearby streets like Lincoln, Halsted, and Armitage. One woman has already complained about scraping unconscious drunks off of her front stairs. Naturally, there is shit in their future.

At the meeting, I showed video footage of the drunkfest that happens on the 2200 block of Lincoln Avenue three to four nights a week. Thousands of screaming, puking, urinating, defecating, vomiting, window-breaking drunks, from around midnight until 4 a.m. during non-blizzard conditions.

Can this be managed? Not by 18th District police, who say they are understaffed. I know that they can do a better job, but I've been told that their priorities are skewed, to put it mildly. The responsibility rests on the commander and his lieutenants, and yet they also need more resources. I'm recommending a new way to look at Special Service Area taxes, where bars pay the majority as a percentage of liquor revenue, and a large number of area residents pay a tiny amount (let's say about $20 a year per household) over and above their property taxes. This revenue would go toward managing this nightmare in Lincoln Park. But this implies amending the current SSA's in the area, of which I've already written plenty, not only here (see below) but also in the papers.

Related shit:
Boulevard of broken windows
The beginning of the end?
Hypocrisies of new Lincoln Avenue tax increase
While Vi slumbers (Part II)
Shit.
While the alderman slumbers on her cozy Old Town sidestreet...
Lincoln Avenue SSA commissioners
Reader SSA Article

Cops in 18th need new school supplies for area kids

From Alds. Brendan Reilly and Vi Daley: 18th District Police will be accepting donations of new school supplies from July through September 5. Collection boxes will be located in the 18th District Near North Station located at 1160 North Larrabee.

Let's not forget the kids in the Cabrini-Green area whose parents' lives are often so troubled that they can forget or can't afford something as simple as pencil, notebooks, and backpacks that the good cops of the 18th District will help them out on that. I've heard some compelling rumors lately about racism and protection rackets among certain 18th District cops, but I also know many genuinely wonderful cops in our district. Take the time to get to know these people.

Oriental 33 Masonic Lodge (formerly located at the Cathedral) also collects funds to buy these same kids Christmas presents every year. It's never too early to be generous. Contact me for details.

Children's Museum vote passes 33-16

A bad way to run a city is for a powerful mayor to coerce perfectly reasonable aldermen to totally disregard the obvious facts of an issue through threats and pressure. You are hearing the sound of 33 aldermen ignore the basic fact that Grant Park is hardly the only proposed alternative for the Children's Museum. A few highlights:

• Ocasio: It's the back yard of our city.
  
• Shiller: "It belongs in the center of Chicago." (That's surely an option. Even Brendan Reilly acknowledges the possibility. Just not in Grant Park.)
  
• Fioretti: It's irrelevant. What's important is that kids are being killed and we need to stop the violence. (Nonsequitur.)
  
• Ed Smith: "If you give your word, you've got to stay with it." (Even if you witness debate that should make you change your mind? That's interesting.)
• Cardenas: The media has caused this division in our council. They should stop the spin about how we're taking green space away.
• Balcer: Isn't this a great country?
• Lyle: If everyone else is using their clout, why shouldn't the Chidren's Museum? Arguments against it are "not intellectually sound."
• Burnett: Was hoping that we'd be able to "just stay out of it except to just come down and vote, the way we do." (The inveterate feudal lord also sucks up to Daley: "I commend you" for letting us change the name of the park from your dad's park to the Children's Museum park.)
• Carothers: Reilly's got to be crazy for turning down a children's museum in his ward! (Distracting us from the main point. It's already in his ward. Reilly probably wants to keep it in his ward, just not there.)
  
• Jackson: "Saddened" that it's leaving Navy Pier, but also that they're spending so much time on this issue instead of the violence. (Diverting the debate.)
  
• Burke: Ward decision rules for an "unobstructed view" of the lake. This does not obstruct the view. (The only rational counterargument of the bunch - but he's still purely motivated by politics, as he has always been one of Daley's greatest allies. The rest of his commentary was on Burke's charming cop-turned-pseudointellectual historian, and also on boasting about his wife's power as a Supreme Court justice.)
• Banks: "Land grab" is nonsensical and it doesn't make any sense, since the Park District still owns the land. We're on "firm legal footing."
  

The two most powerful and dangerous characters on the City Council are Burke and Banks, who know the law and always construe it strictly or liberally, depending on how it may accrue to their political advantage.

Any emotional appeal about kids deserving their share of downtown is irrelevant, since nobody is disputing that. In fact, many alternative places downtown have been proposed. This is foremost about Grant Park's and the lakefront's special status.

Any discussion about aldermanic privilege is not important either, and it never should be. All we should be talking about is reason and fairness. And that's not what we were hearing today.

RLTO Amendment

On April 9, four aldermen proposed changes to Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance to further exempt student housing and dormitories.

But I just helped a resident of University of Chicago's famous International House who for months was being harassed with lockouts and finally threatened with overnight removal by university police. A Greek national, she was quiet and paid her monthly rent reliably, but she disputed certain fees she says were not in her housing agreement.

I need your help to stop the amendments and to bring colleges, universities, and other nonprofit institutions that are currently exempt, under control of the RLTO. Please read on and e-mail me today with your comments so that I may compile them and forward them to the aldermen. I especially need comment and support from students and other residents of this kind of institutional housing who have experienced difficulties.

E-mail me your experiences and other comments
Read the proposed amendment to the RLTO at 5-12-020(c)
Read my counterproposal

Last week, with the help of Christine Kellogg of the Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, we filed an injunction to put a stop to the university's punitive actions against the I-House resident. But the resident told me that other students have been targeted in the past, most notably Amadou Cisse, the Ph.D. student who was shot to death last November while walking home off campus. After a six-year residency at I-House, Cisse unaccountably left the safe confines of International House two months before he was to finish school.

The RLTO, hard-won by housing rights activists in the 1980s, adds to existing state protections for both tenants and landlords, helping to govern their behavior. U. of C. incorrectly assumed that because they are exempt from the RLTO, they are also exempt from all laws regarding eviction, including 735 ILCS 5. I want to go back to the question of why they are exempt from the RLTO.

The proposed amendment would further exempt the very categories of resident that we should be protecting:

"5-12-020 Exclusions: Rental of the following dwelling units shall not be governed by this chapter, unless the rental agreement thereof is created to avoid the application of this chapter:

"(c) Housing accommodations in any hospital, convent, monastery, extended care facility, asylum or not-for-profit home for the aged, temporary overnight shelter, transitional shelter, or in a dormitory owned and operated by an elementary school, high school or institution of higher learning; student housing accommodations wherein a housing agreement or housing contract is entered into between the student and an institution of higher learningor student housing wherein the institution exercises control or supervision of the students; or student housing owned and operated by a tax exempt organization affiliated with an institution of higher learning."

My proposed amendment would reverse this by merging 5-12-020(b) and (c). 5-12-020(b) excludes various institutions when residents are there on a very temporary basis. It includes them when the resident resides there for more than a month and pays a monthly rent (i.e., when it's obvious that the resident is a tenant):

"(b) Dwelling units or housing accommodations in any hotels, motels, inns, tourist houses, rooming houses, and boardinghouses, hospital, convent, monastery, extended care facility, asylum or not-for-profit home for the aged, temporary overnight shelter, transitional shelter, or in a dormitory owned and operated by an elementary school, high school or institution of higher learning, but only until such time as the dwelling unit or housing accommodation has been occupied by a tenant for 32 or more continuous days and tenant pays a monthly rent, exclusive of any period of wrongful occupancy contrary to agreement with an owner. Notwithstanding the above, the prohibition against interruption of tenant occupancy set forth in Section 5-12-160 shall apply to every rented dwelling unit in such buildings within the City of Chicago. No landlord shall bring an action to recover possession of such unit, or avoid renting monthly in order to avoid the application of this chapter. Any willful attempt to avoid application of this chapter by an owner may be punishable by criminal or civil action."

It is clear that 5-12-020(c) is designed to circumvent the RLTO because the category of resident can be considered under a certain guardianship by the institution which owns and operates the housing. The need for certain special controls in these cases may be appropriate, but in my view -- as I explained today to Ald. Fioretti -- landlord-tenant law is the wrong place to be giving them this kind of power. Not only does it assume, often incorrectly, that these residents need quasi-parental control, it removes built-in protections under the RLTO and raises certain equal-protection questions. Among the problems with legislating this here:

• It allows these institutions to punish residents and threaten to put them out in the street based on any minor dispute that the institution may dream up. In the case of the I-House resident, a fee dispute gave them the power to punish her by changing the lock on her room and bringing local police in to threaten to remove her belongings at their discretion. This is normally under the jurisdiction of the state and is illegal in any event.
• It does not adequately answer the question of why these protections need to be raised in this part of the law; it gives these institutions inappropriate power over usually perfectly competent adult individuals who do not require an institution's quasi-parental supervision. This goes for the hospitals, CHA senior buildings, homeless shelters, and grad student housing facilities that are exempted under these paragraphs today.
• It fails to directly address various legitimate concerns of these institutions, such as how to deal with illegal drug use and underage drinking. That is both (a) a criminal matter, addressed under criminal law, and (b) a matter that can be dealt with within the housing agreement (that is, in the lease). For all other matters, institutions such as hospitals and schools already have legal guardianship to a greater or lesser degree over their charges, and their power to control their housing would be superfluous, unnecessary, and often even perilous to the rights of the resident.