CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Handro

1. Yes, I also read the entire article that describes a proposal that requires private landlords to evict immigrant families if they are using housing vouchers.

2. If I was an undocumented immigrant renter or had family that was an undocumented immigrant renter, then I would certainly sleep easier in IL knowing that undocumented status does not mean I/they will be sleeping on the streets.


Either way, seems like a win - win. If you're right that it doesn't matter, doesn't affect you at all, and has no real meaning other than to make some people sleep easier, then why does it upset you so much? Strange. Why be so combative?

Even then this won't go anywhere. You really can't force Landlords to evict someone*. But Trump can probably apply more pressure by stopping Federal Housing assistance to families living with illegal immigrants. When that happens those same families will stop paying rent, and then landlords will be forced to evict because of nonpayment of rent as opposed to immigrant status.

* But this isn't the first time the Govt has tried to coerce Landlords to do their jobs for them. 5 years ago I had a tenant in California who was growing marijuana on the premises. Although it is legal in California, it was illegal on the Federal level. I got a letter from the DEA essentially saying that if the marijuana growing doesn't stop, I could be fined and potentially prosecuted. Nevermind the fact that it was the tenant--not me--doing the growing.

This flies in the face of local landlord/tenant laws. I cannot legally stomp onto the property and just pull up the plants. That's trespassing against the tenant. If the tenant refused to stop growing, I don't have police powers and thus I cannot go in and arrest them.

Federal agents should've done their jobs and arrested the guy themselves. Instead, I was coerced to evict the tenant (the only recourse a Landlord has). He proceded to trash the place, and I had to file and insurance claim to repair the damage. Thanks a lot, Uncle Sam....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This is a well-reasoned point. I don't know enough about the tenant/landlord bill to argue one way or the other.

On the pensions, I'm not sure what an actual solution even looks like or what appetite there would be the implement it in the first place. He likely won't get any Republican support for a difficult vote (because it WILL require new money) and most of the Democrats are too scared to vote (terrified of union backlash). We will see what the "Blue Ribbon Commission" comes up with, but likely little gets done.

The most logical move would be taxing retirement income and putting that money directly towards the pensions and also taxing some services. More likely, we get asset privatization and increased income taxes.

I think we need some of what you're proposing, and a Constitutional Amendment

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think we need some of what you're proposing, and a Constitutional Amendment

I would love Illinois Republicans to focus on things like this and really put the pressure on Madigan and Pritzker to take an actual stand. Instead, they seem to be spending their time at downstate secession rallies spewing fiery rhetoric.

We are absolutely lost politically as a country.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Even then this won't go anywhere. You really can't force Landlords to evict someone*. But Trump can probably apply more pressure by stopping Federal Housing assistance to families living with illegal immigrants. When that happens those same families will stop paying rent, and then landlords will be forced to evict because of nonpayment of rent as opposed to immigrant status.

* But this isn't the first time the Govt has tried to coerce Landlords to do their jobs for them. 5 years ago I had a tenant in California who was growing marijuana on the premises. Although it is legal in California, it was illegal on the Federal level. I got a letter from the DEA essentially saying that if the marijuana growing doesn't stop, I could be fined and potentially prosecuted. Nevermind the fact that it was the tenant--not me--doing the growing.

This flies in the face of local landlord/tenant laws. I cannot legally stomp onto the property and just pull up the plants. That's trespassing against the tenant. If the tenant refused to stop growing, I don't have police powers and thus I cannot go in and arrest them.

Federal agents should've done their jobs and arrested the guy themselves. Instead, I was coerced to evict the tenant (the only recourse a Landlord has). He proceded to trash the place, and I had to file and insurance claim to repair the damage. Thanks a lot, Uncle Sam....

That's insane. Nobody wins!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Handro

That's insane. Nobody wins!

Ain't that the truth, and to make things worse.....

It just happened again.

The tenant after the previous guy was growing weed too, except that you need a license. Now it is the local Sheriff sending us letters, so we had to kick him out too.

For the love of God, can I just get a normal tenant who doesn't grow and sell pot for a living?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That ranks up there with Pritzker’s other new law that like 3 people care about—the one requiring public bathrooms to be gender neutral.

It only affects single-occupant bathrooms and requires them to be unisex, which was a common arrangement in small businesses and cafes before the law anyway.

Both genders should cheer this law - I hate waiting outside an occupied men's room while the women's room is empty. I'm sure women feel the same way in that situation.

Larger restrooms with multiple stalls can still be gendered.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Both genders should cheer this law - I hate waiting outside an occupied men's room while the women's room is empty. I'm sure women feel the same way in that situation.

Isn't it usually the opposite? Women's restrooms tend to have longer lines. An example that has always stood out to me is Union Station, where the women's line snakes well outside of the bathroom area while there is almost never a line for the men's. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/a...s-wait/580993/

Unisex bathrooms should probably reduce wait times for women. But the tradeoff is that they'll have to deal with what is probably a much dirtier bathroom.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It only affects single-occupant bathrooms and requires them to be unisex, which was a common arrangement in small businesses and cafes before the law anyway.

Both genders should cheer this law - I hate waiting outside an occupied men's room while the women's room is empty. I'm sure women feel the same way in that situation.

Larger restrooms with multiple stalls can still be gendered.

What's there to cheer?

This is not a law to cheer. It's a stupid, silly distraction. I think a small business can figure out its bathroom situation.

I think that was the whole point of my rant. JB needs to get out of the business of adding redundant & unneeded layers of micromanagement to appease a segment of the population because many of us can see right through it for what it really is....

[the urban politician]

Mayor Lightfoot announces hiring freeze across all Depts:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/polit...prq-story.html



Good Government has to start somewhere

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It only affects single-occupant bathrooms and requires them to be unisex, which was a common arrangement in small businesses and cafes before the law anyway.

Both genders should cheer this law - I hate waiting outside an occupied men's room while the women's room is empty. I'm sure women feel the same way in that situation.

Larger restrooms with multiple stalls can still be gendered.

Agreed, can't wait to drop monster dookies in the former ladies room...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Copper plumbing, but did you redo the service on each project?

My buildings also have zero lead because I'm an evil landlord and decided to pay $17k per building to put in brand new services from the street.

Always

The city requires that for any big remodeling permit that includes plans

If you fly under the radar and just do a rehab job with easy permits, you can get away with not having to shell out $20+k to cut the street and install 1.5” service.

Btw the price of doing that soared in recent years. My first major gut rehab requiring architectural plans was in 2012 and at that time it only cost $8k. But of course I’m the evil guy if I pass that cost along as rent, right Ald Rosa?

[LouisVanDerWright]

The cost of services keeps rising because the city keeps adding more onerous regulations (i.e. now you must install a 3x5' underground vault in the parkway that costs $3500, wtf?) and the process has become so obnoxious that only like 3 or 4 subs will still do it. Love how the city says they want affordable housing and then makes things as expensive as possible...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Isn't it usually the opposite? Women's restrooms tend to have longer lines. An example that has always stood out to me is Union Station, where the women's line snakes well outside of the bathroom area while there is almost never a line for the men's. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/a...s-wait/580993/

Unisex bathrooms should probably reduce wait times for women. But the tradeoff is that they'll have to deal with what is probably a much dirtier bathroom.

In the City of Chicago, any establishment small enough to have single-occupant restrooms will rarely have a line for the restrooms. We’re not talking about the stadiums, Union Station, concert venues, etc. Pretty much just small neighborhood cafes and businesses, up to 50 occupants.

Granted, the rest of the state has a different building code and thus lower fixture counts than Chicago... so in the suburbs and downstate, you can put in single-occupant restrooms in slightly larger businesses, up to 150 occupants.

[aaron38]

6 months ago, they were part of the largest field of mayoral candidates in Chicago history. Here’s what the former City Hall hopefuls are doing now.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/polit...outputType=amp

[the urban politician]

Lightfoot gets low grades from progressive groups in first 100 days

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/gove...first-100-days



When I read this, I instantly know Lightfoot is on the right track if she's not pandering to this crowd:

The coalition was led by United Working Families, whose affiliates include the Chicago Teachers Union, SEIU Healthcare Illinois Indiana, and Grassroots Illinois Action. They were joined by other representatives from the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, as well as supporters of an Elected Representative School Board, community control of the police department, and amendments to the city’s ‘Welcoming’ ordinance.

[the urban politician]

More diversions from our worthless hack Governor:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/gove...blic-companies

As a minority I'm offended by this.

I would hate to be listed under the employer I work for as a "minority" so that they can fulfill some sort of perceived requirement. Horrible idea. Thanks for pandering and diverting us, yet again, from the actual issues that face this State.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

As a minority I'm offended by this.

This is the exact same tactic, you constantly call people out for. What ever happened to people needing to be less offended all the time. The blind hate for Pritzker is a little much.

I don't see how this:

The bill signed today requires companies to turn over data to the Illinois secretary of state about female and minority board membership, as well as practices for identifying and appointing diverse leadership.

Leads to this:

I would hate to be listed under the employer I work for as a "minority" so that they can fulfill some sort of perceived requirement.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This is the exact same tactic, you constantly call people out for. What ever happened to people needing to be less offended all the time. The blind hate for Pritzker is a little much.

I don't see how this:


Leads to this:

Not sure what part of that seemed incongruous to you.

I just don't believe in mandated diversity. I think it ultimately has the unintended affect of harming minorities rather than helping them. It is offensive to minorities because it has the potential to imply that they are simply there to fulfill a requirement, rather than being there by merit.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Not sure what part of that seemed incongruous to you.

I just don't believe in mandated diversity. I think it ultimately has the unintended affect of harming minorities rather than helping them. It is offensive to minorities because it has the potential to imply that they are simply there to fulfill a requirement, rather than being there by merit.

This bill requires businesses to report the data, nothing more. I get the fear, but there is no requirement of board seats or otherwise, simply starting with the data collection to understand current state.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This bill requires businesses to report the data, nothing more. I get the fear, but there is no requirement of board seats or otherwise, simply starting with the data collection to understand current state.

^ The problem is the public shaming that could inevitably follow.

I already see it now--articles, tweets, etc about how company X doesn't have enough minority board members, with calls to boycott them. I can see CEOs being on the defensive about this, having to focus on calls to "fix their diversity problem" as if they don't already have enough on their plate. I don't think much good will come out of this.