What Trib said when I asked for retraction of “[SBC is] demonizing anyone who dares to oppose their views as members of the ‘right-leaning political class.'”

I don’t want to harp about this particular subject too much longer, but I’m guessing some Streetsblog Chicago readers will find this new wrinkle relevant and interesting. Those who aren’t interested in reading more about the politics behind Chicago’s anti-Complete Streets movement might want to skip this post.

Regular followers of this site are probably aware of the Chicago Tribune’s recent editorial, “A sensible compromise on Archer Avenue takes more than bike activists into account,” The piece was attributed to the paper’s editorial board, but based on my previous interactions with Editorial Page Editor Chris Jones, it’s obvious he wrote it.

Many SBC readers have probably seen the incisive letters to the editor in response, by Viktor Köves, creator of the sites Chicagoans Who Bike and Find the Right Bike, and McKinley Park resident Tony Adams. They discussed Jones’ failure to acknowledge the need to make the Archer corridor safer, while instead fixating on keeping the road as convenient as possible for driving.

To its credit, the Tribune also ran the letter I submitted, which focused on a couple of inaccurate statements in the editorial. It including a subtle dig at Streetsblog Chicago that was easy to debunk. The paper did a good job of concisely editing it, so if you haven’t already read it, please take a look on the Tribune’s website, Bluesky, or Twitter to get up to speed before reading the rest of this post.

Chris Jones responds to my request for a retraction

Jones graciously gave me permission to share his email reply, and my response, in the following format. The bolded text is all the passages from his single email. The standard text below is my replies to his points from a single email. The italics is some additional information and commentary I’ve added.

“Mr. Jones and me” agreed that I should correct some typos, and that I would edit my own statements (not his), for clarity and brevity. I’ve also added some links to sources.

I started the exchange last Thursday, May 7, by emailing Jones and his colleagues to thank them for running my LTTE. “Now that the Tribune has published hard evidence that the editorial’s statement about “[Streetsblog Chicago] demonizing anyone who dares to oppose their views as members of the ‘right-leaning political class'” is factually incorrect, if not libelous, how about running a retraction of that statement?”

Chris Jones: “John:

There was no error and there will be no retraction. 

Juan Rangel is not right-leaning but a centrist of the Rahm [Emanuel] type. He is a Democrat and even was a delegate to the 2012 Democratic convention.” 

John Greenfield: “Your own publication ran Rangel’s [flattering] op-ed about Trump’s election win, which described the organization he runs as ‘a nonprofit organization in Illinois that empowers moderate to conservative community leadership and public policy.'”

Here are a few key passages from Rangel’s November 2024 opinion piece, titled, “How Latinos Found Their Voice in Donald Trump.”

• “Trump’s appeal to economic opportunity, cultural preservation and dissatisfaction with government overreach proved a powerful message that resonated with Latinos striving to achieve their American Dream.”

• “Latino voters gravitate toward candidates who prioritize job creation and economic growth. This message strikes a chord with a community that values its work ethic and where entrepreneurialism thrives… Trump’s promise to slash regulations, cut taxes and control inflation appealed directly to Latino aspirations and frustrations.”

• “Within the more established Mexican American immigrant community, frustration with the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the migrant crisis played a significant role in their vote for Trump. Many viewed the influx of new migrants — particularly from Central and South America — with deep resentment… By promising fairness, order and stability, Trump tapped into this resentment, positioning himself as a defender of those who played by the rules.”

JG: “Maybe Rangel is technically registered as a Democrat, which you basically have to be to get anything done politically in Chicago. But so is Ald. Lopez, who helped plan and promote the ICE crackdowns.”

Jones did not argue that it is unfair to call Ald. Lopez “right-leaning.”

CJ: “Claudia Zuno is a center-left Democrat.”

JG: “I never describe Zuno or Villalobos as Trump supporters [in fact I’ve got video of Zuno referring to the president as “a sleazebag”], but obviously they’re closely allied with Lopez and Rangel… Clearly Lopez’s committee meeting stunt, and the weekly anti-Archer rallies for two months before Zuno’s campaign announcement, featuring protesters holding signs like ‘Julia Gotta Go,’ promoted by Urban Center, were political theater to set the stage for Zuno’s run against a progressive.”

CJ: “It is beyond absurd to suggest that anyone who supports ShotSpotter is therefore ‘right-leaning.’ All kinds of left-leaning people support it because they know it saves lives. I am frankly amazed that Streetsblog is coming out against shot-detection systems. Why?”

JG: “In addition to Zuno being anti-Complete streets, it’s fair to say that being pro-ShotSpotter is a relatively conservative position in Chicago. Block Club reported, ‘Studies, activists and neighbors have criticized the technology, saying its detection work is flawed, it can lead to over policing and it only allows officers to react to potential crime instead of preventing it.'”

Streetsblog Chicago is neither for nor against ShotSpotter, but rather I’ve pointed out that Zuno’s pledge of “restoring effective gunshot detection technology” seems to be a right-of-center position in Chicago.

CJ: “Finally, the Mexico-born Eva Villalobos has a fine progressive record helping Latino families and she is far from right-leaning.”

JG: “Urban Center donated $25K+ to her CPS board campaign to undermine union workers by promoting charter schools. Now she’s doing their bidding by co-organizing the anti-Ramirez rallies.”

The Reader reported that Villalobos “has advocated that Illinois continue its now-defunct tax scholarship program, which gave tax breaks to donors who paid for private school tuition.”

I didn’t find any evidence of Villalobos’ supposed “progressive record” online, and a Brighton Park resident closely involved with local politics told me Jones’ statement didn’t ring a bell. They did note that when Villalobos started her CPS board campaign, her children attended Catholic school. That person added that after facing criticism, Villalobos transferred her kids to public school, but when she lost the election, she transferred them back.

CJ: “Now you of course are free to disagree with the above characterizations (I’m sure you do) and that is because phrases like ‘right-leaning’ are a matter of opinion. Editorials are expressions of opinion just like all of your highly aggressive posts which, as we have said before, cross a doxxing line that goes beyond reasonable debates about Chicago’s infrastructure. You keep posting my picture online, for example, which is not something I would ever do to you, no matter what you said about me.“

JG: “Please explain how anything I’ve done regarding the Archer controversy could be referred to as doxxing.”

Jones never responded to this request.

JG: “You, me, and political candidates are public figures, and as such we can’t really complain when people publicize our images or work-related info. For example, I think it’s reasonable and relevant for me to mention that Zuno, who’s running to represent the Southwest Side, spends her days running her family’s business on the Northwest Side.

For what it’s worth, Ald.Lopez has tweeted out my headshot twice recently. Again, as a public figure, I can’t really complain about that too much.”

Here’s an example of one of Lopez’s tweets from February, after I called him out for his role in making the ICE crackdows happen and behavior at the committee meeting. (I snipped the bottom half since you probably don’t need to see the same photo of my face twice in the same post, but click this link if you want to see the whole thing.)

In fairness, Streetsblog’s role is to amplify local sustainable transportation advocates, not import support for City initiatives. During the five months I’ve covered the weekly dueling Archer project rallies, the response I’ve gotten from the pro-Complete Streets crowd at these events, mostly Latino folks and almost entirely locals, has been 100 percent positive. But after recently getting feedback from some non-Southwest Side advocates who felt I’ve been writing too often about Archer, I double-checked with one of the local Safe Streets boosters.

“I don’t think anything you’ve done has been counterproductive,” they responded. “I think the coverage has been fair, factual and peaceful. I would appreciate you keeping the coverage up.”

Archer project supporters at a rally in early March. Photo: Dixon Galvez-Searle

CJ: “We are supportive of many of the same things you support.“

That statement doesn’t seem to jibe with my records. But here’s one recent example of a Tribune editorial I agreed with: a piece on regulating high-speed “e-motos.”

CJ: But we will continue to speak out against your tactics of personal destruction.

Fine, as long as the editorial board doesn’t continue to incorrectly write that Streetsblog Chicago is “demonizing anyone who dares to oppose their views,” since our article Jones quoted did exactly the opposite.

CJ: “They don’t help keep Chicagoans safe, which I know is one of your goals. A laudable one, too.

I have no problem with your publicizing this response, as you have done in the past…”

That’s one mea culpa on my part – I did recently tweet out a screenshot of an email exchange with Jones that indicated I got the paper to make a correction. It’s generally not illegal to share emails sent directly to you, and it’s not really a journalistic foul if the other party hasn’t specified that their comments are “off the record.”

But it is more considerate to avoid doing that without first asking for permission. So, fair game, I’ll make that my practice moving forward.

CJ: “…but ask only that you do so in full.

Chris”

JG: “Thanks, I may take you up on that when time permits.”

All right, so we can consider this episode of “Editorial Gangs of Chicago” to be a wrap.

Read the editorial “A sensible compromise on Archer Avenue takes more than bike activists into account” here.

Read the letters from Viktor Köves, Tony Adams, and myself in response to the editorial on the Tribune’s website, Bluesky, or Twitter

On November 12, SBC launched our 2026 fund drive to raise $50K through ad sales and donations. That will complete this year’s budget, at a time when it’s tough to find grant money. Big thanks to all the readers who have chipped in so far to help keep this site rolling to the end of 2026! Currently, we’re at $32,711 with $17,289 to go, ideally by the end of May.

If you value our livable streets reporting and advocacy, please consider making a tax-deductible gift here. If you can afford a contribution of $100 or more, think of that as a subscription. That will help keep the site paywall-free for people on tighter budgets, as well as decision-makers. Thanks for your support!

– John Greenfield, editor