Aldermen and Development by Sura, August 21

“City politicians call Chicago a national model for how to involve the public in real estate development debates. But the view from the streets of the city’s neighborhoods is markedly different.

When a longtime homeowner tried to speak up at the only City Council hearing on a project in his Far North Side neighborhood, aldermen threatened to toss him from the room for trying to ask questions.”

This article in the Chicago Tribune is part 5 of the ongoing “Neighborhoods for Sale” series, and highlights similar problems to what’s happening in Milwaukee. It documents an insiders’, pay-to-play game in which favored developers, architects and lawyers get their way with zoning changes.

Sound familiar? Anyone in city of Milwaukee who is looking to battle a large development (think Prospect Ave or dorms) should read this article. Issues of traffic, parking, viewshed and sun blocking are all referenced, as are other Milwaukee problems, such as lack of notification of residents required by law, and political donations used to influence aldermen in their decisions.

Because of the influence of money on Alders, I fully support local campaign finance reform, including limiting donations to people who live within the district. Additionally, I think capping the total money that can be spent is necessary to avoid buying the vote by doing the most mailings. Let those who want to win, go out and knock on doors and talk to the residents. It shouldn’t be about raising money, unless, that is, you aren’t planning on representing your constituents.

21 Aug 2008 | 7:49 pm | Development, Representation, 3rd District

1 comment

1. annie wrote:
   September 22, 2008 at 1:05 am

   I second that, Sura, about limiting candidates to only accepting campaign contributions from people living within the district they are running for. I remember back during this year’s elections, coming to realize how polluted campaign funding for even the most very local levels of public office could be by lopsided or outside interests (after looking at where the donations came from for several of the candidates), thinking that that was the only way that made sense to me in principle. While I remember hearing some talk about campaign finance reform, maybe prohibiting out-of-state donations or cspping totals and such, I don’t remember ever hearing anyone actually coming out and saying (publicly) that it should be limited to within the district itself. Why should folks from other parts of town, parts of the state–and especially other states or across the country–have that kind of influence over other people’s neighborhoods they may have no connection to, and where they will not be the ones daily affected by the consequences of that elected official’s decisions. It shouldn’t have the potential to become about who has the richest/most rich friends “out there”..anywhere!
   In-district only seems like such basic common sense, in terms of trying to preserve a democratic foundation to representation, for all levels of government. But then what makes sense is too often not what politics is about.

2.  

Add your comments