Sorry,guys, I don't agree with you on Marcey. The developer is near broke and has two other fully-proposed similar proposals, unbuilt. Not to mention, that this Sterling Bay, almost non-owner of the disastrous Lincoln Yards project. I had more affordable housing units built in Lincoln Park when I was alderman than in the previous 35 years, and I think it's appropriate to deny subsidies to developers who can't build the project.
Ok, I think this post is very naive (which is very unusual for this blog). In reality, most of these alders are really just political conservatives. Sometimes they will align with us (as you note on policing and debt management).
But when the "common sense" position does not allign with their traditional conservative wards, they will absolutely oppose it. It's exactly why Conway voted against social housing. It's why Quinn was just in the Sun-Times yesterday (!!!) talking about how legalizing ADUs would be an "all-out attack" on the bungalow belt. It's why Waguespack has been one of the most NIMBY alders, opposing Lincoln Yards.
The notion that any of these politicians will suddenly change their long-held positions is sort of absurd. It's not what their wards want. And it's unlikely to even be what they personally believe in.
It's sort of the flip side of the coin of some of the more "progressive" aldermen on the council. Just like La Spata introducing the parking ordinance, many progressives support pro-housing policy. But then they still oppose other common sense policy that is traditionally deemed "conservative." I think a good example of this is Vasquez (who's mentioned in the Tribune article), who is generally-speaking correct on most issues, yet still voted for the $830 million bond without pushing for changes. Still, I think he's one of the best members of the council.
The fact is, the Council (despite technically being comprised almost entirely of Democrats) is actually an incredibly polarized body. Most of the members vote on harsh ideological lines. And when in comes to housing, their votes tend to reflect the built environments of their wards.
I agree that there’s significant ideological diversity on the council; where I disagree is whether pro-growth housing reforms are inherently progressive/left-wing coded.
City council in Dallas, Texas voted 14-1 to remove parking minimums. Do you imagine that council is significantly to the left of ours?
Yes, yimbyism can definitely be right or left coded. Or at least the "cutting red tape" part of it. If conservatives and progressives on the Council can find common ground on housing, that would be great. And I think that's feasible.
But I knew in writing that comment, the terms progressive and conservative are only loosely defined. The point was: the incumbent anti-housing alders' positions relfect their constituencies and personal beliefs. And they're not going to change those positions on a dime.
Ding! Ding! Ding! I came to write this exact thing. Most of those alders are on the right side currently because Johnson is on the other side. No other reasons. Guys like Reilly and Hopkins have no real ideas about making the city better. They slow roll development, block positive moves, and then claim they are moderates and acting in common sense or "what the voters want."
The Common Sense Caucus is nothing more than "we thing Brandon Johnson is an idiot and want to oppose him."
I very much enjoy reading your thoughtful - and thought-provoking - essays. But just wanted to say that you might have used different words than "city leadership that looks like Brandon Johnson" which sounds (I assume, unintentionally) too much like race-coding. Thanks.
Sorry,guys, I don't agree with you on Marcey. The developer is near broke and has two other fully-proposed similar proposals, unbuilt. Not to mention, that this Sterling Bay, almost non-owner of the disastrous Lincoln Yards project. I had more affordable housing units built in Lincoln Park when I was alderman than in the previous 35 years, and I think it's appropriate to deny subsidies to developers who can't build the project.
Ok, I think this post is very naive (which is very unusual for this blog). In reality, most of these alders are really just political conservatives. Sometimes they will align with us (as you note on policing and debt management).
But when the "common sense" position does not allign with their traditional conservative wards, they will absolutely oppose it. It's exactly why Conway voted against social housing. It's why Quinn was just in the Sun-Times yesterday (!!!) talking about how legalizing ADUs would be an "all-out attack" on the bungalow belt. It's why Waguespack has been one of the most NIMBY alders, opposing Lincoln Yards.
The notion that any of these politicians will suddenly change their long-held positions is sort of absurd. It's not what their wards want. And it's unlikely to even be what they personally believe in.
It's sort of the flip side of the coin of some of the more "progressive" aldermen on the council. Just like La Spata introducing the parking ordinance, many progressives support pro-housing policy. But then they still oppose other common sense policy that is traditionally deemed "conservative." I think a good example of this is Vasquez (who's mentioned in the Tribune article), who is generally-speaking correct on most issues, yet still voted for the $830 million bond without pushing for changes. Still, I think he's one of the best members of the council.
The fact is, the Council (despite technically being comprised almost entirely of Democrats) is actually an incredibly polarized body. Most of the members vote on harsh ideological lines. And when in comes to housing, their votes tend to reflect the built environments of their wards.
I agree that there’s significant ideological diversity on the council; where I disagree is whether pro-growth housing reforms are inherently progressive/left-wing coded.
City council in Dallas, Texas voted 14-1 to remove parking minimums. Do you imagine that council is significantly to the left of ours?
Yes, yimbyism can definitely be right or left coded. Or at least the "cutting red tape" part of it. If conservatives and progressives on the Council can find common ground on housing, that would be great. And I think that's feasible.
But I knew in writing that comment, the terms progressive and conservative are only loosely defined. The point was: the incumbent anti-housing alders' positions relfect their constituencies and personal beliefs. And they're not going to change those positions on a dime.
Ding! Ding! Ding! I came to write this exact thing. Most of those alders are on the right side currently because Johnson is on the other side. No other reasons. Guys like Reilly and Hopkins have no real ideas about making the city better. They slow roll development, block positive moves, and then claim they are moderates and acting in common sense or "what the voters want."
The Common Sense Caucus is nothing more than "we thing Brandon Johnson is an idiot and want to oppose him."
Think*
Not sure how to edit comments here
I very much enjoy reading your thoughtful - and thought-provoking - essays. But just wanted to say that you might have used different words than "city leadership that looks like Brandon Johnson" which sounds (I assume, unintentionally) too much like race-coding. Thanks.
I trust it's obvious that was not what I was doing, but updated the language!