CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[CrazyCres]

Mayoral challenger Jesus ‘Chuy’ Garcia unveils public safety plan

Arguing that a mayor who “cannot keep us safe” is a mayor Chicago “cannot afford to keep,” U.S. Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia on Friday unveiled a sweeping plan to stop the violent crime that is foremost in the minds of voters.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-ha...ic-safety-plan

Public Saftey Plan: https://chuyforchicago.com/wp-conten...afety_Plan.pdf

[sentinel]

All fluff, and doesn't really address the fact that the vast majority of violence is GANG.RELATED.

"Make violence reduction a goal." That should be THE goal, and the only way to make that happen is to directly address the gang plague of Chicago.

[BrinChi]

I thought it was still mostly gang violence too, but i did see the below recently with data from U of C Crime Lab:

U. of C. Crime Lab Director on What Data Says About Chicago’s Crime Rate in 2022

She also says that what is causing shootings is not necessarily what people might think.

“A lot of shootings and homicides in Chicago are actually the result of an altercation, an argument that escalates and turns violent unfortunately, because a gun is at hand,” she said. “That has really important implications for solutions. Programs that kind of leverage cognitive behavioral principles or provide individuals with the tools to navigate those situations differently, therefore can be really impactful if the large majority of incidents stem from altercations or arguments.”

Smith says there is a wider misconception that crime in Chicago is largely about gang disputes over drug turf.

“And while those certainly do take place, our read of the narrative data and also conversations with individuals who have potentially been exposed or involved with violence suggest that these altercations are really at the root of the gun violence challenge,” Smith said.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I thought it was still mostly gang violence too, but i did see the below recently with data from U of C Crime Lab:

U. of C. Crime Lab Director on What Data Says About Chicago’s Crime Rate in 2022

She also says that what is causing shootings is not necessarily what people might think.

“A lot of shootings and homicides in Chicago are actually the result of an altercation, an argument that escalates and turns violent unfortunately, because a gun is at hand,” she said. “That has really important implications for solutions. Programs that kind of leverage cognitive behavioral principles or provide individuals with the tools to navigate those situations differently, therefore can be really impactful if the large majority of incidents stem from altercations or arguments.”

Smith says there is a wider misconception that crime in Chicago is largely about gang disputes over drug turf.

“And while those certainly do take place, our read of the narrative data and also conversations with individuals who have potentially been exposed or involved with violence suggest that these altercations are really at the root of the gun violence challenge,” Smith said.

Right, though CPD will often call these gang-associated if either party is suspected to belong to a gang, misleading as it may be. It turns out that arguments + firearms is bad news. Who would have thunk.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

I was recently in Boston and Atlanta and they had these taller panels that make it difficult to jump over. Not impossible, but any reduction helps. I believe Muni is installing them now too.

CTA has been doing this for a few years now:

I don’t expect any attendant to put themselves in danger of confronting a potentially dangerous individual. That’s the job of security or the police. I just believe there’s a combined design solution and personnel solution to lowering crime on the cta.

It’s worth asking why even have attendants if they don’t act as security guards. I’m not sure what purpose they serve. Helping confused people can’t possibly be a full time job, and I know they don’t do janitorial work either. If there’s only budget for one permanent staffer at each station, I think security function should come first.

[twister244]

Looks like there was a "forum" discussion over the weekend where LL seemed to lash out in odd ways at candidates (I.E., painting Vallas as a pro-life conservative).

Sadly, Buckner wasn't there, which makes me increasingly worried about his prospects. The little bit of polling has the top candidates being LL, Chuy, and Vallas. According to WGN, there will be a televised debate on Thursday? Couldn't immediately find a link.

If Buckner can't even place well against the existing candidates, my vote is with Vallas. I get he's chummy with CPD and their union, but he does have a record when it comes to education, and he has a crime plan with teeth, which might be something Chicago needs in the long term. If he could just adopt Buckner's stance on transit, he would be a pretty solid candidate.

For the life of me, I don't see the appeal of Chuy..... The guy has been floating around local politics for decades now, I'm not sure where he stands on major platform issues, aside from his safety plan he released recently. And... as others have noted, he was against the Ashland BRT plan the last time he ran for mayor. Not to mention he took money from the FTX PAC.

Best case scenario is we have a runoff between Vallas and LL. If it's Vallas and Chuy, my worry is enough of a coalition will tip Chuy into the mayor's seat. I have strong doubts LL will even make it to the runoffs......

[Tom In Chicago]

^I couldn't attend the forum as I'm not technically a candidate (and surely would have been laughed off the stage for my "giant hole to throw undesirable people into" project) but I did find that LL was really grasping at straws by calling Vallas out for not Tweeting his support for Roe v. Wade. . . weird place for the mayor to go. . .

I'm thinking Vallas might be the guy. . . Chuy's plans are light on the details and he's not someone I'd like to have to look at on TV for the next four years. . .

In the meantime feel free to PM me for more details about my mayoral aspirations. . . cartoonish and absurd as they may be. . .

. . .

[Handro]

I really am impressed by Kam--love his stance on transit and what seems to be a pretty good grasp of what actually matters to Chicago voters in a local election (LL, who cares what a candidate did or did not tweet about a national news issue?) but I just haven't seen his presence gaining enough traction.

Vallas is my second choice, semi-reluctantly. I don't like his history of school privatization; I don't have kids so it's not a huge issue to me, more of a clue about his values. I also don't like how willing he has been to adopt the mantel of the race's "copaganda" candidate. But he has a track record of success of achieving his goals in civic admin positions and at least one term with a crime-focused mayor could begin to rebuild what has become a battered social contract in this city.

Chuy is an empty suit. How has he been in Chicago politics for like 40 years and not have abundantly clear policy positions? He's a figurehead for the Machine. Get lost, Chuy.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I thought it was still mostly gang violence too, but i did see the below recently with data from U of C Crime Lab:

U. of C. Crime Lab Director on What Data Says About Chicago’s Crime Rate in 2022

She also says that what is causing shootings is not necessarily what people might think.

“A lot of shootings and homicides in Chicago are actually the result of an altercation, an argument that escalates and turns violent unfortunately, because a gun is at hand,” she said. “That has really important implications for solutions. Programs that kind of leverage cognitive behavioral principles or provide individuals with the tools to navigate those situations differently, therefore can be really impactful if the large majority of incidents stem from altercations or arguments.”

Smith says there is a wider misconception that crime in Chicago is largely about gang disputes over drug turf.

“And while those certainly do take place, our read of the narrative data and also conversations with individuals who have potentially been exposed or involved with violence suggest that these altercations are really at the root of the gun violence challenge,” Smith said.

It used to be more true about the gang violence part, but COVID has created a big mental health crisis for a lot of people. So yeah, now way more so than before it is about the altercation part. If you read news articles enough about murders, then this is pretty obvious. But I won't fault people for not realizing it. Some of those programs have actually worked. North Lawndale just saw a 41% drop in murders from 2021 to 2022 and that area was one place where one of those programs went into effect on a larger scale after having enough data to show it might work. It's basically down to 2018 levels for last year. Still above 2013 or 2014 levels but that's an impressive drop in 1 year. Hope it continues.

[lakeshoredrive]

How was the debate tonight? Who did well?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

How was the debate tonight? Who did well?

I listened to half of it but they all regurgitated about 75% of the same stuff..

This election has me very conflicted other than I won't be voting for Lightfoot.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I listened to half of it but they all regurgitated about 75% of the same stuff..

This election has me very conflicted other than I won't be voting for Lightfoot.

If it is her and Chuy in the run-off, I'll have a very tough choice.

On one hand, a person who has proven the job is too much for her, but seems to be making some progress while pissing off everyone she encounters.

On the other hand, a person who has been in local politics for 4 decades with almost nothing to show for it and no clear policy stances.

[twister244]

I watched the debate after the fact.

Paul did a pretty good job answering questions and proposing solutions.

Too many of the other candidates seem to want to throw "mental health" at everything. I think it was Ja'mal Green that suggested putting safety officers or ambassadors on CTA.... like WTF.

I like Buckner on the transit front, but he just didn't entice me on the other issues. I would vote for him over LL, but it comes down to Paul and LL.

One thing I did notice - You aren't hearing anyone talk about Defund the Police anymore. Most folks were onboard with more police resources, just how they are implemented.

LL really struggled - She did a good job highlighting companies that have chosen to relocate here, but totally side-stepped criticisms regarding how crime is up still, Mag Mile store fronts, etc.

[twister244]

Also - I recall someone (maybe Green) arguing that why put any affordable housing in the West Loop when there's plenty of open lots in Englewood. You know... Instead of grabbing a sub from J.B, you can just grab a stray bullet instead? Not to say affordable housing shoudn't be built in all 77 neighborhoods, but who would want to move into affordable housing there when you have a huge selection of areas in the city.

I literally LOL'd at that one. It just shows how weak our pool of candidates are this go-around.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

Most folks were onboard with more police resources, just how they are implemented.

Pretty sure this has always been the case. It is more of semantics argument about what "police resources" really means. Two of the main ideas "Defund the Police" brought were to funnel police resources to mental health and violence prevention programs rather than simply hiring more officers. Paul Vallas brags about hiring a bunch of officers in the 90s. Did that solve crime?

We have seen early success from violence prevention programs in places like Lawndale. The mental health pilot Crisis Assistance Response and Engagement (CARE) has also shown positive results in early phases. Both programs are set to expand. The real discussion is where the funding should come from.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Pretty sure this has always been the case. It is more of semantics argument about what "police resources" really means. Two of the main ideas "Defund the Police" brought were to funnel police resources to mental health and violence prevention programs rather than simply hiring more officers. Paul Vallas brags about hiring a bunch of officers in the 90s. Did that solve crime?

We have seen early success from violence prevention programs in places like Lawndale. The mental health pilot Crisis Assistance Response and Engagement (CARE) has also shown positive results in early phases. Both programs are set to expand. The real discussion is where the funding should come from.

I get that, but there has clearly been a shift away from "Let's just abolish the police and replace everyone with mental health workers" to "Well.... we need more mental health resources, but we definitely need more officers and better training to handle violent crime". As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Vallas leaned a little more heavily on the "more police officers" end of the spectrum, but also acknowledged support for more mental health resources. However, some of the other candidates on the stage appeared to have some cognitive dissonance with moving away from "Let's just replace everyone with mental health workers" because they have to acknowledge that we need police in the city, and we need police to take down violent criminals. There's clearly a whole discussion to be had about handling non-violent criminals, and giving them alternative resources and support.

I think most people are onboard with that, but you gotta find the right candidate that can balance the best of both worlds.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

I get that, but there has clearly been a shift away from "Let's just abolish the police and replace everyone with mental health workers" to "Well.... we need more mental health resources, but we definitely need more officers and better training to handle violent crime". As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Vallas leaned a little more heavily on the "more police officers" end of the spectrum, but also acknowledged support for more mental health resources. However, some of the other candidates on the stage appeared to have some cognitive dissonance with moving away from "Let's just replace everyone with mental health workers" because they have to acknowledge that we need police in the city, and we need police to take down violent criminals. There's clearly a whole discussion to be had about handling non-violent criminals, and giving them alternative resources and support.

I think most people are onboard with that, but you gotta find the right candidate that can balance the best of both worlds.

You ignored the entire discussion around violence prevention. The police operate at the bottom of the funnel, mostly chronicling and investigating crimes that have already occurred. If you can decrease the number of violent incidents in the first place (the top of the funnel), you won't need as many officers to take down violent criminals.

If you can offload the handling of non-violent criminals or those with mental health episodes, your existing officers can focus more on taking down violent criminals.

The idea of more officers, more training, more mental health resources, and more violence prevention funding seems very expensive. Without the last two pieces, we are repeating the 80s and 90s.

Vallas' proposals for "Public Safety" will add around $500 million annually. That doesn't include any increased funding for mental health or violence reduction. Where is funding coming from?:

• 1,800 more officers is at least $300 million/year
• New Witness Protection Program with cost ???
• 300 more CTA officers to cost $100 million/year (although officers may be coming from the 1,800 new CPD officers, not clear)
• New Case Review Unit to cost ???

[twister244]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

You ignored the entire discussion around violence prevention. The police operate at the bottom of the funnel, mostly chronicling and investigating crimes that have already occurred. If you can decrease the number of violent incidents in the first place (the top of the funnel), you won't need as many officers to take down violent criminals.

If you can offload the handling of non-violent criminals or those with mental health episodes, your existing officers can focus more on taking down violent criminals.

The idea of more officers, more training, more mental health resources, and more violence prevention funding seems very expensive. Without the last two pieces, we are repeating the 80s and 90s.

Vallas' proposals for "Public Safety" will add around $500 million annually. That doesn't include any increased funding for mental health or violence reduction. Where is funding coming from?:

• 1,800 more officers is at least $300 million/year
• New Witness Protection Program with cost ???
• 300 more CTA officers to cost $100 million/year (although officers may be coming from the 1,800 new CPD officers, not clear)
• New Case Review Unit to cost ???

I think we are in general agreement, but you need to remember that what people see the most is the bottom of that funnel. When we constantly are barraged with stories of violent crime, homicide, robbery, etc.... People want it to be addressed and addressed yesterday. I'm not saying Paul's plan is the most optimal from a holistic perspective, but it's politically necessary given the current conditions. We can sit here and harp about the top of the funnel, but it won't get votes in Chicago when there are high numbers of armed robberies and incidents on CTA.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

You ignored the entire discussion around violence prevention. The police operate at the bottom of the funnel, mostly chronicling and investigating crimes that have already occurred. If you can decrease the number of violent incidents in the first place (the top of the funnel), you won't need as many officers to take down violent criminals.

This is a chicken and egg type of thing.

I would argue that a good way to reduce the "top of the funnel" is for people to actually be held accountable when they do commit crimes. If there is no fear of punishment for breaking the law then what good is the law?

[tjp]

I like Buckner because nobody is going to be more dedicated to public transit than someone whose license has been revoked.