Would Chicago be better off with less Aldermans?

[chris08876]

Would Chicago be better off with less Aldermans?

Seems like they have to much power to dictate things. Essentially like 50 mayors.

Wouldn't the city be better off with less Aldermans or possibly merging certain wards, and cutting the bureaucracy (developments for example or even budget allocations).

Maybe streamlining the process of city decisions that governs the whole city, as opposed to giving too much power to individual ward Aldermans?

[SIGSEGV]

Chicago would certainly be better off with less gerrymandered wards.

[the urban politician]

Yes

Get rid of half of them, actually

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Would Chicago be better off with less Aldermans?

Seems like they have to much power to dictate things. Essentially like 50 mayors.

Wouldn't the city be better off with less Aldermans or possibly merging certain wards, and cutting the bureaucracy (developments for example or even budget allocations).

Maybe streamlining the process of city decisions that governs the whole city, as opposed to giving too much power to individual ward Aldermans?

Interesting.

Toronto and Chicago are very similar sized cities.

Toronto had 44 wards (and councillors); and was poised to shift to 47 during the last election.......

When the Provincial government changed the rules (mid-election) quite controversially reducing Council to 25 wards.

While the change has made for somewhat shorter Council Meetings (they typically finish in 2 days now)....

I would say it remains controversial, in as much as people are a bit more removed from their Councillors who went from having 4 staff on average to closer to 8 with the cut in ward size.

****

Worth noting at this juncture is that Toronto City council as with all councils in Ontario is non-partisan (officially). Some are also affiliated with political parties at the provincial or federal level; though they don't run under those banners.

In practice, councillors tend to form ideological alliances; though there is no caucusing per se; or organized platforms aside from those of Mayoral candidates.

[Steely Dan]

How about getting rid of all of them?

Do they ever do anything worthwhile?

[chris08876]

As an outsider to Chicago, all I ever hear about these Aldermans is that they complain about everything, and stifle development. Very demanding folks. IDK why they have such power.

I mean it just seems that the buck stops with them. The perception (also that they complain or are very "needy")

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by chris08876

As an outsider to Chicago, all I ever hear about these Aldermans is that they complain about everything, and stifle development. Very demanding folks. IDK why they have such power.

I mean it just seems that the buck stops with them. The perception (also that they complain or are very "needy")

It’s because the city council is so completely useless that zoning is the only real power they actually have, and the rest is performative shouting for their special interest constituents.

The 1st Mayor Daley shifted all the real legislative and executive power over city budget, voting initiatives, police, schools, transit, public housing, parks to independent agencies mostly under the mayor’s control.

Which is why half of all alderman have gone to jail. Their job is to accept bribes in exchange for housing, then stfu and let the adults do the work.

[the urban politician]

Aldermen have been corrupt since the 1800’s.

Their entire job is to be brokers of corruption.

[The North One]

I'm not entirely sure how Chicago's alderman work or how the city got stuck with that system. But isn't it like a city council but there's 50 people instead of 10? That sounds insane. How do they get anything done?

[Stay Stoked Brah]

That's way too many cooks in the kitchen.

[C.]

The coming economic depression would take care of this issue. Honestly, there needs to be about 12 of them, with a lot less power.

[ardecila]

One point in favor is that Chicago's City Council approximately reflects the demographics of the city... 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 Latino aldermen.

A growing Asian population could possibly support one or two Asian aldermen, but so far they have been gerrymandered out of power. Unfortunately, Chinatown sits next to Bridgeport, which is historically the heart of Chicago's Irish politicians. An Asian representing this area is unthinkable to old-timers - even though Bridgeport itself is now plurality Asian.

It is true that aldermen don't have a lot of power to craft city policy. One vote out of fifty doesn't do much, so the City Council has caucuses like Congress does to push certain ideologies (progressive, LGBT, socialist, etc). The only thing aldermen really do control is local zoning decisions, so killing or downsizing unpopular development is the only way they can show loyalty to their voters.

Big picture though, I don't think Chicago's system is delivering bad results when it comes to development. We're still a very development-friendly city when compared to places on the coasts. Relative to population change or job growth, our housing production is huge. The usual pattern is that a project is opposed hysterically by certain community members, it gets a few units chopped off and sails on to an easy approval. Some parts of the city and some aldermen are worse than others but overall the system works okay.