Infastructure Plan Passed in City Council

Are you shocked?  No, not really...  Once again the majority of the aldermen, including our own alderman, aren't listening to the people who voted them in and entrusted them with our current and future tax dollars.  Years from now, heads will roll for what happened today.  And much like the parking meter fiasco, we will pay and pay and pay.

Kicked down the road

Chicago taxpayers can count on taking the hit when Emanuel's trust comes home to roost

Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, speaks out against the infrastructure trust bill. The City Council passed the measure 41-7. (Nancy Stone, Tribune photo / April 24, 2012)

John Kass

April 25, 2012

Watching Chicago taxpayers being primed for a kick in the teeth is an old story by now, and what happened at City Hall on Tuesday is yesterday's news.

The teeth-kicking this time hasn't actually happened yet. That's news of the future. But we chumbolones know it is inevitable, the teeth skittering on the pavement of the Chicago Way like moist and shiny breath mint.

What I saw at City Hall on Tuesday were the feet drawing back, heels ready, mulelike, all 41 of the legs belonging to the Chicago aldermen who voted for Mayor Rahm Emanuel's big idea of an infrastructure "trust," which is a slick way of spending money the city doesn't have and putting it on the people's credit card.

So the 41 became his, cleaving to him with the promise of jobs and deals. They call themselves Democrats but really they're Rahmulans now, giving the mayor the right to handpick the moneymen who'll choose the projects, which will allow the aldermen time for meaningful work, like sleeping and eating.

Even before they voted for the "trust," the aldermen stood and offered up their wish lists like spoiled children on a department store Santa's lap. They know the city is in the hole and still they want to spend and spend as if they work in Washington. One said she wanted her old streets fixed, another wanted a housing project revitalized, a third said she hoped for fiber-optic cable throughout her ward and so on, 41 sets of eager paws reaching for presents.

Some of the older aldermen snickered. They'd seen it before. They know how things work. The mayor wanted and the mayor got. He threatened some and he smooched others, but at least the Rahmfather knows what he's about and said so. Years from now, he'll be on a national political ticket while other guys are answering federal grand jury subpoenas.
And the rest of Tuesday's meeting was just waiting for the council to roll over, so Rahm could pat their tummies and make their legs kick, like so many loyal mutts waiting for meaty treats.

"I don't know if I should laugh or cry," said Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, who voted "no" along with six other aldermen forming the Magnificent Seven, the group that realizes there is no free lunch, and that the bill will come due. "It was pushed through. I want the city to prosper. But there were seven of us who are worried about what will happen to the taxpayers down the line."

For the record, the Magnificent Seven who voted for democracy were Waguespack; Robert Fioretti, 2nd; Leslie Hairston, 5th; Toni Foulkes, 15th; Ricardo Munoz, 22nd; Brendan Reilly, 42nd; and John Arena, 45th.

Hairston, who seems to be building a political future, was inspiring. She said that aldermen were sent to City Hall to watch over the people's money, not to give that responsibility away to a handpicked mayoral panel that may or may not tell taxpayers who gets what. Foulkes said her voters in Englewood don't believe it when City Hall says "trust me."

But the 41 Rahmulans trust the "trust" with your money. Their names are listed in the news story in today's Tribune. Remember them.

A novel idea would be to identify much-needed infrastructure projects, then tax the people to pay for them. It's called pay-as-you-go. But that's difficult. It's much easier to kick their teeth in later.

One leading Rahmulan is Ald. Joe Moore, 41st, who told his colleagues not to worry, that everything will be transparent in the future, that the mayor's lawyers told him so. What happened to the old Joe Moore, who would have demanded that aldermen not hand their responsibilities to a handpicked panel of moneymen?

"I'm the same Joe Moore," Moore told me.

The lead Rahmulan was Ald. Patrick O'Connor, 40th, and as the mayor's floor leader perhaps we should call him Rahmulan Prime. He said he wished he had the booming voice of former Ald. (now U.S. Rep.) Danny K. Davis, so he could "talk about Walt Whitman's poem about the city of the broad shoulders."

Nobody told him it was Carl Sandburg, not Whitman, but at least the Rahmfather had the decency to wince.

Of course, I could be wrong about the "trust." It could happen that 30,000 jobs are created and it won't cost taxpayers a dime and the projects pay off and the moneymen make their interest and the fees for CTA ridership or the city's parks aren't increased to pay for it. But we of Chumbolone Nation know better.

Still, the Rahmfather is pleased. He saw a need, and the last guy — the one they don't dare to name — spent all the money and Rahm wants to spend more. The concrete and asphalt kings are gleeful, as are the guys from labor and business. Of course, they're receiving, not paying.

In the council gallery sitting behind the aldermen were a row of guys in Windbreakers, sleeves pulled up to their forearms. The one with the least amount of neck wore sunglasses. Indoors. After the vote they were pleased.

"It gets a lot of people back to work," said a guy from the laborers union who said his name was Frank. Just Frank.

He didn't have to say anything else. The Rahmulans had spoken.

Public Safety in the 41st Ward

Readers
This comment came in this morning:


I called 911 for a burglary in progress mid day at Lawrence & Central. Guy heard the call and ran out. Adrenaline pumping, I had a description and watched him run east on Lawrence, north on Central. Excited he would be caught!  Took 25 minutes for police to show up. Officers apologized for the delay and said, off the record, there were only two cars in the district that day. Totally unacceptable given the taxes I pay!!

So, its been awhile since we've discussed public safety in the 41st Ward.  What are your thoughts?  Open post about public safety......................

The "Infastructure Plan" and the need for aldermanic critical thinking skills.

I have had more than a few requests for a post of the "Infastructure Plan".  Below is Jack Higgins' take on this week's City Council meeting decision to postpone the Infrastructure Plan vote for SIX DAYS.  Another example of Rahm trying to ram through his grand plan without explaining much of anything to our aldermen or us. 

Also, take a look at Ben Jovarsky and Mick Dumke's article describing what we really don't know about Rahm's grand plan. 

I know this is a ridiculous question, but how do you think our Alderman, Mary O'Connor will vote?  When will we hear Mary ask some critical questions, like the one's outlined in the article below, about one of the Mayor's costliest schemes?  When will we see Mary vote to genuinely represent her constiuents who are not AT ALL on board with giving this dangerous mayor carte blanche with our tax dollars.  When will Alderman O'Connor demonstrate that she understands she was put in office by us and not the Mayor?



The trust fund mayor

Rahm Emanuel has big plans for rebuilding Chicago's infrastructure. Wish we knew what they were.

By Ben Joravsky@joravben and Mick Dumke@mickeyd1971

Everybody's talking about Mayor Emanuel's proposal to create a "trust fund" that would use private money to build infrastructure, though nobody seems to understand how it would actually work. But that's not stopping aldermen from getting ready to approve it as soon as next week.

Of course, utter ignorance has never kept the City Council from adopting sweeping policies at the mayor's behest. Remember the parking meter sell-off?
In case you've somehow forgotten, the parking meter deal gave private investors control of our streets and untold billions in future revenue for a bundle of cash up-front. Aldermen signed off even though they hadn't read the information about it that Mayor Daley gave them a couple hours before they voted.
The difference with the infrastructure trust fund is that Mayor Emanuel has provided virtually no information for the aldermen to avoid reading. In Chicago, that's called reform.
Let's review what we know—or think we know—about the trust, and what no one has been willing or able to explain.
WHAT WE KNOW: Chicago's infrastructure is crumbling. And if it's not fixed, we'll slip into the lake. On that everyone agrees.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: Why Mayor Emanuel didn't start by conducting and sharing a formal analysis of what needs to be fixed, how much it will cost, and what are the best ways to pay for it—you know, to make sure it's done fairly and efficiently and all that.
WHAT WE KNOW: The city's going to have to borrow money to finance projects to fix the infrastructure.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: How the mayor's going raise the money to fix the infrastructure, who will profit, and what's to stop the taxpayers from getting soaked.
WHAT WE KNOW: Emanuel has proposed a pool of money to be raised by private investors and managed by a nonprofit organization overseen by five mayoral appointees, one of whom would be James A. Bell, the retiring chief financial officer of Boeing. In addition, we know that the mayor would use $2.7 million in city funds to help set up the trust. Boeing, by the way, has received about $24 million in tax breaks and subsidies over the last decade.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: Who the investors or board members will be—though we can safely assume they will not include the authors of this article or any other skeptics, should they be found.
WHAT WE KNOW: Since the trust will receive public funding and oversee public infrastructure projects, Mayor Emanuel has guaranteed it will operate with "transparency."
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: What he means by "transparency." The trust will be a nonprofit entity that's not technically subject to freedom of information and open meetings laws that government bodies have to follow.
WHAT WE KNOW: The mayor who's pledged to run the "most transparent government Chicago has ever seen" has a penchant for privatizing the policy-making process by relying on shadow oversight groups accountable only to him. For instance, he handed organizing and fund-raising authority for the upcoming NATO summit to World Business Chicago, whose board is appointed by the mayor. The organization doesn't have to comply with open government rules.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: Whether the trust will be able to cut billions of dollars of deals and dole out contracts without public hearings or releasing crucial documents.
WHAT WE KNOW: The mayor's proposal has already been a public relations triumph, winning him media attention across the country, as with this New York Times headline: "$7 billion public-private plan in Chicago aims to fix transit, schools and parks."
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: What transit, schools, and parks he'll be fixing, if any, since he hasn't specified.
WHAT WE KNOW: The mayor confused everybody by discussing the trust fund at two press conferences, one of which highlighted the aforementioned plans to spend $7 billion.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: What the trust fund has to do with the $7 billion of projects, most of which were already in the pipeline and have different funding schemes.
WHAT WE KNOW: With all of his press conferences and news releases, Emanuel has creatively blurred the lines so that no one really knows what he's up to. For instance, in briefings with aldermen, mayoral aides said the trust fund is needed to help pay for water and sewer infrastructure—even though the council rubber-stamped a tax hike for that very purpose just last fall.
In fact, a certain Reader writer whose first name is Ben and last name is Joravsky just saw his water-sewer bill go up 18 percent to pay for all those pipe replacements. Not that he has anything else to spend his money on.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: Why we would need money raised by the trust to pay for water and sewer works that the mayor already jacked up taxes to pay for—unless of course he's going to continue to take water and sewer taxes and use them to pay for things that have nothing to do with water or sewers.
WHAT WE KNOW: Emanuel's advisers claim the trust fund will be "a bridge between where capital exists and where the projects exist," to use the words of Lois Scott, the city's chief financial officer. Scott was previously president of Scott Balice Strategies, a financial advisory firm that worked with other governments to privatize their parking systems.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: What Scott's actually saying.
WHAT WE KNOW: For generations, Chicago—like almost every other local government—financed public works projects by selling bonds and then paying them off with property tax dollars or other fees. For instance, the 911 center was built 17 years ago in large part with a tax on telephone bills. Airport construction was paid for with passenger fees. School construction was funded by low-interest bonds paid off with property taxes.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: Why the city can't do it the way it always has. The city's bond rating is stable, and the trust fund will still require borrowing from investors—in a way that hasn't been tested and will likely cost more.
WHAT WE KNOW: Mayor Emanuel says the trust will let him "restore Chicago's core" with billions of dollars of projects—while somehow not raising taxes or selling off assets.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: How it's possible to get something for nothing.
WHAT WE KNOW: The one project Emanuel has publicly put on the table is retrofitting government buildings, like the 911 center, to save energy costs. Investors would put up money to retrofit the buildings and make it back from what's saved on future energy bills.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: What happens if retrofitting doesn't end up saving money—say, if energy costs skyrocket. Nor do we know what share of the money the investors would be entitled to. "The devil's in the details," says Ron Baiman, an economist for the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a think tank. "We need to know who's assuming the risk. We won't know that until they actually sign a deal."
WHAT WE KNOW: Emanuel says he'd follow the same approach for other projects—instead of traditional interest fees he'll finance these deals by turning over the savings or revenue streams that they create. For instance, instead of selling bonds to pay for extending the Red Line, he might increase fares and turn over some of the money to the investors—which isn't that different from what Daley did with the parking meter system.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: How Emanuel could use this scheme to raise money to construct schools, pave streets, or build anything else that doesn't immediately generate revenues—unless, of course, he's going to create new user fees.
WHAT WE KNOW: Five companies have written letters to the city indicating their interest in the trust: Citibank, which received $45 billion in federal bailout money in 2008; Citi Infrastructure Investors, which has a stake in privately run toll roads, airports, and water systems around the world; Macquarie Infrastructure, one of the firms that leased the Skyway from the city in 2005; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Infrastructure Investment Group, an investor in airport privatization; and Ullico, a financial services company operated by the AFL-CIO and other unions.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: If they're the only firms who will get a slice of this pie. Or how they got involved the first place. The mayor's office didn't respond to our questions.
WHAT WE KNOW: The letters of interest these five companies sent to the mayor are almost word-for-word the same: "[INSERT NAME] believes a local infrastructure bank merits serious consideration . . ."
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: If that means the mayor and/or his aides wrote them or if it's just one of those odd coincidences that happens from time to time in major city financial deals—like when the company that came up with the idea of selling the parking meter system wound up analyzing and structuring the deal as well.
WHAT WE KNOW: Mayor Emanuel wants to rush his detail-free proposal though the City Council by April 18. In fact, the mayor has already mapped out a timetable for consummating these yet-to-be-disclosed deals—his aides shared it in their closed-door presentations to aldermen. He wants the trust plan approved this month so deals can be made, paperwork completed, and projects underway, undoubtedly to great fanfare, by September.
WHAT WE STILL DON'T KNOW: What those projects and deals are.
WHAT WE KNOW: Aldermen don't know any more than we do, though that hasn't stopped many of them from voicing their support.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: What it would take to get aldermen to say no to something—anything—that the mayor—any mayor—proposes.
WHAT WE KNOW: The trust will give Mayor Emanuel more power, more control, more publicity, and less oversight, and a potential source of campaign contributions from investors lining up to feed from the trust.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW: How much we're going to pay.

The Alderman's Response as to Why She Voted for Speed Cameras and Fines for the 41st Ward

This is the Alderman's statement as to why she voted to place cameras and additional fines in the 41st Ward. 


  
Yesterday, after careful consideration and negotiation, I decided to vote in favor of Mayor Emanuel's plan to improve pedestrian and traffic safety in select locations throughout the City of Chicago.

More than 250 constituents took the time to share their opinions with me about this important issue, more than any other initiative that has come my way before the city council.

Those opposed to the ordinance expressed privacy concerns, issues related to the cost & maintenance of speed cameras, and the perception that this ordinance was solely about generating revenue for the city.

Supporters of the measure expressed concerns about the safety and security of their families as a result of reckless drivers and a principled belief that if you "can't afford the fine, don't do the crime."

In early March, I drafted a letter to constituents expressing my reservations about the ordinance in its original form. Specifically, I was concerned about the proliferation of these cameras along residential streets. I also noted my preference for additional signs, street markings, and speed humps. In the weeks that followed, I made it clear to both the Mayor's office and the Chicago Department of Transportation that a one-size-fits-all approach is one that I could not support.

The end result of those conversations was an assurance that the 41st Ward will receive the benefits of additional traffic control measures, even though the majority of cameras will be concentrated in areas of the city where they are needed the most. Here at home, I am confident that this ordinance represents an honest and balanced approach to making our communities a little bit safer.

The following is what the Children's Safety Zone Ordinance will mean for our ward:

In the 41st Ward, potential speed cameras will only be considered along dangerous arterial streets and intersections  (1/8 a mile of a school or park) where speed humps are not permissible. Most, if not all, our non-arterial residential streets will be unaffected by this ordinance.
Select "Safety Zones" in the ward will still benefit from improved street markings, signs and in some instances speed humps even though a speed camera will not be present.
If a speed camera location is proposed, it will be done so in close consultation with my office and based solely on need.

Many of you might be asking: "What locations in the ward would I consider dangerous for pedestrians?"

A good example would be streets where a large number of residents regularly express concerns to both my office and the 16th Police District. For instance:

Avondale Ave- (Along Norwood Park & Olympia Park). Many parents have expressed concerns about motorists speeding through this street. Especially during the summer season when children are playing baseball, using the playground and/or visiting the park's public pool.
Central Ave- (Along Edgebrook Elementary). Families in the area have been very concerned about drivers speeding through this busy intersection.
Talcott- (Odell & Oriole)- Parents, teachers and crossing guards from both Immaculate Conception and Resurrection High School often contact my office to share their frustration with dangerous drivers speeding near their school. The 16th District has also contacted our office about an alarming number of traffic accidents and the need to explore a wide range of traffic control measures.

Please understand that these locations only represent an example of areas in which I believe cameras could make the most sense. Absolutely no final determination has been made.

For more information about Public Awareness Campaigns, Warnings/Fines, Speed Limits & Hours of Enforcement, please click here.

In the end, this decision was not an easy one to make. My sole intention was to help structure a program that will  slowly help change a culture in which drivers find it acceptable to speed around our schools and parks.
 
If you have any additional questions about this ordinance, please do not hesitate to contact my office at (773) 594-8341 or email at ward41@cityofchicago.org

Alderman O'Connor Votes FOR Red Light Cameras: Flip Flops on Constituents

Last week, the Nadig news printed an article quoting Alderman Mary O'Connor stating she opposed the red light cameras.  She wanted to see more signage instead since there is little evidence that children are being mowed down by cars. 

Then yesterday, Alderman M. O'Connor flip flopped and voted FOR the cameras even though constituents specifically called and emailed her to let her know we are NOT in favor of the revenue generating cameras.

What gives?  Answers please!

11th-hour changes help win support for speed camera plan

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com April 18, 2012 12:02PM

Red Light cameras at the corner of 63rd & Western. Wednesday, April 18, 2012. | Brian Jackson~Sun-Times

storyidforme: 29103253
tmspicid: 10537385
fileheaderid: 4841722       

It’s full speed ahead for Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s controversial plan to use cameras to catch motorists who speed near schools and parks.

Despite concerns that the plan is more about raising revenue than keeping children safe, the City Council on Wednesday approved the dramatic expansion in Chicago’s Big Brother surveillance network. The vote was 33-14.

The debate turned emotional when Ald. Jim Balcer (11th) recalled that he was run over by a car when he was 8.

“It was a traumatic experience in my life. I still remember it,” Balcer said. “People said buckle up wouldn’t work. They said why give people tickets who won’t buckle up? It has saved lives [and so will speed cameras]. We will get used to it. We will adjust to it. If people don’t want a ticket, obey the law.”

Turning to his colleagues, Balcer said, “If you don’t want the cameras, let me have them. I’ll be glad to put them in to save the lives of children.”

The fourteen “no” votes were cast by Aldermen Bob Fioretti (2nd); Pat Dowell (3rd); Will Burns (4th); Leslie Hairston (5th); Roderick Sawyer (6th); Sandi Jackson (7th); Michael Chandler (24th); Scott Waguespack (32nd); Nick Sposato (36th); John Arena (45th); James Cappleman (46th); Ameya Pawar (47th); Harry Osterman (48th) and Brendan Reilly (42nd).

Hairston was the only alderman who dared to explain why during a debate in which several aldermen confess to being caught speeding or running red lights.

“We don’t have a say-so as to where the cameras go. Why don’t we? We are elected and we should have a say so. … My ward will have 90 percent coverage. The other 10 percent is a cemetery,” Hairston said.

“The last time I checked, we are still a democracy and that democracy is being chipped away. We are giving up our ability to determine what happens in our wards.”

Wednesday’s vote followed a string of mayoral concessions to accommodate aldermen fearful of a political backlash once tickets start arriving in the mailboxes of speeding motorists.

Emanuel agreed to cap the number of fixed or mobile camera locations at 300 — 60 fewer than previously planned. The city will be divided into six regions, with each having “no fewer than” 10 percent of the citywide total.

Instead of slapping motorists with a $50 fine for driving 6 to 10 mph over the speed limit near schools and parks, the fine will be reduced to $35. Those who exceed the limit by 11 mph would still face $100 fines.

Emanuel also agreed to roll back the hours cameras would operate around schools from 6 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And there will be two tiers of warnings to motorists — including an unlimited number during the first 30 days after cameras are installed and one more per driver after the break-in period is over.

Although officials didn’t give a specific date as to when the first cameras will become operational, Transportation Commissioner Gabe Klein has promised that speed cameras will be installed slowly — beginning with a “pilot field test” of technology provided by a short list of vendors.

Klein has said he “can’t imagine” even 50 cameras “in the first year,” nor does he believe the city will ever hit the 300-location maximum.

Aldermen from across the city have argued that the mayor’s claims about protecting children are a ruse to raise sorely-needed cash. They fear a political backlash that could rival the parking meter fiasco once cameras are turned on for real.

Emanuel is well aware of the deep-seated suspicion.

“If I was going for 100 percent success on persuasion, then I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing. I understand there’s [skepticism]. I don’t accept it. It’s ascribing something to me which I know” is not true, he said.

“I’m doing this because it is a proven deterrent. It has worked successfully. And I’m limiting it just to our schools and our parks to protect our children. And it is a complement to everything else we’re doing to protect our children.”