How Lakefront Liberals Became Milwaukee Avenue Progressives

[Docere]

Interesting article on the westward shift of progressive politics in Chicago. The lakefront neighborhoods are really populated now by more of your "neoliberal" socially liberal/fiscally conservative types, meanwhile much the NW Side has shifted from conservative "white ethnic" to white progressive and Latino where there's more support of what I suppose could be called "urban-progressive" politics.

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/...-Progressives/

Similar patterns I suppose can be seen in say, NYC where there's been a shift from Manhattan and certain more established-gentrified Brooklyn neighborhoods to hipster Brooklyn and western Queens.

[Pedestrian]

I just want to live on Ms. Lightfoot's street--it's now by far the safest in Chicago. Remember that couple in St. Louis indicted for standing in front of their hoiuse with guns as the mob marched down their street? Won't be necessary in Chicago--no mob coming to their mayor's house as they did in Portland, Seattle, St. Louis and other cities. I just wonder if she (still) has a BLM sign out front.

Lightfoot defends heavy police presence around her home
By Fran Spielman Aug 20, 2020, 1:02pm CDT

Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Thursday defended the heavy police presence outside her Logan Square home, at a time when police officers are stretched to the limit, citing “specific threats” made “every single day” to “my person, my wife and my home.”

“Given the threats that I have personally received. Given the threats to my home and my family, I’m gonna do everything to make sure that they are protected. I make no apologies whatsoever for that,” the mayor said.

“I’ve talked to my fellow mayors across the country and, seeing the kind of things that have been done to them and their family members, I’m not gonna have that happen. That’s not what my wife and my child signed up for. It’s not what my neighbors signed up for. We have a right in our home to live in peace.”

The Chicago Tribune reported this week that, for the first time in recent memory, Chicago police are enforcing an ordinance prohibiting neighborhood demonstrations, even peaceful ones.

The mandate has empowered officers guarding the mayor’s house to keep demonstrators off the mayor’s block and arrest anyone who refuses to disperse . . . .

https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-ha...c-logan-square

Ft. Lori
• Video Link

[Crawford]

I don't think Manhattan neighborhoods have changed to the extent as described in Lakefront Chicago, but it's true that Manhattan skews older and tends to be more intensely NIMBY. I don't think the differences are quite as stark between Brooklyn and Manhattan, though. For one, Brownstone Brooklyn isn't really cheaper than Manhattan these days, so the buyers aren't radically different.

My sense is that Chicago neighborhoods like Lincoln Park/Lakeview are more NIMBY, wealthier, older and less cool than Wicker Park/Bucktown/West Loop type places. But I doubt the voting patterns are much different.

But, regardless of location, a family living in a multi-million residence, with kids and investments, will tend to be broadly "neoliberal." The establishment doesn't want to burn down the establishment. I don't think a typical Park Slope family differs much from a typical Upper West Side family. Meanwhile a 20-something renter with limited assets, regardless of location, will lean more heavily towards left-leaning positions (the AOC voter vs. the Rahm or Bloomberg voter).

Also, there were plenty of Rockefeller Republicans in wealthy urban neighborhoods until a generation ago. The Upper East Side was represented by a Republican in the State Senate (albeit an extremely liberal one). Roy Goodman was heir to the ExLax fortune and served in the NY Senate from 1969 to 2002. Nowadays Republicanism is essentially extinct in such neighborhoods.

[Crawford]

Also, why is it controversial if the Chicago mayor has security around her residence? I don't get it.

[Crawford]

The East Side of Manhattan (the traditional Silk Stocking district) was also represented by Republicans in Congress for decades, until 1993. Granted, liberal Republicans alien to the current party norms, but Republicans nonetheless. If you lived on the Upper East Side in the 70's and 80's, you would have had Republican reps for the U.S. House, the NYS Senate and the NYS House.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My sense is that Chicago neighborhoods like Lincoln Park/Lakeview are more NIMBY, wealthier, older and less cool than Wicker Park/Bucktown/West Loop type places. But I doubt the voting patterns are much different.

The Democratic Party is such a big tent running from people centrist neoliberal technocrats to democratic socialists and most cities vote massively Democrat - but what type of Democrats do they elect?

Pretty sure Lincoln Park votes to the right of the Chicago average.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, why is it controversial if the Chicago mayor has security around her residence? I don't get it.

I agree

Fox News types are all over this and it’s unfair. She is a prominent public figure and obviously is going to be subject to true threats on her life, especially in these troubled times with Covid lockdowns, etc. I don’t think it was an unreasonable thing that she did

[the urban politician]

Interesting thread, ultimately though I don’t think much can be done to stop gentrification moving west. It’s already happening, and after the pandemic is over and people start returning in earnest to cities, you will see people coming into Logan Square/Avondale and buying up homes & driving up prices. These areas will be similar to Ravenswood, North Center, and Irving Park demographically. Pilsen homes are still selling at higher prices and the older generation of LatinX property owners are still trying to sell.

The Ramirez Rosa types will end up in Hermosa and around OHare, and and around Midway Airport on the SW side by 2040

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, why is it controversial if the Chicago mayor has security around her residence? I don't get it.

Because the same politicians protecting themselves are denying protection to the people they govern.

The Mayor of Seattle was just fine with a lawless anarchic zone being established in that city—in which other people but not her lived—until the mob came to her house.

Similarly, I believe I read the mob in St. Louis from which the couple with guns were protecting their home was really marching through a non-public neighborhood to reach that city’s mayor’s house. The citizens were forced to defend their own property because government was not doing it.

And the Mayor of Portland began to respond to violence in his town when the mob there also came to his house.

There’s nothing wrong with politicians protecting themselves and all their citizens from mob violence. If they only protect themselves, it’s wrong. And nobody’s been protecting Chicago’s minority neighborhoods for many years.

By the way, it’s so laughable when Crawford and others say, “It’s just Fox News saying this”. All media is biased now but Fox News is the most popular single cable newsneteork. Besides, the reports I posted came from local Chicago newspapers and both the major ones are critical of Lightfoot.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Because the same politicians protecting themselves are denying protection to the people they govern.

The Mayor of Seattle was just fine with a lawless anarchic zone being established in that city—in which other people but not her lived—until the mob came to her house.

I have to agree. The moment the chaos landed on the Seattle mayor's front lawn so to speak, she clamped down.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Because the same politicians protecting themselves are denying protection to the people they govern.

The Mayor of Seattle was just fine with a lawless anarchic zone being established in that city—in which other people but not her lived—until the mob came to her house.

Similarly, I believe I read the mob in St. Louis from which the couple with guns were protecting their home was really marching through a non-public neighborhood to reach that city’s mayor’s house. The citizens were forced to defend their own property because government was not doing it.

And the Mayor of Portland began to respond to violence in his town when the mob there also came to his house.

There’s nothing wrong with politicians protecting themselves and all their citizens from mob violence. If they only protect themselves, it’s wrong. And nobody’s been protecting Chicago’s minority neighborhoods for many years.

By the way, it’s so laughable when Crawford and others say, “It’s just Fox News saying this”. All media is biased now but Fox News is the most popular single cable newsneteork. Besides, the reports I posted came from local Chicago newspapers and both the major ones are critical of Lightfoot.

Mayor Lightfoot has indeed clamped down hard with the help of the Chicago police

And she has an aggressive plan to clamp down harder should looting and rioting recur. Whether or not those efforts are successful remains to be seen

Chicago’s bigger issue is Kim Foxx and the court system being too lenient. Not the lack of police presence and the Mayor

Fox News is wrong in Chicago’s case

[craigs]

^Looks like someone finally realized that all the right-wing trumpanzees trashing Chicago's reputation, day in and day out, might just negatively impact his rental properties!

Wait, what's that I hear in the back hallway? Could it be . . . LOOTING IN CHICAGO!?!?!?

[Steely Dan]

Political axe-grinding belongs in the CE toilet.