<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: We didn&apos;t tell you so
    
      by Mick Dumke</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=944994&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: We didn&apos;t tell you so
    
      by Mick Dumke</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:45:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963052]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963052]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re Steve Rhodes]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[1. You've got to be kidding. "Be a man"? By "identify"ing myself?
    Why? Do you really think that's gonna be a good idea, for you?
    
    2. ".... seeing as how Steve Rhodes was completely and totally wrong, when will we see a retraction and apology from Mr. Rhodes?"
    
    and then, 
    
    "He hasn't blocked demolition. As Lynn Becker has written, he is now in a position to say, "Well, I tried."  
    
    So, what's your fucking point? 
    
    Or do you have one?
    
    3. Who the fuck said you did?
    
    Your post had the flavor of Brendan's, seemed to be touting for Reilly, so, now you're taking another perspective, we're all supposed to be able to follow your disjointed posting style and figure out what you're trying to say?
    
    4. And......?
    
    5. So what?
    
    6. Again, so what?
    
    Nitpick your hearts out, your efforts change little to nothing, because you don't have a clue how to attack the fundamental sources of the problems.
    
    Or you don't want to.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re Steve Rhodes]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:32 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#964752]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#964752]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Steve Rhodes]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[1. Be a man and identify yourself. For all I know you're Rich Miller.
    2. He hasn't blocked demolition. As Lynn Becker has written, he is now in a position to say, "Well, I tried."
    3. I didn't report the story you are referring to. An angry constituent close to the situation wrote a screed. Learn to tell the difference.
    4. Reilly indeed was influenced by the pressure brought to bear. He was about to get lambasted in public by one of the major players in terms not unlike those written at The Beachwood Reporter.
    5. Reilly has always been free to ask for a retraction, clarification, or to respond in any way to any of our coverage. He hasn't done so. We don't make retractions asked for by other parties and nothing we have written has been shown to be untrue.
    6. We stand by our coverage.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Steve Rhodes]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:57:34 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#955998]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#955998]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[uh, Brendan aka Steve Rhodes Conscience]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[You're a fucking POLITICIAN, asshole, you CANNOT, by definition, be SLANDERED.
    
    AND, who's to say your decision wasn't STRONGLY influenced by both the reporting of this issue and your constituents' response to said reporting?
    
    Buck up, bunky, and show a little backbone here.
    
    You did the right thing, so far, and the few honest reporters in this town ill be watching what you do in the future, as will those pesky constituents of yours.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by uh, Brendan aka Steve Rhodes Conscience]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:43:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#956701]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#956701]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Hugh]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["Each project that I review will receive careful consideration and I will work hard to carefully weigh each decision by balancing the political contributions from the business community with the political contributions from local residents."
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Hugh]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:53:57 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#961224]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#961224]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Hugh]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[> "As I continue to review development proposals for the 42nd Ward, I will do so in an open, objective and transparent manner," Reilly said in his statement. "Each project that I review will receive careful consideration and I will work hard to carefully weigh each decision by balancing the needs of the business community with the needs of local residents and the best interests of the city of Chicago." 
    
    I ... I ... I ... I
    
    ... not exactly  ...
    
    "We the People of the 42nd Ward ... "
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Hugh]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:51:26 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#965311]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#965311]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Steve Rhodes Conscience]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[So, Reilly blocked the demolition of this building, contrary to what Steve Rhodes reported he would do several months ago.  
    Rhodes, at the beachwood reporter, told us that Reilly was more than happy to become another Burt Natarus.
    
    So, seeing as how Steve Rhodes was completely and totally wrong, when will we see a retraction and apology from Mr. Rhodes?  Reilly did exactly what he said he was going to do.  Learn more about the issue, and make a decision.  He chose well, but Rhodes slandered him nevertheless.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Steve Rhodes Conscience]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:13:48 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#965881]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#965881]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[where in the world is 'kelly'?]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I guess that kelly has finally figured out that she's way out of her league, trying to pass off asinine and absurd 'arguments' as intelligent and honest discourse.
    
    Maybe she should have coffee and a donut with randy gordon, they'd have fun seeing who's bullshit is covered with more frosting.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by where in the world is 'kelly'?]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:15:33 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#965432]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#965432]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Hugh]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[> ... it should be noted that this last comment is PR-speak for a middle finger directed at Natarus.
    
    Reilly's press release on the occasion of his much-awaited decision on the Lake Shore Center is not so much a final jab at Natarus, or a bold step forward for community-based planning, as it is Reilly hanging out his shingle, putting developers on notice there's a new sheriff in town, announcing River North Development Czar Now Open for Business Under New Management.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Hugh]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:18:10 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963125]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963125]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[something to think about]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["re stop
    May 30th - 5:21 p.m.
    
    My intended audience, if you're correct, has been focusing on individual, incumbent politicians for decades, buying into the false premise that an incumbent office holder has, somehow, earned the 'right' to be re-elected, unless that person has done something or things to warrant being 'fired'.
    
    This premise is what is responsible for all of the lousy 'representatives' we have been burdened with for generations.
    
    Before you point out that these 'public servants' were duly elected by the 'people', let's examine that assumption.
    
    First, ask the question, 'How many citizens are, at any given moment in time, qualified to vote, ie., 18 years of age or older, citizens, whether born or naturalized and residents of the area holding an election.
    
    Think of that number as 100% of all eligible voters.
    
    Next, I believe we can safely propose that, as a rule, no more than 50% of the whole are registered to vote at any given time, for any given election.
    
    So, we start with only half of all eligible voters are registered.
    
    Then, we can also safely propose that, of those 50% who are registered, usually only half of those voters actually show up at their respective voting places and casting their votes.
    
    Thus, we see that approximately 25% of all eligible voters actually vote in any given election.
    
    Since, at most, a candidate needs only 51% of voters to choose him/her to win, we can safely conclude that a mere 13% of the total number of eligible voters are deciding who are elected public servants are.
    
    Granted, many will say that the 50% of eligible voters who don't register are, theoretically, expressing and enjoying their right to vote by not voting, and that the 25% of the whole, who are registered, but don't vote, are doing the same.
    
    What I wonder is, why would 75% of those eligible to vote choose not to, choose to either register, but not vote, or not even register at all.
    
    I don't believe it is because 75 out of 100 citizens are making this choice voluntarily, at least not as the word is defined in Webster's.
    
    I believe, and propose, that most of the 75 out of 100 don't vote, or register to vote, because they have concluded that their vote doesn't matter, won't change anything, isn't important and isn't worth the time and effort it takes to participate.
    
    In this, they are substantially correct, as the present public perceptions of the accepted political practices is designed to discourage the majority of citizens from participating in the political process.
    
    Your focus on individual candidates is the crux of the problem, however counter-intuitive that sounds.
    
    We can only afford to focus on the individual candidates when we have honest, intelligent, ethical and naturally helpful candidates to consider.
    
    We waste our time and energies considering and analyzing the 'professional' politicians, as they all, with few exceptions, are cut from the same cloth and want us to believe that there are no other kinds of cloth to cut from.
    
    The typical 'professional' politicians are rank opportunists, willing to act in a hurtful/harmful manner as easily as act in a helpful/harmless manner.
    
    The typical 'professional' politician is only honest and forthcoming when he/she is forced to be, defaulting to dishonesty, deception, misdirection, stone-walling and blatant double-dealing as the rule, rather than the rare exception.
    
    This is what the voters, both the 25% who routinely vote, and the 75% who do not, should be focusing on.
    
    This is the fresh, honesty and plain truth presumption that all voters should take with them into the voting booth, every election, with the challenge to the INCUMBENTS to ALWAYS have to convince enough voters that THEY DESERVE to be re-elected.
    
    This is why the entrenched incumbents strive to keep the public believing that the challengers should be the ones who have to convince voters to elect them, why the entrenched incumbents promote the wide-spread belief that they have to have screwed up really bad to warrant the voters firing them.
    
    Until such time as enough voters open their eyes and realize that, contrary to the 'professional' politicians assertions, THEY are OUR EMPLOYEES, not our 'leaders', 'masters', 'betters', or 'bosses', we will continue to be led, like sheeple, down that primrose path to poverty.
    
    In the 'private sector', one's employer requires that the employees efficiently produce value for their pay.
    
    In the 'public sector', we, the employers, seem to accept much less value from our employees, our 'public servants', than we would ever think to accept from our employees, should we own a business.
    
    We seem to accept much less value for our tax dollars from our 'public servants' than we would ever accept from our local store, contractor, service provider, etc..
    
    The reason we accept paying so much, for so little, is, I believe, to be found in our generational conditioning to see and accept our 'government servants' not as our employees, but as our 'leaders/masters/bosses/superiors.
    
    They are anything but......
    
    Focus on firing all incumbents.
    
    Use the outlined, mathematical formula.
    
    Register to vote and Vote on Election Day.
    
    See what will happen when the entrenched incumbents are shown the door.
    
    Should the newly elected challengers FAIL to PROVE they DESERVE to keep their jobs, vote THEM out, using the same strategy.
    
    REPEAT AS NEEDED, for as long as it takes to inspire honest people to enter what will be true public service.
    
    The experience of seeing your vote result in change will inspire more and more citizens to participate, will force any who are elected to be much more responsive to the desires of the people, and will allow us to truly know what a democracy actually is."
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by something to think about]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:26:48 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#949173]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#949173]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[A  question]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["this is a democracy - we get the govt we deserve, as we are ultimately responsible for installing/removing the politicians." 
    
    
    At the risk of being accused, again, of posting my idea too often, I submit, for your opinions, the following:
    
    
    "The simple, and incredibly effective beginning of a solution, to our present, political morass, is, amazingly, one that seems to be beyond our ability to appreciate and act on, namely, FIRE THE BASTARDS, and deal with those who replace them in the same manner, should THEY prove to be no better.
    
    1) REGISTER TO VOTE
    
    2) Determine who the INCUMBENTS are and make a list of same before every election.
    
    3) Bring this list with you when you GO TO VOTE on election day
    
    4) With few exceptions, DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENT
    
    5) If there are 2 or more CHALLENGERS listed for a given office, cast your vote according to this formula:
    
    a) If the INCUMBENT is listed FIRST, vote for the CHALLENGER who is listed LAST
    
    or
    
    b) If the INCUMBENT is NOT listed first, vote for the CHALLENGER who IS LISTED FIRST
    
    In the beginning of this 'house cleaning' process, don't concern yourself about who the challengers are, focus on voting out basically ALL INCUMBENTS, as the incumbents are the people who have brought us to the present sad state of affairs.
    
    Don't waste your time, efforts and hearts on buying into the false premise that those presently in public office can be 'persuaded' to do anything substantially different than what they have been doing, they've proven themselves to be both incompetent and dishonest 'employees' and deserve only to be fired.
    
    If you MUST reelect any given incumbent, think long and hard about your reasons to do so, compel that specific incumbent to give you those reasons, by studying their past actions, the effects and effectiveness of same and demanding they provide believable proof that they will not continue the failed and harmful activities of their fellow, soon-to-be former 'public servants'.
    
    Talk is cheap and plentiful.
    
    Feeble excuses abound.
    
    We will always have the government we deserve, and what we deserve will always be the result of the efforts we choose to make, or fail to make." 
    
    
    and
    
    
    "Well....
    June 25th - 10:27 p.m.
    
    "But I don't have the broad brush you have - I need an alternative to vote for."
    
    And THAT'S the crux of the problem.
    
    Sort of the political version of inertia.
    
    I have suggested that the political answer to overcoming this inertia is to engage in a strategy of voting out ALL incumbents, making very few exceptions, to stimulate public and media interest, as well as encourage those "most decent people" to believe that they've got a chance to get elected.
    
    The objection to this strategy that I've read the most is the fear of electing "someone so inexperienced", but I find that we can't afford to let the reality of "...we need them replaced by decent people, and no decent person would participate in such a corrupted process." to enable this inertia to continue.
    
    We, as citizens, have to take the chance of voting out practically all incumbents, if only for the effect this will have on both inspiring the voters to participate and encouraging those citizens who want to run for office to do so.
    
    Changes can't happen overnight, but the beginning of change can.
    
    All it will take is a concerted effort on the part of enough citizens, both those who are registered, but rarely vote and those who haven't bothered to register, because of the reasons you've stated, ie., few people worthy of being voted for.
    
    If you truly want to effect changes, you'll have to have more faith and courage, and take a chance on cleaning out all of the incumbent, political hack 'professionals', as 'risky' as this might appear to you to be.
    
    Our founding fathers took far greater and substantial risks to create a country of rights and freedoms, we owe it to their legacy to do a lesser version of the same.
    
    We're blessed with the opportunity to do so WITHOUT the need for bloodshed, so, why don't we just do it?
    
    HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT may seem extreme, but, in reality, what we've accepted as government is truly the 'extreme' reality."
    
    
    and
    
    
    
    "Thanks
    June 26th - 11:29 a.m.
    
    Thank you, sincerely, for your honest and respectful opinions concerning my humble attempts and concepts.
    
    I may have a greater estimate of the effectiveness of this comment board, in reaching people interested in social, economic and political changes, than either you do or is warranted.
    
    The difficult part of cleaning up our currently polluted governments seems to be in inspiring enough citizens to take action, and this is why I've suggested what is, to me, the least difficult means, namely:
    
    just remember to vote for only challengers, regardless of party affiliation
    
    if presented with the option, vote for candidates from any 'party' BUT the Dumbocrats and Retardicans
    
    concentrate your votes in multiple candidate races by using the formula -
    
    If incumbent is listed FIRST, vote for challenger listed LAST
    
    or
    
    If incumbent is NOT listed first, vote for challenger who IS LISTED FIRST
    
    seek to fire as many incumbents as possible and deny retention to all offices you have the opportunity to
    
    shake things up in the simplest way possible
    
    avoid getting distracted by personalities and mud-slinging, the typical techniques used to manipulate and deceive
    
    by-pass the usual behaviors exploited so effectively by those in power
    
    force those in power to choose between respecting the will of the voters or denying the validity of the election results, thus showing themselves to be what they effectively are, dictators disguised as public servants
    
    One wouldn't bother to drip drops of clean water into a glass filled primarily with urine, one would empty the glass, wash it thoroughly, then fill it with clean water
    
    repeatedly voting out all Dumbocratic and Retardican incumbents will, in time, open up the door to those 'clean water' candidates we so badly need
    
    refusing to continue to be fooled is the only way to no longer be fools."
    
    
    I welcome the perspectives of others, as I am fully cognizant of the fact that, while I may believe that I've vetted this strategy for all of it's strengths and weaknesses, I am but one mind, with only the experiences I have had to guide me.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by A  question]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:12:44 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#950756]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#950756]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Time is here]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Yeah, people wised up to matlak/gabinski but its too late.  He wiped out the ward, the realtors and developers on the "in" got what they wanted, no questions asked. What's left, empty condo buildings,  torn up streets that will cost millions to fix, foreclosures, cinder block garbage that Carter is right about:  falling apart in 15 years or less. 
    We need new policies for starters, and penalties to stop the developer madness.  It's not NIMBY, its about common sense.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Time is here]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:17:20 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#955396]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#955396]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Ward Up]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Ideally, there should be a balance between the interests of developers and the interests of the citizens of a respective neighborhood.  That balance tilted too far in favor of developers in the 42nd Ward.  However, with Reilly taking a stand about the Lake Shore Athletic Club, we may have more reasonable days ahead.  Reilly will likely side with developers during some future controversies and will likely be justified in doing so.  The anti-high-rise NIMBY's should not rule the ward.  But the citizens are right about the Lake Shore Athletic Club and Reilly listened to them.
    
    In the 32nd Ward, thank God residents wised up to Matlak at last.  Perhaps it was just that a critical mass of savvy residents moved into the ward combined with the local newspapers reporting all of the Matlak hi-jinx.  Developers in that ward have gotten away with startlingly ugly developements with alderman-facilitated demolitions and upzonings that have harmed many blocks.  
    
    Reilly, Waguespack, Fioretti, and other newly-elected Aldermen know that the rezoning game can come back to bite them.  Time will tell if they have learned their lesson.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Ward Up]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:24:37 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#949712]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#949712]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Carter]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[kudos to ya for that.  just gotta try harder next time. : )
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Carter]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:21:42 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#971664]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#971664]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kelly]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[In our ward, we forced the incumbent into a run off, but the forked tongue bitch prevailed with a little help from $700,000 in campaign spending. She's one of those anti-property rights demagogs who blame every thing on the boogy men in the private sector, yet coincidentaly, her spouse is a realtor.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kelly]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:35:17 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#959326]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#959326]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Carter]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["No point in complaining about something that ain't going away."
    
    that's the best you got?  good grief, why not just start sending your paychecks directly to City Hall?
    
    this is a democracy - we get the govt we deserve, as we are ultimately responsible for installing/removing the politicians.
    
    what did you do in the recent elections to make a difference?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Carter]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:23:54 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#961620]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#961620]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Carter]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Kelly, the problem with your argument is that as you mentioned earlier, the zoning and building codes are dinosaurs, they've always been here.
    
    Yet it isn't until recently that developers really started to push the envelope in terms of throwing as much cinderblock as legally possible on a 125 x 25 lot.
    
    
    land has always been at a premium/in tight supply in the city, and I have my doubts that human beings suddenly all decided they don't like fresh air and open green space.
    
    so the question is, what changed?
    
    a hint might be our good Mare's building department lackeys, who for years claimed they couldn't even keep tabs on builders to enforce height restrictions (how long does it really take to check to see how tall a building is?  it's not like the building can hide or run away, it's a sitting duck violation).  and who ultimately determines how many of those staff are on hand, and how seriously and to what focus they should take their jobs?  
    
    they seem pretty damned good at catching my neighbors when they're engaged in such high-level chicanery as replacing stairs without a permit - why are so they inept at the larger problems?  the history of graft of course comes to mind - people seem to agree that Chicago "used" to be one of the most corrupt cities in the world, but they aren't so good at explaining when exactly those practices ended.
    
    as I see it, it's simply a case of greed.  
    
    as such, no reason to entertain or enable it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Carter]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:20:33 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963300]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963300]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kelly]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[FYI
    There's a reason they call it the law of supply and demand and not the theory of supply and demand, but it's not expected that someone who attended the worst school system in the country would know that.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kelly]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:16:14 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#951037]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#951037]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kelly can't help herself]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Well, kelly's getting a little better at being less dishonest, that's a plus.
    
    However, if those developers she's touting for weren't so ready and willing to pony up the swag, how would our politicians be able to feed their children?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kelly can't help herself]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:59:46 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#960577]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#960577]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re carter]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA['orion' is our resident machine shill, his comments are generally void of value, other than to be occasionally amusing.
    
    On the bright side, he rarely posts more than a few words, or sentences.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re carter]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:29:12 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#971759]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#971759]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kelly]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I can understand why aldermen order their apologists to spew propoganda that makes the private sector the scapegoat for unpopular developments. They're making too much off this aldermanic prerogative thing to ever give  it up. Think of it. Troutman made $20K off one single blocked demolition deal. If on average, the aldermen make $20k every 2 weeks for shenanigans, that's $104 million per year flowing in to their offshore accounts and secret land trusts. No point in complaining about something that ain't going away.
    It's probably better to make an issue of the city's weak ethics ordinance that doesn't require aldermen to report their assets on their annual financial disclosure.
    These guys can and do buy real estate in their own wards or their buddyies' wards through secret land trusts. They upzone the property and flip it to a builder for huge profits, and not even the FBI can incover it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kelly]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:15:54 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963005]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#963005]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Carter]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[it's odd someone would bother posting that nobody cares, when they are obviously interested enough to continue reading all these posts...
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Carter]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:03:15 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#968776]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#968776]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Frank to Ass-rion]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Fuck you.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Frank to Ass-rion]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:30:58 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#954329]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#954329]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[orion]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Guess what, nobody cares.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by orion]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:21:00 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#961065]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#961065]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pc]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Kelly, the reason why housing affordability isn't covered in Econ 101 is because there are confounding factors beyond supply and demand. Supply in this case creates its own demand, in that supply brings with it amenities (typically services, like shops), which spur more demand. Similarly, there is an ample supply of sites ready to fulfill the demand for condos on the near north side, including some also along Lake Shore Drive. Just because it's easier to knock down the Lake Shore Athletic Club doesn't mean that it's any less profitable to redevelop it. And who's to say that the overall value of the entire area isn't improved by having a mix of new and old, short and tall?
    
    Real estate markets are highly imperfect and deserve more scrutiny than an Econ 101 student can give.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pc]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:09:57 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We didn't tell you so]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#966281]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/07/10/we-didnt-tell-you-so/#966281]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[re carter]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Keep posting comments here; as you can see, we're sorely in need of sane, intelligent, innovative and honorable input.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by re carter]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:27:57 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




