Chicago's density. (Cuba: school, live in, approval)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

I think he believes in things such as moving the Cubs to Schaumburg. I welcome him to correct me if I am wrong.

Quite the contrary. Although it pains me to say anything that you'd welcome.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

Why not just dissolve city councils,state legislatures,and the U.S. Congress? What do we need them for in your scenario?

Just let the little dictator of every city and his minions decide everything.

Yeah that is freedom. Not.

Do you not understand how the current system works? If you did, I think you'd realize that what I propose actually restores representative democracy at a city-wide level?

Currently what we have are 50 little dictators, none of whom are accountable to each other regardless of how their decisions impact the city as a whole.

Pulling power away from the individual aldermen RESTORES the democratic process for the City as a whole. The central planning committee could even be an elected (or partially elected, or an election of people from a pool of people meeting certain qualifying criteria like education or professional background). I'm not proposing some sort of King.

[jdiddy]

I'm with emathias. There are far too many alderman to really be accountable, and too often development decisions need to be tailored to the whims of an individual alderman and the few cranks who bother showing up to these things.

Having these decisions filtered through a centralized planning committee would bring more daylight and accountability, not less.

[Alacran]

Has anyone calculated the density for the ss of chi?

[MannheimMadman]

Originally Posted by Alacran

Has anyone calculated the density for the ss of chi?

Why don't you go ahead and do it, then report back to us? Crack open a beer and have at it.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by emathias

Do you not understand how the current system works? If you did, I think you'd realize that what I propose actually restores representative democracy at a city-wide level?

Yes, I do understand how the current system works. I never said I completely agree with how it works or it's outcomes either did I? In fact, most of the time the wishes of residents are trampled or ignored by the alderman. What makes you think a planning commission would do any better or different?

Taking away the voice of the people (and their children) who will be affected, is not democracy, it is dictatorship. You propose completely ignoring the wishes and concerns of people in their own neighborhoods. Only people such as Stalin would approve.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

Yes, I do understand how the current system works. I never said I completely agree with how it works or it's outcomes either did I?

Taking away the voice of the people who will be affected is not democracy, it is dictatorship. You propose completely ignoring the wishes and concerns of people in their own neighborhoods. Only people such as Stalin would approve.

Not ignoring - placing their wishes in context of the needs of local residents too busy to rabble-rouse at meetings, future residents, other city residents, shoppers, workers and visitors, all of whom should have a place at the table because the City would not be able to survive without all of those participants and yet they are currently completely ignored by most aldermen.

EDIT: Not to mention, I don't know if you failed civics in high school or what, but we don't live in a democracy. The U.S. has never been one. And I'm not aware of any modern country that is a democracy. Nearly all the "free" countries in the world are representative democracies. The problem in Chicago neighborhoods is that a) parties with vested interest in certain kinds of actions are not being represented, and b) current approval boards aren't elected and so are perfectly happy to simply bow to whatever special interest group crows the loudest (and in this context, the residents living in the immediate area of a project are simply another special interest group).

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by emathias

Not ignoring - placing their wishes in context of the needs of local residents too busy to rabble-rouse at meetings, future residents, other city residents, shoppers, workers and visitors, all of whom should have a place at the table because the City would not be able to survive without all of those participants and yet they are currently completely ignored by most aldermen.

What neighborhood do you live in?

[SmartGXL]

I agree with the problem that the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome brings. It seems rediculous that local residents have that much power in stopping certain types of development that ultimately, benefits the ENTIRE city. If the Red Line was being built today, it probably would never be built at all, because the middle-class NIMBY types would stop it. Ultimately, that type of mentality is going to turn places like Lakeview into an "inner suburb", where the density disappears. I think places like Lakeview are unique and almost fragile; most of this country is nothing but a large bland suburb because of NIMBY mentality. It is ironic, because it was a type of localized socialism that allowed these awesome places to come about in the first place. (Disclaimer: When it comes to federal and state politics, I am a libertarian, but on the local level, I am actually a Communist, believe it or not). So, I believe that allowing a vision for social services and infrustructure to be developed (LOCALLY ONLY), and FORCING it to happen, against the will of residents, is usually the best approach.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

Taking away the voice of the people (and their children) who will be affected, is not democracy, it is dictatorship. You propose completely ignoring the wishes and concerns of people in their own neighborhoods.

Actually... the point of planning is to take into account the needs of future generations of residents, instead of just considering the wants of today's residents (as the existing process does). More time and effort should be invested in asking a broader cross-section of residents what they want, then creating plans based on that, and reviewing proposals & projects based on said plans. That's the entire point of planning (no, not Daniel Burnham sitting in some downtown skyscraper, dictating everything on behalf of the merchant princes). It works elsewhere, and it could work here if it were given half a chance.

I would favor shifting the city council to larger, multi-member districts. This would promote cooperation across neighborhood lines, and allow communities that aren't holed up into ghettoes to elect their own. This was suggested back in 2000 to address the Polish population on the northwest side, but arguably could work for many other identity/interest groups.

Only people such as Stalin would approve.

Nice attempt to dodge Godwin's law there.