The original IAC | Chicago Reader

Recent Comments

Re: “Meet the new boss, Joe Biden

"The stimulus check is a one-time deal, and the tax credits expire after a year. Given the historical fact that midterm elections haven't been kind to a sitting president's party, the chance of those tax credits becoming permanent is slim to none--not one Republican in the Senate voted for the bill."

The tax credits expire prior to the midterm election, not after. I think it's safe to assume that there are enough Republicans who won't want to run on the fact that they, as opposed to their opponents, ended a child tax credit that a huge portion of their constituents got to cross over should that be necessary to pass an extension. Besides, the Democrats will still control both houses at that point so it wouldn't be necessary to get Republican votes. Things like this don't end. When they are scheduled to expire they get extended because it's political suicide to do otherwise. The federal government hasn't even been able to make modest cuts in social security despite many attempts to do so over the last several decades. Once these things are passed there's no going back.

6 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/16/2021 at 10:56 PM

Re: “Meet the new boss, Joe Biden

Does Goodman still have a financial interest in the Reader? Supposedly it's now a non-profit. Is he one of the people "donating"? Or perhaps there was some deal made earlier where he gets to continue writing his columns. Given that all his articles are basically conspiracy theories that every politician is completely controlled by "big money" it would be tough to see how anyone could think these aren't fair questions to ask. Ironically though, given the Reader's huge criticisms of city policies lately under Lori Lightfoot that treat her as if she's supposedly a "corporate" centrist who isn't far enough to the left, Goodman has actually hosted at least one fundraiser for her:… So Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Peloci, AOC, J.B. Pritzker, Chris Welch, and just about everyone else in Washington and Springfield are people who make all their decisions based on corporate interests but Lightfoot apparently isn't. Not that he's wrong that Lightfoot isn't bought out but it seems weird that someone who thinks this is the case with just about everyone else in power wouldn't think the same about Lightfoot.

I usually don't bother to comment about anything on Goodman's articles given that they are so absurd even by the standards of the Reader but I might as well point out the complete bizarreness of this statement:

"The Democratic Party is only slightly more functional. It portrays itself as the champion of the working class. But behind the scenes its leaders assure their corporate donors that working people will receive no significant advances—such as universal health care or a living wage—under Democratic rule."

The state that Goodman as well as the readers he is supposedly speaking to are living in already has a $15 minimum wage in the process of taking effect. The city of Chicago is even further along at its process of a $15 minimum taking effect and right now is only a dollar or so short of that. So there certainly is the wage that the activists for a minimum wage increase have described as "living" here. A lot of other places in the country also have $15 minimum wages in the process of being phased in, including 3 of the 4 most populous states. So it certainly is not accurate that the politicians haven't listened to those advocating for that. And there was, of course, a major new healthcare law that was signed into law and implemented about a decade ago. The Democrats took on those opposed to the Affordable Care Act and successfully got it passed and implemented. I don't know how anyone could reasonably say this isn't significant and that they didn't do much to advance the cause of their voters with this. There were Democratic candidates for President in 2020 who proposed universal health care but the voters rejected them in favor of someone who wanted more practical and incremental steps toward that. This was what the voters in the Democratic party wanted. And obviously, the law passed just this past month has major things that progressives like, such as $3,000 to $3,800 child tax credits for everybody making less than (I believe) $150,000, $1,400 stimulus checks, as well as rental assistance. Goodman's dismissal of this doesn't make sense.

12 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/16/2021 at 12:24 AM

Re: “‘The Long Dream’ and a labor nightmare

It may very well be the case that making something out of nothing is her job. But if so, that wouldn't be the inevitable result of being assigned to the race beat. There are plenty of legitimate issues involving race that can be written about.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/09/2021 at 12:15 AM

Re: “‘The Long Dream’ and a labor nightmare

Well said, Moco. I'll also point out that this is the second article this year where the author takes a bunch of vague or naïve complaints from a handful of people at an institution and then makes sweeping statements of villainous behavior when the complaints don't come close to supporting this. In the other one (I hesitate to up its page view count but oh well:… ), which is even worse, she also mocks two administers at that school, one for being "anxious" and the other for "stumbling over her words" and wearing clothing that she I guess doesn't think is desirable. Given how low a bar she seem to have for what constitutes offensive speech or actions it's tough to see how that wouldn't qualify. And that's especially true when you consider the fact that the point she was trying to make by these mocks is completely inexplicable, at least to me.

11 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/08/2021 at 11:10 PM

Re: “‘The Long Dream’ and a labor nightmare

By the way, anybody who's regularly been to the MCA knows the huge increase in the quality of the museum during the time that Michael Darling was the Chief Curator. It was a pretty good museum before he arrived and became an excellent museum afterwards with by far the best designed exhibits of any museum I've seen. So it would be incredibly troubling if this protest movement (and I have no idea how much this movement represents the actual views of majority of the staff) somehow is responsible for him leaving, which is somewhat implied may be the case in the article. This would be one thing that suggests that this new type of activism that seems to be caused by the way social media has changed the infrastructure of how people communicate (with less communication with people who aren't always like-minded) may cause damaging effects that eventually hurt everybody.

One other thing:

"The human resources department had sent a survey out to gauge employees' comfortability in returning to work. Despite 50 percent saying they felt uncomfortable and another 13 percent saying they felt uncertain, leadership moved ahead with reopening"

We're in a pandemic. Of course people are going to be uncomfortable. To jump to the conclusion therefore that they don't want to go back to work no matter what safety precautions are taken is completely ludicrous. You should take this lack of comfort into account and hear the concerns and address them, when appropriate, to make sure that the museum operates as safely as possible or, when it makes sense, explain why a particular situation shouldn't based on the science be as uncomfortable as it may seem. To suggest that the solution to people expressing discomfort is to throw up your hands and simply not open is absurd and irresponsible.

16 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/03/2021 at 7:24 PM

Re: “The last bastion

"And so it’s as indisputable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west that the rich will get more TIF dollars than the poor."

It's not indisputable at all. Regardless of where the TIF projects themselves may be the reality is that the tax revenue generated by them, with the exception of the incremental property tax revenue during the TIF within the district itself, is spent throughout the city. On a per capita basis city spending goes more towards underserved neighborhoods so all tax revenue generated by a TIF that otherwise wouldn't occur benefits lower income neighborhoods the most, though all neighborhoods benefit. Some people make the argument that some of these projects would have occurred in a same or similar manner without the TIF funds and thus they aren't necessary for this tax revenue. Well, if that's the case then any TIF funding that goes for infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalks or utility upgrades or things of that nature, which would have happened anyway simply comes out of the TIF funds instead of the city's infrastructure budget. This simply substitutes one taxpayer funded cost for another. But the city's infrastructure budget is paid by the taxpayers throughout all neighborhoods, including underserved neighborhoods, so using the TIF funds from the project itself in the higher income neighborhoods Joravsky is talking about actually has the opposite effect that he suggests. It means more money is left to be available in the city's infrastructure development to spend on things in all neighborhoods.

Also, when the TIF expires after 17 years or so there is then more money available to the city and the other government bodies whether or not the TIF funds themselves caused more tax revenue. If it does then obviously that is more funds available for all the government entities. But even in cases where there is the same amount of tax revenue compared to what would have occurred without the TIF the TIF being in place for all those years means that CPS has more tax revenue available to it because they wouldn't have been subject to the limitations of the PTELL property tax increases that occur every year. CPS, of course, serves around 85% low income students. So in multiple ways I think TIFs do serve lower income parts of the city. Not to mention, there are some TIF districts in lower income neighborhoods too.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/03/2021 at 5:55 PM

Re: “‘The Long Dream’ and a labor nightmare

Just to state the obvious, when there's a pandemic that forces a cultural institution to close for months and thus lose the vast majority of its income it is going to have to trim its costs. Anybody who doesn't understand this isn't living in reality. From reading this article, it seems pretty clear that they went out of they're way to cut as little staff as possible and to pay people despite the fact that they were not operating. And then when they want to reopen there are people complaining on top of this that they then are starting to operate again.

15 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by The original IAC on 03/03/2021 at 5:22 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.