The result of Mayor Daley’s last attempt to link fast trains to Chicago airports? One fewer Loop ‘L’ station.

Another year another dangerous Daley fast-airport-train plan? This week, the Chicago Tribune reported outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley thinks Chicago should build a high-speed magnetic levitation (maglev) train between the Loop and O’Hare Airport. Why? Because he rode Shanghai’s airport maglev train on a recent trip to China and liked it.

Whoosh!

While I’d certainly love to take a 268 mile-per-hour trip from Terminal One to State and Madison, I think it’s important for Windy Citizens to remember Daley’s mixed track record of coming home from the hinterland (read: the rest of the world) with one idea or another he’s just revving to unroll in Chicago. Our bus-stop shelters, bike lanes, and municipal green roofs were all inspired by the experience of other cities. All wonderful ideas, to be sure, but they haven’t been unmitigated successes. The bus-stop shelters don’t adequately protect from the elements. Many bike lanes have been tacked onto major thoroughfares where they just don’t fit (see especially: Milwaukee Avenue.) City Hall’s green roof isn’t publicly accessible.

Most importantly though…how about the spectacular and very recent failure of Daley’s last attempt to adopt a fast-train airport plan? Last year I summed up that debacle in a link-laden post here on Carless. The basics:

• In 2005 the mayor decreed an underground superstation for trains to O’Hare and Midway airports be built during the (re-)construction of the Loop’s Block 37, to run European-style fast-train service (see: #themayorwentonvacation);
• The project required the temporary closure of downtown’s busy Washington/State Red Line ‘L’ station and of the equally busy customer transfer tunnel between the Red and Blue line Washington stations;
• Unanticipated engineering difficulties and Block 37 construction delays ballooned the cost of the project to more than $300 million–including a $100 million overrun in June 2008, alone;
• The project was shelved, incomplete, when the city ran out of money due to the overruns–without a backup plan to restore Washington/State or the transfer tunnel;
• In winter 2009, the CTA quietly demapped Washington/State from the ‘L’ system;
• The Washington/State ‘L’ station and transfer tunnel remain closed–because the CTA cannot afford to recommission them thanks to the damage done to physical infrastructure by the failed superstation project.

So after spending $300 million, instead of getting fast-train service to O’Hare, Chicago actually ended up with less access to rail service than before the airport superstation project. And that was that. No mea culpa from the mayor’s office. No plan to return Washington/State to service by the CTA. Just a quiet cover-up of a massive mayoral blunder that cost Chicago much more than it should have.

These are the kind of clandestine, face-saving politics that will hopefully end with Daley’s successor. The idea that a mess like this doesn’t get discussed publicly because a city is afraid of angering its mayor is frightening to non-Illinois sensibilities (like mine), and damaging both to the public’s trust in government and its belief that government might actually work to protect the best interests of the public (as it is supposed to) instead of the best interests of politicians.

Given all of that, the idea that any newspaper in town–or any Chicagoan, for that matter–should take Daley seriously on another, grander, surely far more expensive airport fast-train plan is patently ludicrous. Yet, amazingly, the Trib’s recent maglev article doesn’t include a single word about the the failed Block 37 superstation project. (Follow the link at the top of this post and see for yourself.) Sidebars don’t count–they’re easily ignored. This should be a central part of the debate. Not addressing the Block 37 superstation in the main article is not an editorial decision I can fathom.

Chicagoans writing about this week’s airport-train debate shouldn’t be asking, “Gee, is this a good idea?” They should be asking, “Richie, where’s our last $300 million?”

Not to mention our ‘L’ station.

I will never understand why my fellow queers think it’s OK to be intolerant of the religious freedom of others while calling for religious tolerance for themselves. Last week on Valentine’s Day, a group of LGBT activists protested outside Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral in support of gay marriage and a friendlier stance towards gays by the Catholic Church. As part of the protest, my fellow LGBTers yelled at churchgoers entering the cathedral, a few of whom were quoted in the forelinked Chicago Tribune article saying the protest impacted their ability to enjoy the day’s special mass.

Raised Catholic myself, I understand how maddening it is to be schooled in a religious faith that tells you homosexuality is bad, at the same time that you’re discovering you’re attracted to the same sex. Arguments about the usefulness of gay marriage as a civil right aside (though given the high breakup rate in our community, we may want to have concentrated equally hard on the right to divorce, too), it’s a no-brainer that everyone has the right to expect to be treated fairly by the religious communities where they adhere.

I also get how so many of my fellow LGBTers become so turned off by the concept of God entirely, after a lifetime of dealing with the intolerance–and abject hypocrisy–of the Catholic Church as an institution. But I think it’s a big shame, too.

If gays think the Catholic Church is wrong on homosexuality, why do so many of them reject God based on the views of a church they reject? That’s about the worst internalized homophobia imaginable–believing God hates you solely because your church tells you so.

In reality, we all get to choose what we believe–about God, life, the universe, and everything else. Don’t like what the Catholic Church says about God? Find another church. I know it’s hard for Catholics to understand this, but trust me: you’re allowed.

You’re also allowed to have a personal relationship with God or a higher power of your own understanding, explore the many different versions of faith, and–just like the holy rollers many LGBTers oppose–say the word God in public with a sense of reverence rather than irony.

I say all of this as a Buddhist who made the leap to what for me has been an uplifting faith that let’s me handle my relationship with God on my own. Which isn’t to say that unhappy queer Catholics should run out and buy meditation cushions.

But it is to say that if you think it’s ok to shout down other people simply trying to practice their own religion, then maybe it’s time to examine your own beliefs. Because the Golden Rule applies whether you’re a Catholic or a Buddhist. What you give out you get back.

And always deservedly so.

Today, at long last, comes the day Chicagoans have dreaded in one guise or another since the bad old era of the Blagojevich regime: CTA “Doomsday”. You might be surprised to learn I welcome it with open arms.

At the stroke of midnight, approximately 20% of Chicago transit bus service and 9% of ‘L’ rail service was eliminated, including all arterial express bus routes, and 1,100 union workers lost their jobs. It happened because the CTA’s unions refused to offer pay and pension concessions at a time when sales tax revenues to help fund the system are at perilously low levels.

You can’t say we–and the union–weren’t warned. For a year, the CTA has advised anyone who would listen that the punishing cost of the existing union contracts simply could not be borne by current revenues, and that something would have to give. Either the union, or transit service, itself.

Unfortunately, after all the aborted cries of CTA “Doomsday” heard over the past few years, this time no one really felt like listening anymore. The state always seemed to ride in like a fiscal Lone Ranger and cover any budget deficit just enough to stave off service cuts. Even I thought that would happen this time around.

Last November when Illinois Governor Pat Quinn offered monetary aid to the CTA only on the conditions that fares not increase and threatened service cuts go forward, I thought he was pandering to longtime community activists who constantly rail against fare increases. (As if costs don’t naturally rise over time, for transit service or anything else.)

Now I see the wisdom in Quinn’s move. We’ve argued in this state about the cost of Chicago transit in good times and bad. Even before CTA “Doomsday” was so clearly on the table, the fixed and seemingly unquestionable cost of transit union wages, health care, and pensions was impossible to justify.

The reason is clear. The CTA exists to do one thing: that is, move three million Chicagoans around this massive city. That is its  only reason for being. Not to provide guaranteed, lifelong jobs for union workers. And certainly not to protect work rules and compensation regarding those jobs to the point where moving those three million Chicagoans around becomes impaired.

Unfortunately, impairment of service has finally come to pass, and we three million Chicagoans have the unions’ stubborness to blame for it. The unions refused to give, so transit service gave out instead. If Gov. Quinn had allowed the CTA to raise fares or had provided enough state money to stave off fare increases, we’d just be in this position once again next year as the transit unions dug in their heels and thumbed their collective nose at the potential for service cuts.

I’d much prefer my tax monies be spent on providing the transit service so needed in a city as congested as Chicago, rather than being used to ensure a false sense of entitlement among union workers who, unlike many thousands of Chicagoans, are lucky enough to at least have jobs. Of course, now 1,100 of them don’t have jobs anymore, and I’m sure few Chicago transit riders who will face longer waits and more crowded commutes this week feel any sympathy for them.

But today’s cuts are the only way forward. Unless Chicago transit service is to be permanently reduced or priced outrageously high (remember the Sunday-only service levels and $5 rides proposed during the Blagojevich administration?), then it’s the unions who must give back. That’s the gist of Quinn’s strategy: once and for all show the transit unions you mean business by finally allowing “Doomsday” to happen.

Today no one wins. But if the 11th hour intervention by Mayor Daley is any indication, the negotiations are far from over. While the mayor could have intervened a little sooner, it’s a help that he did. As the weekend began, the CTA’s unions were offering $90 million in givebacks to get today’s layoffs and service cuts reversed. If they manage to reach an agreement with the CTA, within a couple of weeks, bus and ‘L’ service levels could be back to normal.

That would be good news. Not just because Chicago would have its transit service back, but also because precedent would now be set to revise transit union work rules and compensation agreements to ensure that in the future, Windy City transit service is never again held hostage by a group of self-interested workers refusing to share the pain of a bad economy with their fellow Chicagoans.

I hope such an agreement happens. The only chance of it happening, though, is for us transit riders to bear the hopefully temporary pain of today’s service cuts. So welcome, CTA “Doomsday”.

I guess we had you coming.

(Graphic: Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s 2010 CTA transit map?)

I guess it must be something in the water. But as usual, another Illinois politician has decided that Chicagoans would rather have lower fares than useful transit service. Yesterday in Crain’s, Greg Hinz reported that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn had brokered a deal to stop a 2010 CTA fare hike. (See also today’s Clout Street.) My question is: who asked him to?

Back in October, when the CTA announced yet another potential funding doomsday, the stakes were worse than usual. Instead of choosing between raised fares or drastic service cuts, because of a 30% loss in public funding stemming from the bad economy, Chicagoans were about to be faced with raised fares and $90 million in drastic cuts in transit service. Among those cuts: an almost 10% reduction in ‘L’ service, and a whopping almost 20% reduction in bus service.

(How bad are the cuts? In just one example of the hardship about to happen, if you live along Division Street–or several other Windy City main thoroughfares–you’d better get used to taking cabs after eight o’clock in the evening. See for yourself in these PDFs: proposed route reductions, proposed hour reductions.)

According to Hinz, sometime this week Quinn and the CTA are set to announce a deal to freeze Chicago’s transit fare potentially through 2011. The cost of freezing the fare? Going through with those $90 million in service cuts. Meaning, Chicagoans might be able to afford transit service for the next two years, they just might not be able to find it on a nearby street corner, at a useful hour, or even at all.

Obviously the erstwhile Chicagoan Gov. Quinn isn’t a CTA transit rider and hasn’t been for some time. Maybe he’s forgotten how this city relies on the CTA for getting around at all hours to all corners of town. His impending deal to protect 9-to-5 work trips at the expense of overall convenience is an ill-considered one.

Quinn’s reasoning is as old as it is political. He probably thinks he’ll get more votes by telling Chicagoans, “Look, I saved you money.” Too bad by the time the election rolls around, CTA riders will have figured out the hassle Quinn’s great favor did them.

The real question is: which is more damaging to the economic health of Chicago? Paying $3 to ride a 9:00 PM CTA bus when a Jewel clerk needs to get to his overnight job or a midnight Orange Line train when a businesswoman needs to get to Midway for that last plane out, or paying $20 for a taxi because Chicago has gutted its transit service?

Again.

(Find more discussion of this issue and vote up the topic in this Windy Citizen post.)

(UPDATE 11/12/09: Find a scathing review of Quinn’s transit funding deal in this Chicago Tribune editorial.)

(Graphic: It’s been a quiet few weeks…not.)

As I dig myself out from my blogging hibernation of the past few weeks here on Chicago Carless, things have been a bit more steady over on my ChicagoNow blogosphere-watcher byline, Chicagosphere. If you know one thing about me from reading Carless, I’m not half shy about sharing my opinion.

Keeping that in mind, today on Chicagosphere I asked whether the Chicago Sun-Times union truly understands the endgame faced by their paper and journalism in general, calling out the Chicago Reader’s Michael Miner along the way for suggesting that columnists be forced to ditch commentary in favor of strict news analysis. (There’s nothing I find more tiresome than yet another reporter throwing the rest of the world under the bus for the failings of their own field.)

Of course you know, that’s not the only viewpoint I’ve shared recently. If you’re son inclined, I invite you to browse through my recent Chicagosphere columns (as usual, you probably should buckle-up, first):

Why the Sun-Times Deserves to Die
Last week, Chicago Newspaper Guild members working at the Sun-Times rejected the conditions of a last-ditch rescue effort for the tabloid. Does Chicago’s #2 paper have to go out of business for journalists to finally understand their profession has no bargaining power left? And just how many boring, finger-pointing columns does the news-reading public have to sift through before reporters finally take responsibility for their own livelihoods?

Columnists on Chris Kelly
Many local columnists covered the unexpected death of former Blagojevich croney Chris Kelly. Most rehashed their own words or the words of others. But a few really nailed the sad, simple nature of the situation.

Now on Sale: Social Media Management?
Frequently, nonprofits try to save money by eschewing PR strategy and handing over their all-important social media outreach efforts to neophyte college interns. You know what? You get what you pay for.

Chicago Online News: The Best of What’s Left
In the wake of the shutdown of the Chitown Daily News, I look at the the Windy City’s remaining sources of online news–and continue to caution local bloggers against relying on foundation money for long-term sustainability.

Analyzing Helen Shiller’s Response to the Uptown Riot Controversy
In late August, 46th Ward alderman Helen Shiller released an amazingly tardy, poorly worded response on the controversy generated by last month’s video of a riot in the Uptown community. I put on my PR strategist had and picked apart Shiller’s statement paragraph by paragraph looking–in vain–for evidence of responsible governance.

Why the Everyblock Sale Matters: Chicago Foundations Pass the Buck on Sustainability
Everyblock was lucky to be bought out my MSNBC.com. But the result might have been different if a savior hadn’t shown up after the Knight Foundation walked away at the end of its grant agreement.

This content originally appeared on my former Chicagosphere online-media blog, hosted on the Chicago Tribune’s ChicagoNow network.

For the past four days, columnists across Chicago have been opining at length on the death of former Blagojevich adviser and fundraiser Chris Kelly. Most have stretched hard to forge news out of speculation. But some have allowed the story to be as simple as, in all likelihood, it really is.

Since Saturday, when news of Kelly’s death first broke, Chicago’s blogosphere has seen a slew of angles explored to explain why, whether, and how he took his own life.

Last Wednesday, the Sun-Times‘ Carol Marin neatly summarized Kelly’s plight: pleading guilty the day before on corruption charges surrounding kickbacks and bid-rigging for O’Hare construction contracts, and about to enter federal prison on tax fraud charges to which he pleaded guilty back in January.

By Sunday, however, Marin appeared to suffer from amnesia, penning a column asking why Kelly would have committed suicide. Perhaps because he had ruined his life and was heading to prison–as Marin, herself had described in her previous column? Marin questioned whether pressure from federal prosecutors for Kelly to testify against disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich might have led to Kelly’s suicide. You think? Speculation like that, however, does not a news story make.

Equally cheaply, the Sun-Times‘ Blago Blog later published a transcript of Kelly’s court appearance from September 9th, for Chicagoans to read Kelly’s first-person account to the hearing judge of the pressure he was under–now dramatically told from beyond the grave.

Also on Sunday, police blogger Detective Shaved Longcock questioned the ability of the Country Club Hills police department to conduct a rigorous investigation into Kelly’s death and suggested the Feds would soon take over the case.

In a similar vein, CLTV’s Garrard McClendon asked how the Country Club Hills PD could have originally suggested Chris Kelly committed suicide without a toxicology report.

Marathon Pundit aimed elsewhere, ridiculing Blagojevich for suggesting unfair prosecutorial pressure to tell “lies” about the former governor led to Kelly’s suicide, and not Kelly’s ride on Blago’s own political devastation train. As well, both Rich Miller on the Capitol Fax Blog and the Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn on his Change of Subject blog rightly took Blago to task for having the bad taste to issue a media alert announcing he’d be attending Kelly’s funeral–and, of course, for planning to attend at all.

The absolute low point in coverage came yesterday–however, it didn’t arrive on a blog. Instead, the Trib saw fit to print this disturbing article describing in sickening detail the painful physical symptoms of a painkiller overdose–from vomit through convulsions to death–even though the substance or substances Kelly may have used to kill himself have not been confirmed.

To his credit, Trib columnist John Kass adopted a different and uncharacteristically measured tone, citing Kelly’s death as a “sobering reminder” of the ugly side of clout. Kass also accurately predicted the speculation about prosecutorial pressure that quickly followed.

Getting closer to propriety, on his Crain’s blog Greg Hinz provided necessary perspective by filling in Chris Kelly’s backstory as an aging “frat boy” who simply saw himself as helping out his buddy Blago.

Today the groping continues, as the Trib’s Mary Schmich suggests we may never know the real reason out of myriad potential triggers for Kelly to have taken his own life, in what is essentially an elegant retread of the same ground covered with a sledgehammer by Marin.

However, it was another, earlier Eric Zorn blog entry that really nailed the crux of the Chris Kelly story:

“…I don’t understand why, once sentenced is passed the federal courts, in particular, give convicts a week or two, sometimes more, to get their affairs in order and report to prison. My notion that that must be the most dreadful, hopeless time in a person’s life was reinforced by the apparent suicide of Christopher Kelly over the weekend. The guy was not just facing eight years in the joint, but personal disgrace and ruin after a spectacular public fall. If he’d been locked up, he’d probably have been on suicide watch.”

In other words, Chris Kelly was distraught and scared, and given too much time by the courts to think about it. So after ruining his life with bad decisions, he made an even worse decision to end it. I doubt there’s more complexity here than that. Fear ended someone’s life. It’s a sad but easily understandable and all-too-common story.

And as Zorn and Schmich and Heinz and Kass all admirably prove, it doesn’t take a graphic description of death-by-painkillers to tell it, either.

December 3, 2010: Welcome to readers from Uptown Update. I’m happy to have helped preserve this piece of Helen-ism for posterity. Also…Happy Chanukah!

(This content originally appeared on my former Chicagosphere online-media blog, hosted on the Chicago Tribune’s ChicagoNow network.)

Yesterday afternoon, Alderman Helen Shiller posted a lengthy response on the 46th Ward website regarding the widely viewed August 13th Uptown riot video and the firestorm of controversy surrounding it. Given the gravity of the situation for Uptown residents, it’s a response worthy of a line-by-line analysis by a communications strategist. Being one, myself (how useful is that?), that’s exactly what I’ve done. Read on to learn why I think Shiller’s response doesn’t fit the crime.

As has widely been covered, on the evening of August 13th, a large gang riot lasting several minutes broke out on residential Sheridan Road in the Uptown neighborhood that was videotaped by neighborhood resident Joe Gray. During the riot, only a small police presence arrived and most rioters left the area with impunity. (View the video on Gray’s Vimeo page.)

After avoiding the issue for several days, Shiller was confronted with a surprise protest from 46th Ward constituents at an August 17th Olympic Bid press conference at Truman College. After deflecting criticism, she walked out of the press conference and remained relatively silent on the issue for ten days until yesterday’s web posting.

During the intervening time, Uptown police commander Kathleen Boehmer went on record saying the riot was “not the everyday standard” for the area. However, as a review of events by ChicagoNow’s Joe the Cop (of the Arresting Tales blog) and ongoing discussion on the Uptown Update blog show, many Uptown residents are unconvinced of the area’s safety.

(Regular readers may remember Uptown Update as a major thorn in Shiller’s side from my coverage of the Wilson Yard controversy.)

In yesterday’s response, entitled “A Statement from Helen Shiller on Recent Events”, the alderman attempts to convince residents that statistics show their perception of safety is wrong. Here’s why I think that was a bad approach to take. Below is Shiller’s entire statement, in italics, followed by my comments…

___

Just because it took so long to come up with a response doesn’t make a riot that happened 14 days previously and a protest and walkout that happened 10 days previously all that recent. Actually naming the riot video controversy in the title would have shown more confidence.

“On the night of Thursday, August 13, an altercation broke out between a couple dozen young men at the intersection of Sheridan and Leland in Uptown. There were no guns or knives used, but bottles were thrown and there was yelling and attempted fisticuffs. Most of the event was videoed by a neighbor.”

An obvious attempt to downplay the riot and describe it as something less than it was. Anyone viewing the video would be hard-pressed to call the event–characterized by mobs of screaming men chasing each other up and down Sheridan Road in the middle of moving traffic–a mere “altercation”. Citywide media and Shiller’s own constituents have already correctly named the event for what it was: a riot. Couching it as anything else is disingenuous. Moreover, how in the world does the alderman know that guns and knives weren’t in anyone’s pocket that night?

“Within minutes of receiving the 911 call, officers arrived and the youth dispersed.   There was one arrest, one police officer suffered a minor injury and there was a little property damage. No one else in the area suffered any injuries. Because of the subsequent media frenzy, this incident has come to symbolize safety in Uptown.  In general, the recent discussion about crime and violence in our community has been emotional, high-pitched and polarizing.”

Again, Shiller pointedly downplays one of the central controversies surrounding the event: the small response from the Chicago Police Department. As the video shows, few squad cars showed up–and even fewer police actually got out of them. That’s part of the basis for the “emotional, high-pitched and polarizing” discussion going on in Uptown right now. Refusing to address the community’s concerns regarding the modest police response is a polarizing move on Shiller’s part. And when you think about it, besides the CPD, Shiller seems to be the only one out there suggesting that the riot and police response were no big deal. So the only real polarization here seems to be between Shiller and her constituency.

“Crime and violence is unacceptable.”

There are no bonus points in P.R. for stating the obvious. Tell me something I don’t already know. And run a grammar check, while you’re at it. In fact, judging by the sentence that is about to follow, you might want to run a spell check, too.

“My office spends more time and resource fighting crime and violence than dealing with any other issue. My staff and I regularly exchange information with the 20th and 23rd District police regarding potentially dangerous situations and how to prevent violence or crime from occurring. And today crime and violence in the 23rd and 20th police districts is among the lowest in Chicago. But don’t take my word for it. Check it out at www.chicagopolice.org. Whether you search by district, ward and/or individual beat – you will find this to be true. This is a great accomplishment within a community as diverse as the 46th Ward, and the credit goes to our residents and the leadership of our police commanders.”

The work to coordinate with the CPD is commendable. However, it’s also Shiller’s job as an alderman to keep on top of things in her ward, so no applause necessary here. More useful might have been to actually share specific statistics, demonstrate a declining trend among specific types of crime using concrete numbers. And you’re going off message. First you imply your office is responsible for the reduction in crime. Then you credit Uptown residents–except, they’re the ones telling you they don’t feel safe in the first place. I doubt that’s a shout-out that went over well with disgruntled constituents. 

“Every day individuals and organizations are engaged in anti-gang and anti-violence initiatives just by creating other paths for young people to walk down and create a life for themselves.”

Huh? I had to read that run-on sentence twice to catch its meaning. While true, it would have been more effective to actually name a few individuals, organizations, and programs working in Uptown to reduce gang activity. As the local alderman, Shiller–or whoever wrote this statement on her behalf–should be well versed in this information.

But until we find that magic bullet to stop violence that continues to elude us all, there will always be more to do. In recent days I have had several conversations with community leaders about more creative and progressive solutions. To a person they have started with “Violence is not acceptable,” and followed that up with, “We have to do more about this and blaming you is not it. What more can we do together?” There have been a number of positive suggestions, and we are going to work on all of them.

Talking with those community leaders is a positive step. But Shiller likely did unnecessary damage to herself by not coming out and talking to the community-at-large sooner. Furthermore, there’s little point in announcing aldermanic work will begin on “positive suggestions” to stem violence in the ward without actually announcing what those suggestions were. Leaving them to the imagination could lead constituents to wonder whether those “suggestions” actually exist. After all, in just a few paragraphs Shiller will say in no uncertain terms that she has no idea how to react to the situation. (See: Solutions.)

“When I was first elected alderman in 1987 the 46th ward had some of the highest crime in the city, some of the highest number of buildings in housing court for hazardous and dangerous conditions, some of the highest infant mortality rates in Chicago, had a dysfunctional grid of street lights resulting in dark and dangerous streets, and had some of the poorest performing public schools in the city.  To day we have among the lowest crime, the fewest buildings in housing court, lower infant mortality rates, improving schools and new street lights and sufficient lighting on every block in the ward.”

All true. I’ll leave it to others to research the true proportion of those improvements for which Shiller was responsible, versus various citywide–and largely mayoral–initiatives, an improved economy (prior to the current recession), and a move to cheaper drugs of choice on the part of potential petty criminals.

“In each of my five re-election campaigns, the strategy of my opposition has followed a now familiar pattern: attack my efforts at preserving affordable housing and engaging in a goal of development without displacement by repeating a mantra that affordable housing equals crime, and polarizing the community at every opportunity in spite of evidence again and again that each day has brought improvements to the safety of our community.”

Most of the paragraph is a red herring or not germane. Shiller is trying to tie the groundswell of community ire over the Uptown riot with the anti-affordable housing argument of the Wilson Yard opponents. Of course, it isn’t a Chicago election year, and housing is completely irrelevant to the issue of a Sheridan Road gang riot. Shiller will attempt this label-and-reject strategy further down in the document. It appears to be her central response tactic. She will use it against Chicago media in the next paragraph and, effectively, any of her constituents who do not agree with her, further below.

“The media coverage of the Leland/Sheridan event was intensely and overtly personal coverage. With the exception of one television reporter, not one outlet bothered to check the police statistics to actually determine if this fight represented typical or atypical activity. Instead, they ran the video over and over, labeling the fight as a full riot and focusing on my political opponents hounding me at a Chicago’s 2016 Olympic meeting.”

Shiller seems to want it both ways with the media. Here, she’s annoyed that reporters called her out personally on crime statistics in her ward (and again blithely ignores that perception of safety matters more than mere statistics.) Yet in a few paragraphs you will witness Shiller taking personal credit for improvements in safety, parks, and schools–in the very same document.

In addition, first it’s an “altercation”, now it’s a “fight”. Or at least not a “full riot”. Except, as the court of public opinion has already determined, it is. Saying it isn’t yet again just makes Shiller look painfully willful. (And again–”Chicago’s 2016 Olympic meeting?”–did anyone actually proofread this?)

“At that meeting, media and protesters stood together as I made a statement and took questions.  When it became clear that some were not interested in my answers but rather a confrontation I left.”

I don’t know which is worse here: that Shiller felt justified in turning her back on the angry voters who were yelling; or that Shiller felt justified in turning her back on the non-angry voters who were listening. Both groups put her in office–in effect, hired her. It’s generally not a good idea to walk out on your boss, no matter what mood they’re in. In doing so, Shiller made it clear to her constituents that her personal opinion of her job performance was the only one that mattered to her.

“As bad as the Sheridan fight was, on any given week, there are far more violent events, including far more arrests by police, in other Chicago communities that have received far less attention – even when there was ample video. What is it about this particular video that caused such great fear in so many people?  Clearly it is important to the community because this is where we live.  The importance to the media however is more difficult to understand, unless it is driven by other motives.”

Once more, Shiller attempts to label her detractors and ascribe to them hidden motives. In this case, she goes as far as overtly suggesting Chicago media is conspiring to get her out of office. That’s ludicrous on the face of it, though judging just from the foregoing paragraphs I wouldn’t wonder why anyone might make the attempt. At every turn in the document, Shiller seems immune to accepting criticism or responsibility for any negative things that occur in her ward.

This specific passage also portrays Shiller as immune to good sense. What makes this video of a riot on a residential street in Uptown particularly frightening to Uptown residents? Because it’s a video. Of a riot. On a residential street. In Uptown. (Hello? Is this thing on?)

Solutions
“Again, I do not have the solution to urban crime and violence. If someone out there has the magic bullet I’d like to know what it is. But having said that, while guns, and the requisite anger to use them, seem to be in never ending supply, there is no excuse for violence. And it is incumbent upon us to do all we can to curb violence and to give our young people the future they deserve and crave.”

I tried and tried to find a charitable way to describe Shiller’s words here. I couldn’t. This paragraph is a blunt surrender, a pathetic admission of fecklessness. It’s as much as to say, “I, Alderman Helen Shiller, have absolutely no idea how to handle this situation.” If I were a disgruntled Uptown voter, I’d put this paragraph on a tee-shirt. If I were Shiller’s P.R. strategist, I’d be drinking right now.

“My staff and I will continue to work closely with the Chicago Police Department to prevent crime and violence.”

Again, informational coordination with the CPD is part of an alderman’s job. So all Shiller is saying here is that she intends to do her job.

“We will continue to get the minutes from our CAPS meetings and continue to insure appropriate responses from my and other city offices to issues raised.”

I’m sure “ensure” is meant here, unless the Alderman intends to take insurance out on various city officials. Of course, the rest of the sentence is a grammatical train wreck anyway, so why quibble? Well, maybe one quibble–minutes? You mean 46th Ward aldermanic staff doesn’t attend CAPS meetings in person?

“We will continue the improvements that are underway at our local parks.”

Non sequitur, party of one, your table’s ready. What on earth does this have to do with a Sheridan Road gang riot?

“All of our public schools have improved and continue to improve. Support of their efforts will always be a priority.”

Whose efforts? Any why is this germane to the issue of a gang riot, either? In fact, it isn’t. It’s irrelevant self-puffery.

“We have no fewer than 25 educational, recreational and not for profit organizations that serve youth and families in our community. They will continue to get my support and advocacy. There is no reason for someone to be fighting on the street threatening the lives of others and their own lives when just a few blocks away they can become a star or a scientist or an athlete or anything they have the talent to be but just don’t know it yet.”

More than likely, those “educational, recreational and not for profit organizations” deserve a local alderman’s advocacy, anyway. It isn’t as if Shiller would curry any favor by walking away from them. (Hey, there’s a theme!) The balance of the passage could have been lifted from the script of one of Shiller’s detractors. The fact is that youth are out there causing mischief–and worse. In a crisis communication such as this one, it’s generally not a good idea to make your opposition’s points for them.

“For years we have fought for a safe community for everyone. Nothing said by political opportunism can change this. Nevertheless, even with all the improvements we have seen in our community, that it is still necessary for us each to be vigilant is a fact of life we must embrace. I continue to believe that it is possible to maintain a truly diverse community that is safe for all its residents and my staff and I will continue work towards that goal on behalf of all of our residents.“

Political opportunism? Are any of Shiller’s detractors running for office? This closer drives home the suspicion that the foregoing paragraphs set up: Shiller seems to refuse to accept any criticism whatsoever. What could–and should–have been an opportunity to apologize to her constituents, accept responsibility, open an honest dialogue on the issues to find innovative solutions, or (ahem) promise to listen better in the future, in the end, is completely squandered.
___

At the heart of it, crime’s a red herring here. The real story is Shiller’s largely miscalculated and altogether tardy response. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me when the people who elected you have a desire to yell at you for doing a bad job in their opinion, it’s your job to stand there and suck it up, no matter what your personal opinion is of your job performance.

Walking away only demonstrates contempt for the folks who hired you in the first place. Waiting ten days to speak about the matter, then reiterating to your own constituents that you felt perfectly justified in walking away from them, just makes matter worse.

Perception is everything. Uptown residents are frightened–wouldn’t you be if you saw a riot like that occur in your own neighborhood? More to the point, when was the last time you were able to calm someone’s fears by simply telling them to stop being scared?

That approach doesn’t work, at least not very well. In fact, telling 46th Ward voters that their very palpable perception of danger is a fantasy may very well worsen their perception of Shiller’s job performance. That may be fine in a non-election year, but don’t think those video cameras are going away between now and 2011.

Memo to Alderman Shiller: if there’s a P.R. strategist involved here, fire them. If there isn’t, hire one. Because if Chicago loses the Olympics, that alliance with Mayor Daley may not be powerful enough to push you past the finish line the next time disgruntled Uptown voters head to the polls.

At least, that’s my perception of things.