As a 48th Ward resident, I want to thank the Tribune for its recent coverage of the city of Chicago’s foolhardy effort to massively increase housing density in Edgewater — already one of the densest communities in the metro area.
This “plan” is woefully inadequate on any number of levels and clearly reflects the total inexperience of both a rookie mayor and alderman.
Zoning alone is not a “plan” but actually a tool that should follow a planning process. The city has abandoned planning altogether when it comes to Broadway. This rushed, simplistic and extreme upzoning will result in more problems than it solves. In his op-ed last Sunday (“Cutting parking requirements while upzoning Broadway will create a crisis”), Steve Weinshel details just the parking nightmare that will be exacerbated by the city’s blind rush to upzone an already-very dense neighborhood.
That nightmare will become a true horror show in neighborhoods like Edgewater as a result of the City Council’s recent dropping of parking requirements for developments near mass transit. It is completely irresponsible to communities across the city, especially those along Chicago’s lakefront.
Before this drastic step, there should have been research on what the realities are on car ownership rates throughout the city and surveys — an inventory — of available street parking in each community, followed by thoughtful planning, followed by thorough community feedback. Sadly, not everyone is able to completely structure their lives around complete reliance on public transportation, especially many of the working class or elderly.
We are on the potential cusp of significant cuts to mass transit service, which makes this move all the more foolhardy.
— Norm Cratty, Chicago
Disincentivize driving
In a recent op-ed, a neighbor expresses opposition to the development of Broadway in Uptown and Edgewater, on the basis that proposed parking requirements are set too low. While his diagnosis of overfull streets is correct, his remedy of higher parking requirements is akin to the patient demanding surgical expansion of his stomach to address his obesity.
High parking requirements induce demand for cars to occupy parking spaces, exacerbating the very problems my neighbor correctly identifies. To address (moving or stationary) automobile congestion, our city must provide viable alternatives to driving, and we residents must choose them.
Density alone does not cause automobile congestion problems; driving does. While my neighbor points out that many Edgewater residents own cars, it’s important to note that younger generations are obtaining driver’s licenses at lower rates and at older ages than previous generations. Chicago is one of the places in North America where car ownership is declining. Young people are recognizing a simple truth that has evaded their elders: Owning a car is often unnecessary in a city with abundant alternatives.
We can agree on the need to keep parking in proportion to the number of cars. However, in pursuit of this proportion, my neighbor is focused on the wrong side of the equation. We don’t need more parking spaces; we need fewer cars. The proposed low parking requirements for the Broadway redevelopment are a step in the right direction. They don’t go far enough. If we genuinely want to tackle traffic and parking issues along Broadway, we must advocate for policies that disincentivize car usage:
- Congestion pricing.
- Designated bus lanes.
- Protected bike lanes.
- Increased gas tax.
In mentioning the problem of drivers occupying spaces needed for emergency vehicles or school buses, my neighbor is again correct, but he conspicuously overlooks the root cause: too many cars on our streets. Adding more parking spaces along Broadway will only induce demand, worsening the problem.
The proposed reduced parking requirements along Broadway signal progress toward creating a sustainable solution for Edgewater’s traffic and parking challenges. They have my support.
— Bryan Verstegen, Chicago
City Council tone-deaf
Steve Weinshel’s op-ed highlights the city’s shocking lack of a parking plan for the proposed radical Broadway upzoning in Edgewater, where parking is already a nightmare due to density and poor city policies.
Incredibly, the City Council recently made things even worse by passing Ald. Daniel La Spata’s ordinance to eliminate off-street parking requirements for new developments in transit districts throughout the city. In already-extremely dense Edgewater, this means off-street parking is not required for any new development on Broadway.
In a summer that has seen beyond-frustrating congestion and traffic jams caused by poorly timed street construction, can the City Council be any more tone-deaf?
— Stephen Hutton, Chicago
Build the city we want
Steve Weinshel, president of the Denifer Condominium Association, claims in his op-ed that we should slow down Broadway’s upzoning until there’s enough parking for everyone, assuming that everyone moving into new, parking-light buildings will bring 1.3 cars per household.
When our family searched for a new apartment two years ago, we deliberately chose a home near good transit and amenities without a dedicated parking spot. We don’t own a car — and many others moving into transit-oriented buildings won’t, either. It doesn’t make sense to hold future housing hostage to parking fears in a transit-rich neighborhood.
If there’s truly concern about spillover parking, the solution isn’t to stop building new homes and drive rents even higher. The city can manage parking demand with tools such as limiting street parking permits for transit-oriented developments or reallocating street space from long-term parking to drop-off or delivery zones.
We should build for the Chicago we want — one with more homes and fewer cars — not for a suburban model in which parking dictates what can be built.
— Alec Schwengler, Chicago
More study is needed
Regarding the Broadway editorial (“A new CTA day for Edgewater and Uptown. But what about Broadway?” July 22), I live four doors west of Broadway in a 1915 six-unit condo building. I have lived in Edgewater since 1981. The editorial board’s unnecessary comment about “eyesores” does not reflect Broadway south of Foster Avenue. Yes, there are two small shopping malls, but the majority of the buildings are one- to four-story buildings that contain the most affordable housing in our ward. These buildings were built between 1890 and 1930. They are not eyesores. They are architecturally significant.
They also contain our incredible collection of ethnic and family-owned restaurants, some of which have been here for up to 50 years. Most of the business owners are renters. They will be gone if the building owners sell. That does not mean we oppose new development or affordable housing. There has been impressive development on Broadway, Clark Street and Winthrop Avenue in the last 10 to 30 years, creating thousands of units. Bickerdike is breaking ground on a 90-unit all-affordable building in the fall. We currently have three empty lots on Broadway slated for development.
The issue here is compromise and community input. There has been none. We have asked the alderman for a meeting with the 48th Ward. This unacceptable blanket upzoning affects almost half our ward.
We are asking for an impact study, a plan and community involvement. That is not too much to ask.
— Marjorie Fritz-Birch, Chicago
Crusade against taxes
“There are two Americas,” the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said about the country’s wealth inequality. It’s a strange way to start an editorial about taxes (“Texas is talking tax cuts. Illinois? More hikes,” July 23), but those words say a lot about the truth of where we are and why the crusade for lower taxes has never really worked out for the common man.
Yes, taxes suck. But they’re part of our reality, as are a credit rating and a seemingly intractable pension debt issue for the state of Illinois — and ditto for the city of Chicago. It’s a grim situation: Decades of bad choices and corruption have forced this upon us, but here we are.
That doesn’t mean we need to start falling for rich-guy propaganda.
You know what would have helped? The graduated income tax, which would have gone a long way toward maintaining services and improving the state’s fiscal situation, on the backs of the people who could afford it.
Cutting taxes doesn’t enter into the discussion in Illinois because in our situation, it’s probably a bad idea, with few exceptions. It seems foolish to think that the way out of a debt crisis is to bring in less money, and it’s also worth remembering that austerity measures are still pretty much winless in the grand history of tough financial times.
Think that will scare rich people away? Billionaire Ken Griffin spent millions to try to impose austerity measures via Gov. Bruce Rauner and to oppose the graduated income tax, only to abandon Illinois and move to Florida anyway.
And on the flip side, supposedly affordable Texas has to again address its affordability crisis? What benefit is it to anyone (but the wealthy) to pay no income tax if others pay just as much in sales tax and property tax?
The call to lower taxes sounds great, but it’s usually disguising another attempt to shift the burden of taxes from the wealthy to the rest of us. We don’t have to be dogmatic; things can always be more efficient. We shouldn’t be afraid to drop taxes if they don’t make sense or are overly burdensome.
But King contemplated the two Americas at a time when the top federal income tax rate was 70%. Since then, taxes are lower, but all indications are the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. That’s the truth we need to start acknowledging.
— Phil Nicodemus, Chicago
A hypocritical outcry
Gov. JB Pritzker and the politicians are all worked up about the insurance rate hikes being implemented. Why don’t they look in the mirror about the even larger property tax hikes they have forced on property owners?
State Farm claims it needs its recently announced hike to cover the ever-increasing claims and costs. What is the government’s reason for large tax hikes? It has to cover the increasing debt it is generating by spending choices. Property owners are not getting a 30% salary increase to cover a 30% property tax hike; the only recourse may be to sell their house and move out of Illinois, which statistics show is exactly what is happening. Is that what Illinois state government is trying to achieve?
So before Pritzker and other elected officials clamor further about insurance rates, they should remember the idiom: “That’s the pot calling the kettle black.”
— Carol Zorn, Northbrook
Mayor’s mishandling
Mayor Brandon Johnson continues to degrade professional office responsibilities by assuming control of city security in denying police Superintendent Larry Snelling’s snap curfew request. The state of Massachusetts is still thanking Johnson for making now-departed Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez available to be the head of that state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
How long need we wait before Johnson’s security plans have us looking to replace another excellent professional?
— William O’Neill, Chicago
Smart AI regulations
Illinois has what it takes to be a global leader in artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. We are home to world-class research institutions, a thriving startup ecosystem and one of the most diverse, culturally rich urban centers in the country.
These are not just strengths — they’re our strategic competitive advantages.
As an attorney representing founders and entrepreneurs pushing the boundaries of innovation, I have a front-row seat to the incredible potential of emerging technology — including and especially AI.
I’m also keenly aware of the risks of overregulating it at this nascent and promising stage, where we’re just beginning to understand the potential of AI, harnessing it to solve our most pressing challenges.
Recent proposals calling for broad AI regulations, state-by-state laws and one-size-fits-all regulatory frameworks risk imposing unnecessary burdens on the very innovators who are working to build AI responsibly. These policies could stifle the momentum we’ve built in Chicago and across Illinois, especially for early-stage startups that don’t have the resources to absorb complex compliance, auditing and reporting mandates.
Misdirected regulation harms the players in “little tech,” creating an imbalance in a tech ecosystem that should prioritize entrepreneurs, innovators and job creators.
I support smart regulation. The industry supports smart regulation. We can’t risk falling into the trap of reacting with fear instead of governing with foresight. We need smart, thoughtful policies that protect the public from real harms without discouraging investment or innovation.
Those policies must be built by lawmakers with input from entrepreneurs, technologists and community leaders.
Because the only way to build a responsible AI future is to build it together.
— Erika R. Knierim, senior associate, Founders Law
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.