CHICAGO | General Discussions

[ardecila]

^ It's not clear if Rahm was talking about a specific policy he's trying to enact in his final days, or if he was speaking rhetorically about how he has strategized in the past.

I hope he does make some waves and back some losers in his final days, though. Go out with a bang.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

But new employees hired by the City could be given 401(k)s instead of pensions.

New employees pay into the pension fund, which helps keep it solvent (similar to social security). Moving new employees to 401(k)s doesn't pass the arithmetic test, which is why nobody is seriously proposing it.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

New employees pay into the pension fund, which helps keep it solvent (similar to social security). Moving new employees to 401(k)s doesn't pass the arithmetic test, which is why nobody is seriously proposing it.

No they don't, Rahm's attempt at pension reform involved asking them to pay in and it was rejected by the courts as "diminishing" their benefits. Taxpayers fund the pensions, not the employees, which is why we are in such a fucked up situation. The only funding coming from city and state employees is coming out of the taxes they are paying.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

No they don't, Rahm's attempt at pension reform involved asking them to pay in and it was rejected by the courts as "diminishing" their benefits. Taxpayers fund the pensions, not the employees, which is why we are in such a fucked up situation. The only funding coming from city and state employees is coming out of the taxes they are paying.

This is incorrect. It is true that the city pays a majority of the pension cost. For example, teachers pay 9% of their salary to the pension, the city picks up 7% and the individual pays the other 2%. I'm having trouble finding the details for the Police and Municipal Employees, but I assume they are similar. Either way, this 9% goes directly to the pension fund and moving new workers to 401(k)s would eliminate this contribution from the pension plans and crater their funding percentage.

The law that was struck down would have forced the workers to pay a higher percentage into the fund and also lowered the annual 3% cost-of-living growth (which is ridiculous in it's own right). It was a reasonable reform, but the rigid constitutional language doomed it.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

The amount being paid by the members is very small compared to what the employers are paying.

Thank you for providing the data and source.

I think you are still misunderstanding my statement. What matters is the total amount going onto the pension system. Right now, it is a combination of member and employer (the city) contributions. If all of those future payments go into a new 401(k) system instead of the existing pension system, it would kill the pension funding.

In 5 years, the pension wouldn't have any money to pay existing retirees. You would be drawing down the pension fund to pay existing retirees, while not replenishing with current worker/employer payments. This would cause the fund to go bankrupt.

[emathias]

IIRC, I believe we've been requested to move Pension discussions to the Politics thread ...

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

A Tier 4 that is 100% 401(k) would not change the employer contributions of $576 million in 2022. The current members and employers would continue to fund the system for Tiers 1-3. The ramp of employer contributions would continue indefinitely until 90% funding.

The Tier 4 would not cost the City any additional money except for any matches for 401(k)s and the small increment of reduction in members contributions. The pensioners in Tiers 1-3 would still get the funding for pensions.

I'm still not following how Tiers 1-3 would continue to be funded alongside a new 401(k) program.

Maybe a couple examples would help clarify.

I get hired tomorrow and enter the new 401(k) program. When I get my paycheck, which funds am I paying into?

I got hired 5 years ago as a Tier 3 worker. When I get my paycheck, which funds am I paying into?

[SIGSEGV]

I thought this article was pretty interesting, about a drive-through Starbucks coming to Bridgeport:
https://southsideweekly.com/a-starbu...ay-bridgeport/

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I thought this article was pretty interesting, about a drive-through Starbucks coming to Bridgeport:
https://southsideweekly.com/a-starbu...ay-bridgeport/

And it’s suburban as hell. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggghhhhh!

Throw out our worthless planning department

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And it’s suburban as hell. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggghhhhh!

Throw out our worthless planning department

It's not DPD's fault. Most of the time DPD (staff) does everything in its power to shape how projects should fit into the urban fabric. The aldermen have tremendous power and can push projects like this through the zoning review process. In most cases the alderman has the support of the mayor's office. It's all about jobs and amenities, especially in the neighborhoods.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Starbucks is very regimented about their drive thru designs. They want it suburban so it's going to be suburban.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Starbucks is very regimented about their drive thru designs. They want it suburban so it's going to be suburban.

Well the City doesn't need Starbucks, so fuck them.

We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Well the City doesn't need Starbucks, so fuck them.

We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before.

I just tried to upvote this.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Well the City doesn't need Starbucks, so fuck them.

We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before.

Isn't this the kind of big government solution you typically despise?

[Steely Dan]

government is bad, except when it does stuff i like.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Isn't this the kind of big government solution you typically despise?

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

government is bad, except when it does stuff i like.

How is it "big government" to not want to allow a poorly planned drive thru to be constructed on land that is not currently zoned for a drive thru and is actually city owned? In this case the developer is not entitled to shit and the government should not be obliged to allow the developer to do more than they are already allowed to as of right. As has been established here ad nauseum, proper planning is an entirely appropriate use of government power, catering to hordes of NIMBYs and activists who are clamoring for poor planning decisions to be made is not.

In other words: NIMBYs demanding more parking and auto oriented design = not ok. Developers demanding more parking and auto oriented design = also not ok. That's totally consistent.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

How is it "big government" to not want to allow a poorly planned drive thru to be constructed on land that is not currently zoned for a drive thru and is actually city owned?

The comment was "We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before", which includes none of the nuance contained in your response.

It actually mirrors other discussions I've had with "small government" types. Specifically, they view every problem as having a simple solution (the market decides) except in areas where they have expertise. In those cases, there is specific nuance that should be taken into account.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

The comment was "We can dictate design standards to chains and we've done it before", which includes none of the nuance contained in your response.

It actually mirrors other discussions I've had with "small government" types. Specifically, they view every problem as having a simple solution (the market decides) except in areas where they have expertise. In those cases, there is specific nuance that should be taken into account.

No, not true. The city can still have basic design standards without having to intervene with every nook and cranny of life, but often they go way too far.

Simply put, ban streetfront parking on all commercial streets.

[Steely Dan]

with the jussie smollett debacle, the aurora mass shooting, and now r. kelly's indictment, it'd be nice if chicago could stay out of national headlines with all of this negative shit for a little while.

[Steely Dan]

and here's the perfect antidote to all of the recent negative news.

Malort returns to Chicago — production of bitter booze we love to hate comes back after 30 years

Louisa Chu
Chicago Tribune

For the first time in a generation, Chicago-made bottles of Malort have been released, marking a homecoming for the bitter booze we love to hate. The first bottles shipped Thursday.

You may know that the Carl Jeppson Co. had been making Malort in Florida for the past 30 years. Then CH Distillery, the spirits-maker headquartered in the East Pilsen neighborhood, bought the company last September. Though CH acquired the secret recipe to Jeppson’s Malort in the sale, after countless recipe tests to make the iconic liqueur itself, the distillery decided not to use one of the ingredients.


“Sometime in the ’70s, for some reason, they started adding artificial coloring,” said CH Distillery owner and head distiller Tremaine Atkinson. “We didn’t think it needed it, so we’re not using that. There’s no added color.”

Instead, the CH Distillery-made Malort may hew closer to the original recipe of Swedish immigrant Carl Jeppson, who created what he called a homemade medicinal drink during 1930s Prohibition.

full article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/dinin...221-story.html



REJOICE!


i currently have a bottle of the impostor florida stuff in my liquor cabinet.

i'll have to polish that off and my get hands on a bottle of the new chicago-made stuff.