Herald Goes Green, Recycles Letters to the Editor

posted by richard gill

Refer to "Letters to the Editor" in the two most recent issues of the Hyde Park Herald (July 28, p. 4 and August 4, p. 4). Each contains (in first position or as the sole entry) virtually the same letter from Graham Romeyn Taylor Jr. and Jean Taylor Kroeber. The two letters take the same position on the same subject, (Chicago Theological Seminary building) with largely the same arguments and a lot of identical phrases. Neither letter is actually written to the Herald’s Editor; each is directed to a different third party and copied to the Herald.

Now, the Taylors have the right to try hammering their position home twice in a row in the same forum. And the Herald, well it’s their silly paper, and they can print what they want, as many times as they want. But printing both letters—in consecutive issues yet—is a bit much, even for the Herald.

An example, from the letter to CTS President Rev. Alice Hunt printed in the Hyde Park Herald:

As the grandchildren of Graham Taylor, we have been disturbed to learn through friends in Hyde Park and articles in the Hyde Park Herald that as a consequence of the sale of the Chicago Theological Seminary campus to the University of Chicago, Graham Taylor Hall may be completely altered and its legacy obliterated. While we understand that the University of Chicago is now in the position of making decisions about the Seminary buildings, we feel that there are strong reasons for you to exert pressure to have Graham Taylor Hall given landmark status and to preserve it intact for both its historical and architectural significance.

In case you didn't get it the first time, compare the above with the letter to University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer printed in the Hyde Park Herald of August 4:

As grandchildren of Graham Taylor, we have been made aware through residents of Hyde Park and articles in the Hyde Park Herald of the University of Chicago’s purchase of the Chicago Theological Seminary campus and the proposed creation there of an expanded Milton Firedman [sic] Economic research Center...While we understand the university’s need for space and the desirability of moving with the times, it is extremely disturbing to us that the legacy of someone who was so closely associated with the founding ideals of the University of Chicago, as well as being instrumental in bringing the theological seminary national standing, should be in danger of being obliterated. We would have hoped that for both historical and architectural reasons the university would have considered this building for landmark status.

Printing one of the letters makes the point. Printing both, so prominently, is a bit of a joke. It implies that readers aren’t smart enough to read an argument once and comprehend it. It also says that nobody will recognize that the Herald is promoting its own views by seizing on someone else’s material. Were there no other letters that might have been printed, on this or other subjects? If indeed nobody thought it was worth the effort to write a letter, that’s indicative of the joke that the Herald has become.

Speaking of jokes, I did get a chuckle out of the spelling “Milton Firedman” in the August 4 letter.

Any more softballs? We’re in the batter’s box, ready to swing.

Herald's Chicken: Shoreland, Sutherland, Heartland, Who?

posted by chicago pop

Hyde Park Herald Headline Confuses the Shoreland Hotel with
Sutherland Apartments

This week's botched Herald headline makes us think that Dr. Seuss is running the news desk, or at least has his hand in everything the paper writes that has to do with the Shoreland Hotel: "Antheus buys Shoreland from Heartland."

Aside from being completely erroneous -- Antheus already owns the Shoreland -- this headline has the Seussian virtue of being a fun nursery rhyme, especially when you throw in the Sutherland Apartments, which the Herald habitually confuses with the Shoreland, as they did in their banner headline of September 9, 2009.

Dr. Seuss says: Shoreland, Sutherland, Heartland, Who? You said Shoreland, and Sutherland, Too!

Maybe a repeat of this gaffe twice in one year is why the Herald website is still running the July 7, 2010 issue?

Or perhaps everyone was just too giddy over the journalistic coup achieved with the wonderfully dramatic headline over Sam Cholke's banner article having to do with the preservation of the Chicago Theological Seminary in its pristine state, stained glass windows included:

Hyde Park Hyperbole, Volume 128, Issue 28

Tabloid journalism of the purest sort: behold the University as executioner, it's face hidden in the shadow of a cowl, ready to raise its skeleton arm in order to drop the axe of demolition across the neck of the old Chicago Theological Seminary building. Or, is it the CTS, which wanted to move its own stained glass windows from the old to the newer building? Would moving pieces of the building around be an execution, or just a desecration? Or, since the University's decision to buy it is the reason the building isn't going to be completely razed, perhaps the University is executing itself? Just who is the executioner, and what is being executed?

Certainly not an informative, fact-based headline.

Mr. Cholke, or whoever came up with this headline, was undoubtedly drunk with the poetic euphoria of a wildly inaccurate though colorful metaphor, enough so to botch the execution of the Sutherland headline on page 3.

The chicken at Herald's is deep fried and crispy this summer, for sure.

Herald's Chicken: Herald off to brilliant start in "Rumsy" Campaign

posted by chicago pop

Ahh, just like old times. Based on this headline, we're looking forward to another 7 months of campaign coverage:

Herald's Chicken: Seriously, the Herald is Funny

Posted by Richard Gill

The Herald can’t help itself. There’s this compulsion to preach. Witness the Herald's “editorial” for November 4. It’s a sermon/lecture on self-improvement, aimed (where else) at the University of Chicago. The Herald looks kind of funny, up there on its high horse.

There isn't room here to dissect the entire “editorial,” and it wouldn't be much fun after the first few hours. So, let’s just go to a few choice morsels.

The editorial makes note of “lots of folks bustling to and from institutional buildings [along the Midway],” and then asks, “Where will these people recreate?” The implication is, of course, that the “Community Garden” is the “where.” Well, almost none of “these people” have chosen the garden as a recreational option. People have countless recreational opportunities. We’d all be in one heck of a pickle if that garden counted substantially toward area opportunities for “fun.”

The Herald goes on to say, “The garden connects the university to the community…..” No it doesn't. The garden connects a relative handful of people to the garden, which just happens to be on university property.

Finally, the Herald accuses the university of “imperious, malevolent behavior.” I’ll agree the university has not always shown great judgment, but c'mon, Herald editors, even you don’t believe “imperious and malevolent.” If the U of C is guarded in its approach to “the community,” it is justified, given the purposeful work of certain neighbors to thwart U of C efforts that would benefit the community at large.

Unlike the “editorial,” I won’t go on and on. Suffice it to say the Herald is great comedy, especially when it gets so serious. I guess that makes the Herald a recreational opportunity in competition with the garden.

Herald's Chicken: How to Botch A Front Page Headline

posted by chicago pop

Ooops!

Botched print edition, Hyde Park Herald (September 9, 2009)

Corrected web edition, Hyde Park Herald (September 9, 2009)

Herald's Chicken: Local Paper Confronts its Irrelevance

posted by chicago pop

Herald to world: "We are a little piqued."

World to Herald: "Who cares?"

The Herald is feeling a little left out these days. The University of Chicago has finally begun demolition at Harper Court, something we've known would happen for months now. They didn't tell the Herald the exact date when it was going to happen. Now the Herald is calling people names. They've lost access, and bemoan the fact in their most recent editorial ("Searching for U. of C. cooperation", Wednesday, August 19, 2009).

So what's the problem? It appears to be the fact that there is a new "Office of Civic Engagement", headed, as we know, by Ms. Anne Marie Lipinski. The Herald feels that, despite its name, the Office is not Engaging. Or, to be more precise, it is not giving the Herald the information it wants. So here's my question: given the way the Herald writes its editorials, why should it? What or who does the Herald represent, exactly? The "community"? That seems doubtful. So why should anyone cooperate with them?

The destiny of Harper Court has been known for some time now. There has been extensive coverage of the acquisition of the land, the community and TIF meetings updating people on the state of play. At some point, the buildings at Harper Court, legally emptied of their tenants and now on the market for redevelopment, had to come down. This week some of them did.

What didn't happen was that the University's Office of Civic Engagement gave the Herald a date and time when the bulldozers would roll in, giving our local paper everything it needed to run another loopy editorial summoning all old Harper Court die-hards to come chain themselves to fences, lamp posts, and railings in order to block demolition.

Engagement means interaction. It doesn't mean rolling over.

"But the pique of the Herald staff is not the issue," we're told. "We will get over it."

That's a relief. Meanwhile, bring on the new Harper Court.

The Most Excellent and Truly Amazing Letter Ever Written to the Hyde Park Herald

posted by chicago pop

We reproduce, forthwith and herein, the above-said most awesome and amazing letter to the Herald ever written. The author is one Charles Stephen Thompson.

Note that you don't have to have a particular viewpoint on the issue at hand to recognize that this letter effectively demonstrates journalistic bias in the Herald's coverage of the issues. We'll also take this opportunity to note that this blog raised the issue, not of the 47th Street women's clinic, but of the nearby 47th Street pediatric clinic and overall UCMC administrative restructuring, A YEAR before the Herald decided to focus on the latest phase of this restructuring.

Because this letter is so excellent, it needs no further commentary, and we therefore pass on the the brief in full:

U of C Coverage Smacks of Bias (Hyde Park Herald, July 1, 2009)

To the Editor:

It amazes me that your newspaper can be so blatantly partisan. I have watched for weeks as the Herald has methodically torn the university apart for closing its women's clinic at 47th Street and for downsizing and outsourcing its emergent care operations to other, cheaper hospitals. In each instance, this was deemed front page news. Yet, when it was reported -- by the same reporter, mind you -- that the university was donating at least $5 million to Provident Hospital, an "underutilized hospital," to assist in facilities upgrades so that they could better serve some of the same patients that the university will be sending them, this was relegated to page 4.

Moreover, the Herald has routinely pointed out that other non-profit institutions are buckling under the weight of the economic decline ("Budget cuts threaten Hyde Park orgs," June 24; "McCormick seminary for sale," June 24), effectively giving those same institutions a pass as they cut back on service and support of the Hyde Park community. From what I have read, the university's endowment shrank by a similar amount; I fail to see why it is held to a different standard.

While I understand that the university is looked on suspiciously in whatever it does simply based on its past behavior, I think it is deplorable for a journalistic organization to so obviously disregard the facts in such a methodical and partisan fashion. If I wanted such biased reporting, I'd watch Fox News.

Charles Stephen Thompson

Herald's Chicken: Herald Slams University, Coddles Obstructionists

posted by chicago pop

Herald Reporter Interviews Local Poobah

Inspired by the ongoing financial crisis, I've decided that the best way to deal with NIMBY support for the November "dry" referendum is to package it into a satirical derivative, a collateralized nonsense obligation, which is divided into separate tranches, each with a different insanity rating.

These dubious activist instruments come with high rates of self-interest, and yield significant obstruction. They may also cause long-term, systemic damage to a neighborhood, requiring frequent bailouts from the University of Chicago and Antheus Capital to keep non-insane people from moving away.

Tranche #1 of this week's featured toxic asset is the Herald's failed attempt at journalistic statesmanship. ("U. of C. Must Make Neighborhood Gesture", Wednesday, September 24, 2008)

This asset represents an attempt by our local paper to be evenhanded in assessing the Doctors Hospital controversy. Unfortunately, the Herald winds up giving yet another lap dance to the local poobahs.

"Nobody benefits if the property at Doctors Hospital is rendered virtually unusable." "Nobody is winning in this war of disrespect." "Nobody wins on Garfield Boulevard if the university winds up in a quarrel."

A few sensible lines out of about 530 words, most of which are devoted to slamming the University the way you might blame everything on either the Palestinians or the Israelis, depending on which side you're on.

A more balanced equity requirement by our editorial originators would have called for at least 30% coverage of the more colorful neighbor objections, virtually all of which have been made with extremely high levels of rational leveraging. Some hardball questioning of Pat Dowell's rhetorical posturing to the isolationist elements of her 3rd Ward constituents would have been nice, too.

Which brings us to Tranche #2, the even riskier slice with still higher rates of self-interest: a letter from Hans Morsbach ("Vote Meant to Force Discussion on Hotel"), one column over from this week's Herald editorial.

Morsbach tells us why the scorched-earth policy of our tee totalling Fighting 39ers is exactly what the University deserves:

There have been vague statements by the alderman, the university and the developer but none suggested that reasonable neighborhood concerns will be taken seriously in the future.

Yet to date, in our search for reasonable objections, we have found only the following: 1) a fear of noisy bar mitzvahs; 2) the concern that a Marriott Hotel might "block air flow," if not divert the Jet Stream from North America and into the Atlantic Ocean; 3) that the Marriott was not designed by Helmut Jahn and should be; and 4) that loud hotel parties might make it difficult for people on Harper Avenue to enjoy the sound of passing freight trains in the evening.

As for street parking, here there's no argument to be found: it's a common good, we all pay for it, and you have no more right to it because it's in front of your house than I do. Same with congestion on Stony Island: it's a major arterial, it's meant for traffic, and right now it's empty most of the time.

Obstructed vistas from Vista Homes? Every building blocks someone else's view. They just got tired of complaining about it.

It's looking like this unstable package of "reasonable objections" is in need of a major write-down.

A stalemate usually involves two parties, the same way a bad loan usually involves a greedy bank and a dumb borrower. The Herald has a lot to say about the University, but isn't specific about its opponents.

If the Herald did more than bend over for the pleasure of the architects of this and previous Hyde Park debacles, it might actually help people think for themselves about development and neighborhood politics, instead of being told what to think as they flip to the coupon insert.

Herald Editorial Policy

A Herald Tribute in Words and Song

posted by Richard Gill

Does the Hyde Park Herald really want to destroy Hyde Park? One might think so, with the way the Herald has a record of shrieking in support for moribund, counterproductive institutions, as it did for the old Co-op.

More to the point, at present, is the Herald's pitiful and ill-spirited attempt to spread paranoia and to demonize the University of Chicago. I am talking about the Herald's treatment of the University's recent land purchases west of Washington Park.

Apparently unwilling to write balanced news on the subject, the Herald has resorted to publishing a biased, one-sided article, complete with screaming front-page headline, but calling it an "editorial." In this "editorial," the Herald does not directly state its position; the paper just writes the article in a one-sided manner. That way, the Herald can take sides in its news coverage, while hiding behind the false label of the editorial.

Take a look at what the Herald did on September 3, 2008. No editorial page was published in the regular edition. That was odd, I thought; the Hyde Park Herald, with no sophomoric opinion page? Then I looked at the Herald Extra, which like the Herald is published weekly on the same dates. Usually, the Extra is a throwaway ad paper. But not on September 3. On the front page is a green banner proclaiming "Herald Editorial." Below that, in three-quarter-inch-high headline type is "U. of C. ad campaign denies secrecy." That's a news headline, not an editorial headline. The article is written totally from the perspective of 3rd Ward Alderman Pat Dowell, who purports to dislike the University's purchase of property in the ward "without her knowledge" and "not respecting her authority." (Last I heard, property purchases don't require an alderman's prior knowledge or permission, but that's another topic).

There's no above-board Herald opinion in this September 3 piece; it's all Dowell's opinions and actions: Dowell released, Dowell's charge, Dowell's concern, Dowell expressed anger, Dowell said. If the Herald has a policy position on this issue, they haven't shown the courage to say what it is. It's a lot easier to simply spread fear and loathing.

Why didn't the Herald publish this sorry piece on the front page of the main paper? Maybe that would've been just too far off the sleaze chart. No, better to put it in a supplement like the Extra. Nobody cares about journalistic standards there.....uh right, Herald?

Herald, your September 3 so-called "editorial" was cowardly and sneaky. Herald, old buddy, you've been caught. Busted. You're not even good at yellow journalism.

Herald's Chicken: How to Write a Slanted Account of the DH Meeting

posted by Peter Rossi

The NIMBYs who oppose a hotel on the Doctor's Hospital site were hopping mad after the August 5th "community" meeting. There were a number of people who had the temerity to question the knee jerk "preservation" and "congestion" arguments trotted out by various Harper Ave regulars. Even the 5th ward alderman was showing signs of a backbone on this issue.

I can only imagine the panic in the air during the weekly "editorial" meetings with Herald staff. Aren't we going to be forced to reveal some of the truth about Doctor's Hospital? Not to worry, our trusty Herald reporters and editors will figure a way to downplay the bad news and distort the account of the meeting.

Once again, the Herald came thru with a doozy ("Drs. Hospital, take 2"). All of the tricks of the trade are present in this minor masterpiece of distortion:

1. reversing the order of importance of the events at the meeting

2. selective omission of important facts

3. paint the Harper boys as heroes and the White Lodging executive as evil and slippery

4. Misquote where possible

5. Don't actually do any reporting (such as interviewing people and questioning them on the logical and factual basis for their assertions).

6. Don't report rude behavior and rather insane or inane remarks from opponents.

For the facts, read Richard Gill's post below this one. DO NOT read the Herald story as it might be hazardous to your judgment!

The article starts out with a couple of paragraphs on how the community and Leslie Hairston shoed away evil White Lodging and they came crawling back in the person of Scott Travis.

I don't really know what happened to tip the Alderman but I suspect that what this is all about is that White Lodging didn't put in time in Alderman Hairston's throne room. This has nothing to do with community protests as it is clear that nothing really has changed in the year or so since the original community farce. The Herald claims that White Lodging "clashed" with community "denizens" (are these small animals found at the bottom of ponds?). This sounds like White Lodging running roughshod over residents. What happened is a few cranks shouted down reasonable discourse with nonsense about the "historic" value of this eyesore and concerns that they wouldn't be able to put those chairs out in Harper Ave to reserve their personal parking spaces.

The real news from the August 5th meeting is twofold: 1. Alderman Hairston sees the writing on the wall - it's White Lodging or nothing (where is the long line of folks willing to pony up $70 million?) and 2. there are large number of responsible people in the community who would love to see White Lodging build a hotel. A subplot is that preservation of DH is dead. Preservation advocates have consistently refused to explain why this mediocre relic of institutional architecture is worth saving. If this wasn't obvious before the meeting, it sure is now!

To get the real news from the Herald story you have to turn to the continuation on page 3 and wade thru several attempts to disguise this important fact. In paragraph 10 of 19, Ms. Hawley asserts that the "majority favored development." Of course, our NIMBYs claim they favor "development," you see, just not development as White Lodging proposes it. The fact is that a very substantial group of people (I think about 1/2 of the attendees once you subtract the outside labor organizers in the red t-shirts) want a modern hotel and would like to see DH torn down.

The "preservationists" have tried to spread the impression that "preservation" is possible and might even be cheaper by virtue of tax credits. The Herald fell for this tact, hook, line and sinker. In fact, the paper was so eager to advance this point of view that words were put into Landmarks Illinois president Jim Peter's mouth. The story incorrectly asserts that Peters claimed "federal tax credits ... would make a hotel conversion cost-effective." Mr. Peters did not say this. As he is well aware, this would be irresponsible to say as there are no cost estimates for "conversion" or "reuse" plans. Mr. Peters did bring up the tax credits but was careful not to make the leap of faith. As we all know, tax credits for building gold mountains don't mean that gold mountains are cost-effective.

The Herald also choose to omit one of the most persuasive speakers, a spokesman for the Museum of Science and Industry. She told the group that visitors to the museum are constantly asking about nearby hotel accommodations and that MSI staff have to refer them downtown. In addition, the museum offered its 1500 space underground parking garage as overflow for valet parking.

The selective omission continues as the Herald reports that residents of Vista Homes asked for environmental and traffic studies. This is correct but the Herald fails to report that there was a traffic study done by White Lodging that showed minimal impact and that an environmental study was done prior to the U of Chicago purchase.

Sometimes, the Herald just gets plain frustrated that people are not towing the NIMBY line and quotes are fabricated. One of the most ridiculous suggestions made by opponents of a hotel is that there should be a "masterplan" for development of Stony Island Avenue between 56th and 59th Streets. U of C Vice President Susan Campbell pointed out the absurdity of a "masterplan" for the west side (the east side is a park) of only three blocks and then patiently explained that the U doesn't own all of this property. Somehow all this was forgotten and Ms. Campbell is quoted as saying that a masterplan is "a good idea."

Just as the Herald saw fit to omit details of some of the most persuasive arguments for the hotel, the paper saw fit to omit the rude behavior and demagoguery of some of the opponents. The labor organizers attempted to disrupt the meeting by forcing a vote on whether the hotels would be a union shop. One particularly addled NIMBY cautioned that out of control Bar Mitzvahs might corrupt the Bret Harte kiddies. Longtime demagogue, Greg Lane, delivered a scripted speech about how we should demand "good" development not just "any" development. Mr. Lane was a little short on how he would raise $70 million for "good" development if we are not able to take the "dirty money" of White Lodging.

When NIMBYs don't like being confronted with the truth, they parody those who speak the truth. The preservationists were dealt a severe blow when it was pointed out to them by both Mr. Travis and Leon Finney that the DH is sort of a monument to racism. Built as a hospital for Illinois Central employees, the hospital had a policy of not admitting black patients. Of course, the Herald doesn't explain this fact as it might be verified by the reader. Instead, Mr. Travis is blamed -- "he tossed out another, previously unheard argument into the mix: the hospital has an ugly history of discrimination..." This way it is not clear whether or not assertion is true or just an invective from Mr. Travis.

The next paragraph detailing Leon Finney's support for the hotel and corroboration of the discrimination against blacks is cleverly written so that you have to dissect it carefully to see that Mr. Finney agreed with Mr. Travis. From "Finney" to "agreed" there are no less than 11 words. This remind me of Mark Twain's essay on how to read a German sentence -- go to the end and get the verb!

The NIMBYs didn't like Marcy Schlessinger's remarks about why the hotel is not reusable. We can't refute the fact that the SECC did study this, so let's paint her as biased by reminding folks that the SECC receives its funding from the U. Never mind that Ms. Schlessinger was there of her own volition and has no particular reason to be beholden to the U.

But the real problem with this article is that there is no actual reporting in it! A reporter should interview the various key players and do some homework. Ok, Mr. Preservationist why is this building historically significant? How much would your re-use proposal cost and why did White Lodging claim that it is not feasible? Ok, Mr. Travis, give me copies of your analysis of the re-use proposal and your traffic study. Ok, Ms. MSI give me an estimate of the number of rooms you could refer each year. Ok, Mr. Labor Organizer in the red t-shirt, what is your name and where do you live and are you being paid to attend this meeting? Give me documentation of the "shoddy labor practices" not rumors. Our own Chicago Pop did a little bit of reporting in just a few minutes and found out that there is no substantiation of these claims.

Is the Herald a newspaper or a NIMBY newsletter?

Herald's Chicken: Translating NIMBY Speak

posted by Peter Rossi

This week's edition of the Herald (7/30/08) contains a classic example of NIMBY-speak -  the letter entitled "Come Out to Doctor's Hospital Meeting."  This letter is difficult to decipher without a Rational-NIMBY dictionary.  For the benefit of our readers, I will attempt a translation.

The letter starts with a hollow appeal for readers to come to yet another public meeting on the fate of the Doctor's Hospital.  I say hollow as the author does not provide the meeting's location.  I'm told the address is posted inside the shuttered offices of the HP Historical Society, but this is just a rumor.  

Next comes an assertion that there are "important concerns ... expressed by the community."   While not an outright misrepresentation, the author hopes to convince the reader that the entire community agrees with what is little more than just his own opinion.  This tactic also absolves the author of any responsibility if the eventual (and likely) outcome is that the Doctor's Hospital remains abandoned.

Had enough?  Please read on. I haven't even got to the juicy parts!

What do you suppose is the first "concern?"  "Diminished" parking and "Congestion."  This is classic Hyde Park NIMBY dialect.  Doctor's Hospital is located on a virtually abandoned stretch of Stony Island Blvd.  The author is well aware of how preposterous the congestion attack is for anyone familiar with the DH site.  So instead of giving the exact location, he casts wider aspersions, referring to the "southeast corner" of our neighborhood.   "Congestion" is the HP NIMBY rallying cry.  It sounds so much less selfish than admitting that you want to keep the public parking space in front of your house for your own use.

Number 2 is also an out-dated classic.  The hotel proposed by the property's owner, The University of Chicago,  has "excessive height and bulk."   You would think the U wants to build a replica of the Merchandise Mart on the spot instead of a hotel.  Who is the arbiter of what constitutes "excessive?" -- why the author, of course.  

Number 3 is the claim that what is proposed is of "mediocre quality."  Not only do our local NIMBYs assert control of all development in our neighborhood but somehow view themselves as having a superior aesthetic sense.

The University unwittingly threw a bone to the NIMBYs by involving White Lodging in the project.  Generic "congestion" and "excessive height" statements can now be accompanied by claims of "questionable labor practices."  Our local NIMBYs,  who have done more than any other neighborhood group to harm and exclude people of modest income, now claim to be the friend of the working man.  

It is interesting that our "preservationist" author leaves concerns about "demolishing" the "historic" Doctor's Hospital to number 5.  "Historic" is NIMBY for "old."  

NIMBY-speak likes to invoke the worst images of change, so our author can't resist the D-word.  Fellow NIMBYS, they want to DEMOLISH the existing building.  Chicago is the most architecturally significant city in the world because its citizens understand that buildings can and should be torn down if needed.* 

If your back is against the wall and change might happen,  the garden variety NIMBY thinks -- "how can we delay progress indefinitely?  I've got it, let's study it!"  We need a comprehensive "development plan" for the three blocks on Stony Island from 56 to 59th, proclaims our scribe.

The next paragraph is a masterpiece of inconsistency.  "Whether one is for or against a new hotel, these issues need to be resolved."  Sounds very reasonable (but didn't he just say we needed to study it forever?).  As you read further, however,  the polemic takes over. The issue must be resolved "in favor of ... traditional character and ... future best interests."   This is very clear.  There is no tenable position in favor of the hotel proposal, as it can't possibly keep "traditional character" alive in HP.

Next we have a longish paragraph the gist of which is  -- hey, we NIMBYs designed a great plan for the site that keeps the DH building.  What's more, you folks who want the new hotel are just plain dumb -- don't you know that you can get a tax break for "preserving" the old building? This is a classic NIMBY tactic -- hope that the reader won't do his homework and will tell his friends -- those preservationist types have already figured it out and it will be cheaper!  

It is true that some of our NIMBY friends consulted an architecture firm but no one really knows what transpired.  Details are very hard to come by.  As for the tax credit argument, I believe that Representative Chicken Little has proposed a tax break for buildings constructed of solid gold.  Using our author's peculiar logic, this means that gold buildings would be cheaper than brick.

Instead of a real alternative, we have people who merely claim to have an alternative.  I would believe our local NIMBYs if they found someone willing to plunk down the $20 million+ that any proposal (with or without the D-word) will require.  The only real alternative they have proposed is to continue to have an abandoned building on prime HP  real estate.

The author loses restraint altogether in the last paragraph.  First, the author reminds the Alderman (Leslie Hairston) of her awesome powers to stop any significant development.  The sentence serves a dual purpose -  insult the Alderman (doesn't she know her powers?) and remind would-be NIMBYs that all they need to do is pressure the Alderman.

The last sentence is a threat directed squarely at the Alderman.  You better play ball and "exercise leadership" on "behalf of the community."  For exercise leadership, translate that to "do as I say."  For community, translate that to "me."  

Let's understand this letter for what it is.  There is no on-going development in our community (Solstice and Village Center are merely plans at this point).  The only construction of any significance takes place on the U of C campus.  This NIMBY author wants our neighborhood to stay that way -- a backwater.  We can't afford this unless we want our community to die.

*The Chicago Fire, firm bedrock and cheap land also played a role.

Herald's Chicken Classico: No News is News

(Originally posted by Peter Rossi on Thursday, August 9, 2007)

A common occurrence in the Hyde Park Herald is news stories that report no news. This week's Herald (August 8, 2007) contains a classic example. "Mixed Signals at Harper Court," reports that some Harper Court tenants are leaving and others are signing new leases. The events cited in the article (the closure of Dr. Wax Records and the addition of an office for a state senator) are not news -- they have been reported before in the Herald's pages. Instead of news, we are treated to a great deal of editorializing peppered with quotes from local Establishment types from the Hyde Park- Kenwood Community Conference.

These non-events represent a "reversal in policy" at Harper Court. The reporter provides no evidence to back up this claim. Tenants who can't afford the rent and leave as well as the signing of new tenants is standard operating procedure for any retail operation. Can you imagine the Sun-Times reporting with a straight face that there are ominous goings on at Watertower Place because Abercrombie and Fitch moved out and Gap moved in?

The reporter can't even decide which events are consistent with the conspiracy theory and which are not. For example, the departure of Toys et Cetera is cited as ominous evidence that "local businesses" are being forced out of Harper Court. As reported in the Herald and cited in this blog, Toys et Cetera moved to the Hyde Park Shopping Center and is doing very well. So the evidence is that U.S. Computech is moving in. U.S. Computech is a local business that has been on 53rd Street for many years. The reporter is hoping to confuse the reader into thinking that "U.S." Computech is a national chain store.

Even more absurd than the rehash of old events sprinkled with editorial comments are the quotes from HP-KCC head, George Rumsey, and secretary, Gary Ossewaard. Both lead the charge to retard development in our neighborhood. What gets under the skin of the HP-KCC is that they can't control the decisions made by Harper Court management. They believe they are entitled to interfere in private business transactions simply because they have appointed themselves as community spokesmen.

The only tidbit of "reporting" in this editorial is the "confirmation" by "sources" of the identity of new Harper Court tenants. For reasons that we can only speculate on, the reporter doesn't feel the need to cite these sources. Do they even exist?

The Herald seldom publishes editorials anymore. They don't need to. They masquerade as news stories. What is sad about this is that the Herald has at least 3 reporters who could actually report on issues of concern to our neighborhood. For example, the Tribune has no full time staff devoted to Hyde Park but routinely runs circles around the Herald. Today's Tribune reports on the huge success of the Blue cart program (August 9 edition). This is a story about Hyde Park. The Tribune recently featured stories about the "food desert" on the South Side and how Peapod is serving neighborhoods that don't have a grocery store (HP is one of those neighborhoods). This story could have been done by the Herald. The Herald could report in detail on how much longer the Co-op will keep afloat (this would require a lot of hard work but the Herald has the staff to do it).

It is time for the new editor of the Herald to step up the quality of this publication and insist that his reporters report the news.

Celebrating 1 Year of Roasting The Herald's Chicken

The Establishment Organ as it Should Be -- Fried and On a Tray

Here's how it all began: in July, 2008, chicago pop went to a "community meeting" about the University's plans for Doctors Hospital. A few days later, he read the Hyde Park Herald's version of events and thought to himself, "this is bullshit." Up went the post we present below, the very first to appear on Hyde Park Progress. Soon he was joined by Elizabeth Fama, Peter Rossi, and still others. The rest is history.

So join us as we re-run some of the classics from the first 6 months of Hyde Park Progress, from The Beginning up through the Death of the Co-Op. It was a Golden Age, a mythic epoch, an era of giant battles and glorious victories, when sacred cows were spooked, and light was shed on the group-think so often spread by our journalistic shamans.

Most of all, we ate a lot of chicken. They just keep sending it our way. And we're still hungry.

Herald's Chicken: Doctor's Hospital Update

(Originally posted by chicago pop on Wednesday, July 25, 2007)

The Hyde Park Herald (Wed. July 25, 2007), the Establishment's leading organ of the press, led off this week's edition with the headline "Residents reject Drs. Hospital Swap", meaning that there was a consensus against the U of C's plans to tear down the 1914 structure and replace it with a mid-market Marriott hotel. Now, headlines are a matter of journalistic art, and no one is holding the Herald up to, say Washington Post standards, but this is not quite accurate.

The Herald claims there were 250 people in attendance. The population of Hyde Park is, according to the South East Chicago Commission, 44,700 people. That means a minute fraction of the neighborhood's population (0.006%) bothered to show up. Although I got the gut sense a majority of people in the room didn't like the University's plan, I have no way of telling if all of them were opposed to it. Nothing in the Herald's article provides any sort of objective basis for determining if the project is popular or not in the neighborhood at large.

So, with just a back-of-the-envelope calculation, we can see how The Establishment is taking the voice of a small group of people and projecting it as the General Will. This happens with nearly every case of proposed development.

***

This is not to say that attendees failed to raise legitimate issues. Of all the complaints I heard, two were reasonable. The first was the fear of parking congestion, which is a fear among single-family homeowners throughout the universe. A truly righteous response to this complaint, as an urban-planner friend of mine put it, would be to tell people that they shouldn't be driving cars in a city anyway. Hans Morsbach laments the prospect of not being able to park his car "in front of his house," as if he didn't live in one of the densest cities in the United States, in which millions of people use mass transit every day, and more transit infrastructure is desperately needed. This problem should be shut down with proper design of a parking structure.

Aesthetics are a more substantial concern. Although the Herald did not mention this in its "Rejection" story, a number of the most compelling comments made acknowledged that sometimes you have to tear down an old building; but if and when you do, why not put up something even better? Even some preservationists at the meeting were willing to trade, if the new building were a contribution to architectural excellence. The Inland Steel building was cited as one example of a case in which no one regrets the loss of the building that was there before.

Truth be told, the Doctors' Hospital is nothing to look at. It is significant in an academic way, which is enough for the Hyde Park Antiquarian Society to insist that it remain unaltered, meaning vacant and deteriorating like a dozen other Hyde Park properties. Tear it down and build something better. We could use the restaurants, the cafes, and the foot traffic into the neighborhood.

Herald's Chicken: Herald Headline Contradicts Article; Sharonjoy Declares Self Empress of East Hyde Park Shrubbery, etc.

posted by chicago pop

Herald's Chicken: Making Obama Proud

After Elizabeth Fama deconstructed Crystal Fencke's article on Point preservation in the June 25 Hyde Park Herald, I've scanned the following two issues looking for any sign of editorial corrections. Most newspapers issue corrections every day. The Herald has plenty of time to accumulate them, and they would certainly help fill up space in the absence of news, but I haven't found any.

Based on Fama's critique of Fencke's "Learning the Latest about Promontory Point's Rescue", I counted 3 outright factual errors (such as: "The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency stopped the project"), and at least 3 uncorroborated assertions. Any real reporting would have dug into the controversy on the issue and attempted to present the different sides of the story.

Of course this requires work, and it's much easier to flip through the Rolodex, call the same three people that you always talk to, and crank out obviously slanted lines like "the community didn't accept this 'concreting over' of the sensitive historic site", which gives a journalistic foot massage to the assembled members of the Executive Committee of the Community Task Force for Promontory Point.

So I was not at all surprised when I read this week's Fencke piece, "Hyde Park farmers market in full swing", and noticed that the content of the article contradicted the headline.

"In full swing" suggests going at full capacity, a great success, can't be stopped, all pistons firing, look out we're going to run you over. Read on and you learn that "vendors have been wrapping up their weekly Thursday visits at about 12:30...rather than the 2PM time listed on the city of Chicago website."

And again: "Of the more than 20 such seasonal markets around the city, it seems that the market in Hyde Park is slow to catch on with the public this year."

Full swing. Got it.

On a more reassuring note, Sharonjoy A. Jackson, in a letter to the July 9 edition, declares herself Empress of East Hyde Park Shrubbery, and has recognized select Park District employees as her worthy vassals.

As with the Point Savers, in keeping with a certain law of local activism, bureaucratic elephantitis presents itself whenever the membership of a neighborhood group shrinks below the number of letters in the name of their organization, resulting in snappy titles such as "The Steering Committee Members of the Lakefront Task Force for Hyde Park."

A worthy tid-bit:

Yesterday, and today, many trees and bushes are being planted in, and around, the Promontory Annex, in response to the many trees felled by strong wind sheers [sic] and storms for the past two years or more.

So, in the spirit of Sharonjoy's New Imperial Syntax, I'll sign off by remarking that yesterday, but not today, I went to Summer Dance, which was at, and in, 63rd Street Beach House, where I danced around, and about, to the Willie Gomez con Cache Orchestra, and enjoyed myself both at the time, and in reflection.

Herald's Chicken: Point Savers Enforce Swimming Ban

posted by Peter Rossi

Chicago Police are beefing up efforts to harass swimmers off of Promontory Point as part of a team effort with the Save the Point Task Force on preservation.

"The historic revetment is a 'living museum' and should not be sullied by these brazen swimmers," huffed Point Saver Spokesman Leon Lame-Brain. 

"Since May 2001, the evil Park District has offered to sanction deep water swimming off of the Point. We saw this ploy for what it is: an attempt to make the Point a usable park. We have rejected these plans out of hand for some time now,"  continued Mr. Lame-Brain.

Other preservationists on the task force questioned the political orientation of the swimming community.  "Swimming is a sport of the upper class.  Some of the swimmers have disturbing foreign accents.  We have even heard that professors and students at the elitist University of Chicago like to swim off the Point.  We are the arbiters of acceptable activities at the Point,"  commented one task force member who wished to remain anonymous. 

"Bicycling is a pursuit more suitable for the people," commented another task force member, mounting a new titanium road bike.

Task force members have teamed up with police to report swimmers.  "Not since the 68 convention has the Chicago Police Force distinguished itself with such a level of community service,"  declared task force president Don Veal.

"We have successfully delayed sanctioned swimming at the Point for more than eight years and intend to keep this unlawful activity out of our park forever.  This will require eternal vigilance," observed Mr. Veal.

Other members of the task force were not as optimistic. "We are concerned that the users of the Point may come to their senses and push for acceptance of the Compromise Plan.  This diabolical plan would allow for swimming, fix the Point, and restore the Caldwell landscaping.  We plan on redoubling our efforts to misrepresent the facts and dupe our elected officials," whispered Ms. Constance White-Nimby, task force co-chair.

While there is no evidence that Point Savers are calling in the Chicago Police, it is a fact that this group has fought plans by the Park District to fix the Point and create a sanctioned deep-water swimming area since May of 2001.  Sanctioned deep-water swimming and water access has been in every plan proposed by the City since May 2001.

Herald's Chicken: HPHS to explode "dirty" bomb at DH

posted by Peter Rossi

The Herald has learned that members of the Hyde Park Hysterical Society plan to explode a "dirty" atomic bomb on the grounds of the abandoned Doctor's Hospital.

Society spokesman, J. Seek Limelight, explained, "We were successful in scaring the Alderman into yanking the rug out from under plans for a hotel.  But that was only temporary, the evil University might change Alderman Will O. Wisp's views."

"If the site is radioactive, no development could occur for ninety-three Years.  We want insure that this site remains abandoned for generations to come.  Historical buildings should not be sullied by human use." 

At a recent secret meeting, members voted to devote the society's entire treasury of $3.55 to the purchase of bomb-grade materials.  Several members searched the internet for a little known pamphlet, "The Argonne Guide to Nuclear Terrorism."  Experts in Farsi are being sought to decipher the guide,  if found.

A plan to blackmail authorities for landmark status was considered in view of the shortage of funds and expertise.  "That will be our fallback position.  For now, we plan on going ahead with the bombing.   We are considering hijacking a NATO bomber with a nuclear payload and landing it in Lake Michigan near the 63rd Street beach,"  noted Jay Blueberry, chair of the Society's Committee on Non-Violent Historical Preservation.

When pressed on the historical significance of Doctor's Hospital, Mr. Blueberry cited the age of the hospital and its unique character.   "Most of the old State Mental Hospital buildings are gone.  Doctor's Hospital is one of the last surviving examples of uninspired institutional architecture."  

After a snacking on numerous brownies, society members adjourned to Doc Films to view a double feature of Dr. Strangelove and Thunderball in order to pick up tips on the nuclear game.

Striking a bold pose, Society President Cuthbert Clueless winked and proclaimed "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when."

Hyde Park Herald Profiles Local Tomatoes

posted by chicago pop

"Mr. Stripey"

I love tomatoes. I can't stand having to go 8 to 9 months between growing seasons for fresh ones. I'm also a FREAK about heirlooms. I eat them like apples.

Which is why I was delighted to read the Herald's discussion of the tomato attraction at the 49th Annual Hyde Park Garden Fair.

It's such a charming piece of journalism, I'd like to share it with you:

Tomatoes were a major attraction. There were indeterminate types, for those with large back yards. Indeterminate tomatoes grow in vines and generally need staking or cages. The determinate, or compact pot-grown varieties, were available for apartment or condo dwellers.

Tomato varieties ranged from the basic Early Girl to another early variety, the Soldaki, which yields a meaty, 14-ounce fruit. Another usual suspect was the ever popular Roma, or plum tomato, with the bold flavor needed for sauces and canning.

Some unusual heirloom tomatoes were especially enticing in displayed photos, helping customers look forward toward summer. "Mr. Stripey," a low-acid fruit with a mild flavor is actually striped orange and red.

In other news, Charlotte Des Jardins made it clear in a letter to the editor that she still doesn't get that no one cares about Harper Court not being an artists' colony.

Which is funny, because there's a lot of art going on in Hyde Park, just not at Ms. Des Jardins' shelter for wayward dinosaurs: the Hyde Park Art Center, the Experimental Station, the Little Black Pearl, the Renaissance Society, and the Smart Gallery.

But Ms. Des Jardins wants an art colony right there, because that's what they meant to do 45 years ago, so it must have been a good idea, and it's still not too late to try to make it work.

Sort of the way they meant to dock blimps on the Empire State Building.

Anyone know how that worked out?

And finally, and most newsworthy of all, the name of Sharonjoy A. Jackson made no appearance whatsoever in a letter from newly-formed East Hyde Park Action Committee, which apparently is distinct from the Lake Front Task Force of Super Hero fame, and seems to be making a point of conducting itself in a rational manner that does not involve being persecuted by the Alderman. This is, of course, to be commended, even if the letter informs the readers of a meeting that took place one month ago.

That's another week of local news, folks. So, in the spirit of the low-acid Mr. Stripey, we'll leave you with a photo of the man who brings you low-acid news, every week.

"Mr. Stripey"

Herald's Chicken: NIMBYs Discover the Internet

posted by Peter Rossi

Chastened by the results of the 53rd Street Vision Workshop, local NIMBYs and members of the HP-KFC are planning their own web survey on the development of Harper Court.

"We were disturbed by the broad cross-section of Hyde Parkers who participated in the Vision Workshop. We saw families and people of color who are not normally at our meetings held at the Hyde Park NIMBY Club," explained A. Robin, a group spokesperson.

"We want to have our say on the future of Harper Court. Normally, we would try to pack 'community meetings' with people sympathetic to our cause, but our alderman is trying to dis-enfranchise us by using other means of obtaining community sentiment," complained Jack B. Nimby, chair of the HP-KFC committee on historical irrelevance.

"Two can play at this game. We are going to administer a survey on our own terms," continued Mr. Nimby.

"We plan on careful screening of respondents to insure that only properly 'qualified' people have a chance to participate," explained Geof Rum, conference president. Screening criteria are under development but will include a requirement that the respondent have voted for Leon Despres in 1955 . Respondents must also be members of either the HP-KFC or the Hyde Park Hysterical Society.

The survey questionnaire will be designed by Leading Question, a graduate student in the Committee for Anarchist Thought at Chicago University. The Herald obtained a draft of the survey and we present a sampling of questions below:

1. Don't you want to carry forward the original and noble purpose of Harper Court?


2. Wouldn't you prefer local merchants who give back to our neighborhood to large, impersonal chain stores who carryout cash?


3. Isn't it generally true that developers are only interested in lining their own pockets?


4. Are you against the high-handed way Alderman Preckwinkle has tried to block community input?


5. Don't you want to keep rich Northsiders out of Hyde Park?

Respondents will also be asked to rate the importance of various attributes such as "space for impromptu meetings" and "banning chain stores" on a scale from "I will chain myself to a tree" to "I will toss a Molotov cocktail."

The web address for the survey is a closely held secret. To allow only "right-minded" NIMBYs to respond, the web address will be published in the Herald and posted in the East View Park laundry room. In addition, if you give the password, "swordfish," at the secret meeting room at Cosimo's restaurant, you can complete the survey on the Hans Memorial Mac.

This post is based on "Harper Court Survey plans near completion" published in the February 13, 2008 edition of the Herald.

Herald's Chicken: Tree Removal Irks Rainey Ave Homeowners

posted by Peter Rossi

Residents of Rainey Avenue are up in arms over removal of trees on the Illinois Central-owned embankment visible from their backyards.

"Not In My BackYard, they don't" declared Robin Krank of 5720 S. Rainey Ave. Ms. Krank admitted that the work was not actually done in her backyard but that of her neighbor across the street, Doris White-Nimby.

Ms. Krank maintains that falling debris from the tree removal threatens the ramshackle frame houses on the block. "One small branch could easily knock over my house," she said, noting that strict adherence to Preservation Guidelines means that few on the block repair the exterior of their homes.

Other residents chimed in that the large trees removed by IC crews shielded their view of the tracks. "For the past forty years, I was unaware that trains used the embankment. Now passengers on the train can spy on me and report to the House Committee on Un-American Activities," a concerned resident was heard to say.

Block spokesman, Leon T. Lame, accused the IC of using "clear-cut" tactics. "We know the ways of these evil corporations. They would just as soon slash and burn-out our whole block. We will stand together on this."

Mr. Lame contends that many are afraid to identify themselves to the press for fear of IC reprisals. "IC conductors will toss pea gravel down on us if we dare to speak out."

Nervous Nimby, a block resident for more than 50 years, claims that the railroad hoodwinked homeowners. "They sent a letter stating that 'only minor trimming will be done'." When asked by a Herald reporter to produce the notice, Mr. Nimby pointed at an envelope on his fireplace mantel. Further investigation revealed that this envelope contained a past-due gas bill.

Others cited the tree removal as environmentally dangerous. "In these days of global warming, we should keep our green canopy of trees," screamed a resident, backing an Expedition out of her driveway.

Still others questioned the methods of IC crews. "Instead of using chainsaws, the IC should use a natural means of removing trees. A few beavers could be relocated from Jackson Park."

Longtime resident, Hans Christian Forester, lamented the tree removal. "These were great trees," he said, likening the trees to California coastal redwoods. "These fools are replacing our beautiful trees with an invasive species -- highway grass."

When informed that the trees removed were an invasive species known as the Tree of Heaven or Ailanthus, Mr. Forester barked at this reporter, "are you on the IC payroll now, you stooge?"

The Hyde Park-Kenwood Forestry Conference convened a fact-finding meeting on the IC tracks. Before the meeting was broken up by the 5:10 to Flossmoor, residents counted two pigeons, four crows, and two rabid squirrels made homeless by the needless clear-cut. The HP-KFC will consider proposals to raise funds to provide shelter for these displaced animals.

IC forester, Smokeless Da Bear, took exception to the complaints of residents. "These people are never satisfied. Let these cranks buy their own trees. I can't decide whether to use Agent Orange or napalm next year. "

When questioned about claims that highway grass is an invasive species, Mr. Bear stated "what are you talking about? This is grass that grows near highways. Apparently, Mr. Forester hasn't read much about invasive species, which are often found in highway corridors but are not called highway grass."

This post was inspired by "Metra riles Harper Ave with clearcutting move" in the 1/30/08 edition of the HPH.

Herald's Chicken: We Want Our Say Too!

posted by Peter Rossi

This week's Hyde Park Herald features an instant classic, "HP-K CC proposes new committees" (January 23, 2008). The Herald passes up all other actual events to feature the ruminations of members of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference in the most prominent news spot. The opening of HP Produce doesn't make it above the fold.

So what is in this gem? The reporter and headline writer try their best to conceal the content of the story from the reader with confusing terms, irrelevant pictures and rambling quotes. It took me a while to get the gist and it's a doozy.

A few folks got together on January 10th to grouse about why they are not being consulted on future "development" of Harper Court. The story claims that these "dozen" people represent the "Zoning and Development Committee" of the HP-K CC.

The HP-K CC website refers to a "Preservation-Development Zoning" task force (there is that word again) but doesn't cite a list of members or even the purpose of this "committee." There are long rambling posts by well-known NIMBYs on their "views" on development. However, I only devoted a short time to wading through the stream of consciousness that this website represents.

Let's get this straight. This is a standing committee that wants to weigh in on any issue involving preservation/development and zoning. We know that "zoning" is code for "alderman." As far as I can tell, this committee has no regular meeting schedule nor are minutes taken. Perhaps, the committee members do not feel it necessary to produce minutes as this is done for them by their faithful Herald scribe.

Harper Court is a particularly sore spot for NIMBYs. As we all know, Harper Court is a run-down set of badly designed retail spaces. The original mission of the Harper Court Foundation was to provide space for artisans. This mission is not being fulfilled (unless you think that vets or restaurant owners are "artisans"). The best thing to that could happen would be for the HCF to sell this valuable property to a developer and get out of the landlord business. With the proceeds of this sale, HCF could set up an endowment to aid local artists.

So what is the sore spot? The HP-K CC wants to be consulted on the future of Harper Court. Does this "committee" have any greater claim to input than any other random 12 people in Hyde Park? I think not.

The subtext of this article is that the HP-K CC feels threatened by real attempts to solicit community input. The recent "53rd Street Vision Workshop" was a meeting of more than 150 people who actually voted on issues near and dear to NIMBY hearts. In particular, those who attended the workshop voted overwhelmingly to endorse mid-rise and retail development.

I'm wrong, you say. The HP-K CC likes the 53rd street workshop. No, they "agreed that a community workshop similar to the" vision workshop is what they want. The article goes on to quote HP-K CC types questioning the representativeness of the workshop. In particular, the race card was played. In fact, the 53rd Street workshop was conspicuous for drawing younger people, families, and African Americans.

What our friends in the HP-K CC want is a recount. A chance to pack a meeting with NIMBYs much the same as at meetings regarding Doctor's Hospital and the Point.

To my mind, this reinforces the need to get out of the game of who can turn out more screaming people to a "community meeting." For a fraction of the cost of a "vision workshop," we could have a scientific poll which really would be representative. This, of course, limits the opportunities for some to appoint themselves as guardians of our community.