Today’s Headlines

  • “CTA Belmont Bypass Plan Overwhelmingly Rejected by [A Few Hundred] Voters” (DNA)
  • Bypass Referendum Shows How Local Politics Often Disenfranchise the Masses (City Notes)
  • Jeff Park P-Street Designation Passes City Council (DNA)
  • Metra Riders at Mundelein Hearing Seem Unfazed by Prospect of 11% Fare Hike (CBS)
  • 6 Hospitalized After Pileup on 900 Block of North LSD (Tribune)
  • Driver Who Killed Lida Xhelo Charged With DUI (Tribune)
  • Juvenile Center Employee Charged in Crash That Killed Officer on Motorcycle (Sun-Times)
  • Carly Rousso Will Not Get Prison Credit for Time Spent in Psychiatric Facilities (News-Sun)
  • Is Competition From Ride-Share Forcing Cabbies to Be More Polite? (DNA)
  • An Online Campaign Raised $10K for 4 Bike Corrals in Portage Park (DNA)
  • Argyle Station Has a Colorful New Mural (DNA)
  • Lincoln Square Doesn’t Make the Cut in the APA’s Great Places Contest (DNA)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Lizzyisi

    Huh. That’s basically my neighborhood and the Belmont bypass was not on my precinct’s ballot. At any rate, I would think a better survey of level support would consider the opinion of *riders*, not neighbors.

    Like the second link about the bypass says, I’m not trying to minimize the real economic and basically unfair impact on “the people who own, reside, or run businesses in one of the
    16 buildings to be taken and demolished” but consideration of the needs of the city as a whole is, ultimately, more important. You can compensate those people–maybe not as much as they want to be, but fairly–but without expanded public transportation services, you’ll never serve the needs of the city and its residents as a whole.

  • hello

    Thought exercise.

    This could be applied to another situation: the Circle Interchange expansion.

    “Huh. That’s basically my neighborhood and the Circle Interchange bypass was not on my precinct’s ballot. At any rate, I would think a better survey of level support would consider the opinion of *drivers*, not neighbors.

    Like the second link about the interchange says, I’m not trying to minimize the real economic and basically unfair impact on “the people who own, reside, or run businesses in one of the
    16 buildings to be taken and demolished” but consideration of the needs of the city as a whole is, ultimately, more important. You can compensate those people–maybe not as much as they want to be, but fairly–but without expanded highway capacity, you’ll never serve the needs of the city and its residents as a whole.”

    Discuss…

  • DFD

    As far as I can tell, the Circle interchange expansion didn’t require anyone to move or demolish buildings…

  • Yes, but even the massive changes at the Circle Interchange are going to have minimal effect on what they say they’re putting it into place to fix.

  • I’m also in Ward 44 and I was baffled when I didn’t have the option to vote on this.

    Turns out the vote was only for the Precincts that contained the project! http://www.chicagoelections.com/dm/general/document_4021.pdf (Map) http://www.chicagoelections.com/dm/general/document_3876.pdf (Bottom of the pdf) 20, 36, and 38 got to give their input while the rest of the Ward was blocked out.

    Even if all of Ward 44 was included that still ignores people from other Wards along the lines who pass through the interlocking every day.

    I understand the impact worries and importance of an open planning process but hyper localised votes like this are not the way to address that.

  • Lizzyisi

    Right, and although both traffic and transit use expand to fill capacity, neighborhoods benefit from increased transit use more than they benefit from increased road use by private automobiles.

    At any rate, any objections I had to the Circle Interchange expansion would not have been “loss to the individual property owners who were getting demolished” any more than any objections I might have to a transit interchange expansion would hinge on individual property owners’ rights. So, I think, yes, you’d apply the same calculus. While the impact on specific individuals harmed by an expansion must be considered, it cannot have as much weight as the impact on the overall effect on transportaion efficiency that the project will have as a whole. The comparison between expanding a highway and expanding an L line is not “well, you would not say that drivers’ opinions count more than the neighborhood voices! but you says CTA riders count more!” but rather “which of these two projects will increase transportation efficiency for the city as a whole, with the best cost to use ratio, while furthering the goal of a livable city, while factoring in the impact of all stakeholders.”

    Frankly, nothing is simple. And every single word in that last sentence of the previous paragraph is open to interpretation and varies with the goals and philosophy and ethos of the person uttering it.

    Ultimately, I’ve yet to see information that convinces me it’s a better idea to expand highways/widen roads/increase speed limits within the city of Chicago, even if there is driver demand for it. I have seen information that convinces me that neighborhoods, their businesses and residents all benefit from improved transit access.

    In any event, it’s clear that the CTA needs expanded capacity to meet the current demands riders, much less the likely demands of riders in the future.

  • Anne A

    That technique (only polling a tiny percentage of affected people) is used a LOT to prevent change. Another example of this is liquor sales and voting on whether or not to change a precinct from dry to wet. Alderman kill these sorts of changes by limiting the vote only to precincts where changes would happen and not even allowing adjoining precincts who would benefit to vote.

  • Let’s keep going with this thought exercise. The Circle Interchange is a resource used as much by people who don’t live in Chicago as those who do. We should ask all the region’s voters.

  • Matt F

    whoa whoa whoa….there are dry precincts?

  • Matt F

    let’s keep going – you should ask everybody in the region that commutes downtown. Maybe you take the train downtown everyday but the circle interchange is another option to get to work. The relative value of that intersection determines how you commute — you may shift to driving to work or otherwise

  • Anne A

    Unfortunately, yes. There are a number of dry precincts in the 19th ward. This has been a plague on business development on portions of Western, 95th St. and 103rd St.

    I know they exist in other wards, too.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    Edgewater has a lot of dry precincts. However, I believe it is dry only in terms of package liquor sales and bars, not incidentals related to restaurants.

    Just a matter of a few years ago the precincts around Granville and Winthrop/Kenmore were voted dry. There were two operators that sold the cheap wine to all the bums who were also aggressive pan handlers that plagued the Granville CTA station. Its much better since then.

    I know some aldermen who have carefully redrawn precincts to target certain liquor stores for closure, so as not to affect another licensee like a bar. Once the precinct is dry the liquor licensees lose their licenses and are not grandfathered.

  • duppie

    Dry precincts have a function. As Willie states parts of Granville and Broadway were voted dry to deal with a large amount of alcoholics. It shuts down the liquor stores that cater to alcoholics

    That doesn’t mean that package liquor sales are impossible, but you have to have a good business plan. Recently the moratorium in Edgewater was lifted for Independent Spirits and Whole Foods. Both plan to cater to an upscale market and are unlikely to draw alcoholics.

  • Anne A

    Yes, they do have a function. The unfortunate thing about the dry precincts in the 19th ward is that they are 100% dry, including incidental licenses for restaurants. That has killed off a couple of good restaurants and hurt our chance of getting new ones.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/bacp/supp_info/liquor_license_restrictionsandspecialregulations.html

    Dup, you are mistaken. There is a difference between a dry precinct and liqour moratorium. A dry precinct is dry until the voters change it back. If you sell liquor, and your precinct goes dry, you’re out of business. A liqour moritorium is quasi zoning that can be lifted to allow a liquor business in, then reapplied grandfathering in the business. Incidentals for restaurants are on a case by case business. Not sure if there is a percentage of booze to food, but if the city finds out your selling more booze than food, they can shut you down.