NIMBY's Corner: Morsbach Keeps Apologizing; Spicer Makes Up More Stuff

posted by chicago pop

If anyone wonders why the same names keep popping up again and again on this blog, there's a simple reason: the same few names keep out-gassing in the Herald like crabby spouses, or mucking around elsewhere leaving monkey wrenches conspicuously dangling about.

It's sort of like Blagojevich: we didn't ask for his behavior, but he just keeps doing crazy stuff and getting media attention for it.

So, to come back to our long-time HPP favorite, the Janus-faced Hans Morsbach, defender of the neighborhood and of high principles.

If ever there has been reason to quote Shakespeare on the blog, it is with reference to his latest letter on the Doctors Hospital vote -- in which he defends -- one more time -- his position. Note to Hans: me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Yes, it's been over a month, and Hans is still apologizing for the dumb decision he encouraged his neighbors to take and that most of the rest of the neighborhood is ticked off about. If it really had been the right thing to do, I don't think we would have had this blizzard of propaganda in the aftermath.

Taking the best interests of the neighborhood to heart, Morsbach issues this rejoinder to White Lodging's Bruce White:

I did not know of the extent of your philanthropic intentions and how they affect me. Do you
suggest that knowing that the University Medical Center receives a large donation will make a bigger impact on my life than looking every day at an ugly building, or give you license to tear down a landmark? ... Do you think that when your employees park on Harper Avenue that I think that is the cost of progress?

[Emphasis on personal pronouns added by the editor.]

So Hans is clearly not concerned about himself, and this comes through, as it also came through the referendum.

To satisfy the literary critics among us, I'll point out that it's unclear what "ugly building" Morsbach is referring to, as the Doctors Hospital is certainly no beauty, something which Morsbach himself confessed in an earlier letter in the summer of 2007. ("I have never paid much attention to the architectural merit of the hospital..." Herald LTE, July 18, 2007).

And of course, Doctors Hospital does not have landmark status, as Morsbach claims. But when you're out-gassing to the Herald, little details like that tend to escape out the blowhole.




On the note of factual inaccuracy, especially with regard to claims of things not falling apart and it just generally being OK that entropy and the second law of thermodynamics have become the governing principles of Hyde Park development, Mr. Jack Spicer makes the claim in today's Herald that the troubled Herald Building on 53rd and Harper is "a very solid building and in very good condition." ("HPHS seeks landmark status for 53rd and Harper," Kate Hawley, Herald, Wednesday December 10, 2008).

Now, the Herald Building that fronts 53rd has been vacant since spring of 2008, but even before that we have it from a variety of sources that it was falling apart.

For example, we learn from the October 11, 2006 Herald, that the company once interested in renovating the Harper Theater ran up against the problem of the building's advanced deterioration and the costs that fixing it would have entailed.

The building and its interior also need extensive repair and renovation," [the Herald told us, going on to quote the local art house theater chain Classic Cinemas (owner of the Tivoli in Downers Grove)], "Typically when you have an existing shell, a rough number [for renovation] is about $1 million per screen." ... In 2002, renovation cost estimates for the 1,200-seat theater building and its attachments were approximately $10 million.

Repairing the Harper Theater, in 2002, would have cost about 10x more than usual for a theater of its vintage. That seems like a decent index of the structure's dilapidation.

The article continues with a quote from Irene Sherr: "The theater now has deteriorated even further. They [Classic Cinemas] felt it was in terrible shape then and basically you had to rebuild the theater behind keeping the facade."

These statements from 2006 seem to corroborate the University's appraisal in this week's Herald, that "the building is in rough shape -- so bad it may not last another winter. In recent weeks, it has been surrounded with scaffolding, a measure to protect pedestrians from falling debris."

Makes sense. So what is Spicer's position on the scaffolding protecting pedestrians?

From the Herald, again: "He ... said the university doesn't have a permit for the sidewalk scaffolding."

Apart from this curious aversion to public safety measures, that's the second time Spicer is wrong, in one article. Kate Hawley actually checks this fact (bravo!), and tells us that a "valid permit is on file through February 15."

Perhaps the Hyde Park Historical Society, instead of scoffing at scaffolding, should ask its members to take time off work in order to hand out hard hats to all passers by?

(Fine Photograph of Herald Building on 53rd, with Large Brick Mass of Harper Theater Looming In Background, and Deteriorating Antiballistic Radar Platform Above. Credit: Shahzad Ahsan, Chicago Maroon)

NIMBY's Corner: Deconstructing Hans

posted by chicago pop

It is characteristic of Hyde Park that the campaigning around Doctors Hospital continues to take place after the vote itself has been decided.

Fifth Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston's letter to the Herald urging 39th Precinct residents to vote "no" appeared the day after the election. A week later, a letter from precinct resident Hans Morsbach appeared, making the case for why you should have voted "yes" 8 days before, or should have morally supported those who were able to do so.

The reason for this exercise in chronological acrobatics, however, is fairly obvious: an issue of major import to two wards, two neighborhoods, and an entire section of Chicago was left to the judgment of some 600 people, of which 254 actually decided the matter, voting by a margin of 20 to ban the sale of liquor at the Doctors Hospital site.

Hans Morsbach, therefore, needs to convince the rest of Hyde Park that this was the right thing to do. The odds, however, are pretty good that if put to a vote by anything other than the 39th Precinct of the 5th Ward, the dry referendum would have failed by a large majority.

One again, a vocal and well-organized minority have taken control.

But taking control was the easy part. Convincing everyone outside the 39th Precinct that they were right to do so might be a little bit harder.

Let's have a closer look at Hans Morsbach's apologia pro vita sua of Wednesday, November 12, 2008.

****

Morsbach: "The opponents of the referendum suggested that we are unreasonable neighbors standing in the way of a much-needed development, and putting a higher value on our own conveniences than on neighborhood interests."

Comment: Agreed.

Morsbach: "A hotel largely designed as an overflow for downtown facilities would not serve Hyde Park well."

Comment: From the beginning of this controversy Morsbach, as well as Allan Rechtschaffen, have assured us all that they were deeply studied in the market dynamics of the hospitality business on the South Side of Chicago and could therefore make recommendations as to the proper scale of any hotel on Stony Island.

The problem is, they've offered no evidence to back up their statements as to the proper scale of a profitable hotel, or what the market in this area could support.

As only the latest example, Morsbach claims without any evidence that Marriott intended this hotel to serve an "overflow" purpose. Yet even if this was indeed the intent, why would this "not serve Hyde Park well"? The presumption is that the economy of Hyde Park ought to be limited to a one square mile area, and that this isolated condition is economically desirable. We've been arguing against this idea from day one.

Morsbach: "A study has shown that there is no reason that the existing limestone-and-brick structure cannot be used."

Comment: Has anyone besides a few activists actually seen this study? Can they tell us how much the design of the preservationist alternative diverges from the parameters presented by White Lodging, and what features of the original Marriott would have been compromised (in terms of size, facilities, construction or operations costs)? Such a weighty pronouncement calls for some public facts, not just Hans Morsbach's say-so.

Morsbach: A hotel would "burden our infrastructure."

Comment: This is classic NIMBY-suburbanite whooey. How would the White Lodging Marriott burden what infrastructure?

Sewer mains? Power grids? Road surfaces? Cellular towers? The CTA? Metra station facilities? The traffic lights on Stony Island? They don't tell us, and it's not clear they have any idea.

City infrastructure in most places is underutilized, especially inner city infrastructure, and has been for generations. An entire school of thought has developed around this idea at Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy. A city like Chicago was built to deal with lots of people.

By arguing that major urban areas can't handle intensive use, Morsbach is rehearsing 70s-era anti-urban romanticism, one that runs counter to well-documented arguments that dense urban areas are in fact the most energy-efficient types of settlement pattern and should therefore be encouraged as a strategy of slowing climate change.

Cities are designed for more burden to infrastructure per unit area than any other type of settlement. There are fewer people living in the 5th ward now than there were 50 years ago,which means that there is less of a burden, if any, on existing infrastructure.

Morsbach: "There should be a place for visitors and students to park their cars without a lot of hassle. Providing adequate parking is imperative."

Comment: Parking is indeed something that needs to be planned carefully. But Hans hasn't always used such high-minded rhetoric; previously he has made it clear that he wants to be able to park his car in front of his house: "I like to park my car near my house on Harper." (Hyde Park Herald reported on August 1, 2007.)

Morsbach, like most of Hyde Park's old guard, is unreflexively automobile-oriented and density-phobic, without realizing that the latter is a partial cure for the former: as we have conveyed on this blog numerous times, urban density in fact diminishes car use. Beyond that, he gives no evidence for his inference that "parking" (in a private lot? a city lot? on the street? in a garage? in front of his house?) would become more difficult on Stony Island or anywhere else.

In fact, Rechtschaffen, who criticized White Lodging for not providing a parking study (which they did, though the University chose not to release it to the public), clearly had already made up his mind that parking and congestion would be "a disaster" without having viewed any analysis of the issue. (Hyde Park Herald, LTE, September 10, 2008)

****

In a recent article on Hyde Park in Crain's, it was mentioned that Morsbach has been in business in the neighborhood since 1962.

Back before 1962, Hyde Park was a fairly happening place, and strangely enough, it had a lot of hotels. Then things changed, it became not-so-happening, lost its old hotels, and in the aftermath of Urban Renewal and the attempt to make the inner city into a suburb, an entire generation of residents got used to it that way.

Unfortunately, what they got used to was an historical aberration.

Now that things are beginning to revert to the mean, they're fighting the norm with everything they've got. It may keep them busy in the short run, but in the long run, they're going against the tide.

Getting (Recht) Schaffted

posted by chicago pop

Dr. Rechtschaffen Conjures NIMBY Armies From His Tower

Rechtschafften; early 21st century American English (a) v. to destroy in disproportionate retaliation. (b) To conjure an army to serve the dark NIMBY Lord

To Rechtschafft something means to prevent it from happening using all sorts of arguments that don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, that sometimes contradict each other, and sometimes just get crazy, like when Hans Morsbach opposes a hotel in one neighborhood but makes money off a restaurant near a Marriott in another.

Or, you may oppose a hotel at Doctors Hospital for global ideological reasons that are not clearly related to the present issue: "[A]sset securitization resutl[ed] in the Doctors Hospital bankruptcy in August 2000." (Alma and Ray Kuby, Herald, October 22, 20o8).

Rechtschaffting a person is akin to whipping out a handgun in order to settle an argument on the basketball court. "Dude, don't Rechtschafft; we can work this out." To Rechtschafft is to consider employing tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, in full confidence that both the atmospheric and political fallout can be contained to a single precinct.

You may Rechschafft an object by bringing it to a standstill, by reveling in its inertia, and by feeling the surge of triumph when you preside over the ruination of adjacent structures that can no longer feasibly be developed.

Dr. Rechtscaffen Working Late on Neighborhood Project

As an adjective, Rechtschafftlich refers to a deliberately sought-out resemblance to post-Soviet chic, of the sort that for a few brief years in the 90s lent a sooty charm to Prague and Budapest, and -- at the extreme, East Berlin -- when cityscapes full of old stuff that doesn't work were a tonic for those disenchanted with the chrome-and-glass spectacle of Northside affluence and Wrigleyville. "My, Stony Island is so very Rechtschafftlich these days."

The substantive Rechtschafftlichkeit is the state of all-knowing obstructionism attained by those who frequently read and meditate upon Hans Morsbach's collected letters to the Herald. It is also the name of a microbrew lager beer that we intend to make lots of money selling everywhere EXCEPT the 39th Precinct of Chicago's 5th Ward, and Hans Morebucks' downstate beer hall across from a Marriott Convention Center.

Lastly, to Rechtschafft is to attempt to pull the wool over someone's eyes by appealing to their amour propre, self-interest, or simple nativist desire to Screw the Man. If someone tries to tell you that they are open to persuasion though various proposals and studies, but already has their mind made up, it is common to reply, "Man, you tried to Rechtschafft me!"

Look Into My Eyes, and Vote Dry!

Example: You already know that there's no possible market for a hotel at Doctors Hospital. "Many have questioned why we need a 380 room hotel. Surely it is more than we need for university and community purposes. The answer again was that this size favored profitability." (Allan Rechtschaffen, Herald, August 2007).

Or: You request parking studies, but claim to already know how a hotel will affect neighborhood parking: ""Parking will be a disaster"; "All available street parking will be taken before drivers pay for hotel parking or use distal sites." (Allan Rechtschaffen, Herald, September 10, 2008)

Hyde Parkers, don't get Rechtschaffted!

NIMBY's Corner: Rabid NIMBY Infects Bat on South Harper Avenue

posted by chicago pop

Bat Infected with Harper Avenue NIMBYism

Apparently, there's a bat problem on South Harper Avenue. According to this week's Herald headline, at least. But I think the Herald got it backwards, and is giving the bats down there a bad name. If anything is rabid, it's not the bats.

We've already covered our good neighbors' sensible fear of bar mitzvahs, and a general phobia of life being enjoyed by other people, as eloquently demonstrated by NIMBY's Corner repeat guest Allan Rechtschaffen: "There is concern about late-night noise from groups of alcohol-fueled merrymakers leaving hotel functions." (Hyde Park Herald LTE, September 10, 2008)

Now, we admit that parts of Harper Avenue, especially those closer to Vista Homes, are about as near to a graveyard as you can get, and aside from the seismic rumble of 2AM freight trains, are known as a place where local bats can slumber in peace while the Social Security checks fall like snow.

But let's not be ninnies: cities make a little noise, and if you can't deal, you should move to Wisconsin. In fact, I recommend that Alderman Hairston establish a TIF set-aside to purchase Wisconsin land for Hyde Parkers displaced by late-night bands of drunken historians.

Seriously, a few blocks south people worry about stray bullets. You're worried about drunken gastroenterologists?

But getting back to the "merry-makers": it should be noted, for the record, that when the tradition of Liberal Hyde Park activism settles upon a fear of public urination as its greatest principle, things have really bottomed out.

How is the Big 10 Frat Boy these folks are so scared of going to find his way all the way down Stony Island, then around and back up Harper Avenue, before deciding to urinate on the lawn of some multicolored Victorian home? Maybe the bar mitzvah revelers will lead him there?

Late-Night Merry-Maker Off to Harper Avenue

But there are still more serious questions, Mr. Rechtschaffen insists, and he already has the answers for them, and wonders why White Lodging hasn't done the studies to confirm what he already knows. "Parking will be a disaster" we're told. So forget the parking study. "All available street parking will be taken before drivers pay for hotel parking or use distal sites." You still want that study?

"Do we need such a large hotel?" the reader is asked. This expresses the concern that Mariott can't possibly be planning to make money by renting the rooms in its 17 stories. This would involve the "profit motive," and that doesn't function in Hyde Park outside the walls of the GSB.

With 2 million annual visitors to the MSI, thousands of professors, students, and staff associated with the University visiting every year, and no major hotels south of Roosevelt Road to service the south side of America's third largest city, there is no possible economic rationale for a 17 story hotel on Stony Island and 58th Street. Bats, look out!

I say scratch the hotel. What we need there is an executive, 24-hour helicopter pad.

Park it Next to Vista Homes, Please.

NIMBY's Corner: Learning to Count with Hans Morsbach

posted by chicago pop

An Instructor of the NIMBY-Gripes School of Numeracy

Occasionally I try to figure out some way to re-use my copy of the Herald. This happens after its utility as a newspaper has expired, which is usually something like 95 seconds. But I don't have a bird cage to line, and my dogs are house broken. So what do I do with it?

Then today, the answer flew straight at me like a NIMBY out of Harper Avenue. I can teach children to count! How? By using Medici owner Hans Morsbach's itemized lists of NIMBY gripes.

This week's letter from Mr. Morsbach, which quite incidentally deals with a railroad clearing brush off its right-of-way -- to the great surprise of neighbors who were suddenly reminded that they lived next to a railroad embankment [*] -- has 6 items, so it will be part of our beginner's module.

To get to the number 7, we can resurrect Hans' letter of August 1, 2007, which happened to contain a grab bag of 7 gripes about Drs Hospital.

At some point, of course, we'll have to get up to the very important number 10, and then beyond. I'm not sure if Hans has this many gripes left, but I won't write off the possibility. This is Hyde Park, after all, and people tend to have boxes of gripes stored up in their attics.

In the meantime, we may turn to the issue of Harper Court to get us up to and past 10: a Mr. William Knack offered up a 14-point plan for fixing Harper Court back in September 2007, but that will still only get us so far.

We need Hyde Park citizens to roll out their gripes and demands, count them up, and send them in to the Herald. The future of our children's numeracy depends on it.

*[For readers who may actually be interested in the NIMBY content of this letter, in which Hans Morsbach questions the validity of Metra's need to remove trees and brush from its embankment for safety reasons, the author helpfully sums things up in the following sentence: "I have no qualification to assess the danger of mechanical damage to a steel wheel by a wet leaf..."

Click here for the opinion of someone who is qualified to assess such a danger.]

NIMBY's Corner: Anonymous NIMBY Protests METRA Landscaping

posted by richard gill

Reacting to Metra's tree-cutting on the railroad right-of-way between 57th and 59th Streets (not in anyone's back yard), some Not-In-Our-Back-Yards residents of Harper Avenue whose back yards face the tracks, became angry because the railroad was clearing trees that were Not In The Residents' Back Yards.

As reported in the Jan. 30, 2008 Hyde Park Herald, one Harper Avenue resident anonymously said, "Looking at this makes me want to scream, cry, get sick or something." Well, Anonymous Person, have you ever seen a train wreck, with dead and injured people? There's something that will really make you scream, cry, get sick or something. The objective of tree and brush clearance is to prevent this.

Metra's Joseph E. Riley told the Herald that the trees, which were on Metra property, posed a potential hazard to trains and the thousands of commuters who ride them. Trees too close to the tracks can foul the contact arms and overhead wires that provide power for the trains, obstruct the engineers' view of track and signals, break windows, and get caught in the trains' running gear. Root systems can distort the track alignment. Autumn leaves under the wheels can cause trains to literally slide past station platforms.

Heavy weeds and brush also pose hazards; good railroads--and I count Metra among them--spend great amounts of money to control vegetation. (The alert commuter will note signs along the tracks instructing maintenance crews not to use weed spray too close to homes, uh, back yards.)

So, once again, some residents of Hyde Park have exhibited their total inability, or refusal, to see beyond their own eyeballs. "What's that," they seem to say, "You mean our personal sensibilities should take a back seat to public safety?"

This sorry episode is not the first of its kind. Recall a few years back, when Hyde Parkers helped to delay the construction of a median barrier on Lake Shore Drive, south of 57th Street. A number of head-on crossover collisions prompted the City to propose the barrier. People went ballistic, because it meant widening the roadway a couple of feet. The project was delayed. It got done after people kept dying on Lake Shore Drive.

And don't forget all the objections to the Lake Shore Drive curb cut at 53rd Street, that allows turning cars to decelerate for the exit without having to merge back into a high-speed lane. It's a good thing that finally got built, too.

Getting back to the tree thing, I want to thank Sue Purrington of Alderman Hairston's office, and Joseph E. Riley of Metra for their sensible and helpful response in the Herald article. Two suggestions they made were that Harper residents consider planting trees on their own property, and get together and talk things out instead of wailing that the sky is falling. Anonymous Person et al, you might take heed. But if you feel you must scream, cry, get sick or something, try not to do it in someone else's back yard.

NIMBY's Corner #6: Jack & Jill Sign a Crazy Petition

NIMBY-ism, let us recall, is defined by individuals taking the arbitrary measure of their immediate surroundings as the norm and rule for the rest of us. They usually then sign a petition about it.

What makes NIMBY-watching interesting, aside from it's year-round nature, are the ways in which its advocates present their arguments as common-sensical, when they are usually without much empirical justification.

A case in point is the petition printed in this week's Herald (September 19, 2007), truly a classic of its genre, and intending to convince Alderman Toni Preckwinkle that four strictures should be obeyed in the development of the McMobil site on 53rd Street. The petition is brought to us by a returning guest, Ms. Jill White, who formerly appeared in "Keeping Vacant Lots Vacant," and is now backed up by roaming NIMBY-at-large, Jack Spicer.

In this case, the petitioners are intent to 1) increase congestion by allowing more cars on the block rather than fewer; 2) make the development of new housing less affordable; and 3) bring in fewer new homeowners to pay property taxes to support local schools and shop at local businesses.

Two of the suggested strictures, surprisingly, are reasonable. The remaining two, unfortunately, are ridiculous. Let's take a look at them.

Stricture #1:

The 50 foot maximum height allowance under current law will prevent the excessive blocking of sunlight from nearby homes, keep the increase in population density to a manageable level, and will allow the project to blend well with the existing buildings on either side of the lot. It will also help to keep traffic light, particularly at the risky crosswalk at Kenwood Avenue, and in the alley that connects Kenwood and Kimbark (already frequently blocked by delivery vehicles).

Editorial Comment: All of the stated reasons why the proposed building should be kept to 4 stories/50 feet are arbitrary. The "manageable level" of population density referred to is not specified. Presumably it means not so many as to bug the neighbors who live there now. We've laid out a lot of reasons on this blog why Hyde Park can and should support more household density. This petition makes no reasoned case to the contrary and should not be taken seriously unless it does.

As for the idea of "blending well with the...buildings on either side of the lot," this is laudable in general, but is here being advocated in a partisan sense. Hyde Park is full of 8, 10, 12 story buildings beside 4 stories buildings. Something similar at this site would therefore be quite in keeping with architectural precedents in the neighborhood. Here's a home-made map of where these taller buildings are located in relation to the McMobil site:

Location of Buildings 5 Stories or Higher
in Relation to McMobil Site ("X")

Unless one does some arbitrary height-based jerrymandering, any definition of the "character of the neighborhood" based on a 50 ft. height limit does not unambiguously apply to the McMobil site. It is not justified by the current pattern of land-use in the area.

Stricture #2:

Insisting on at least 1.5 parking spots per residential unit. This will ensure that available street parking -- already strained to the maximum -- will not be further taxed, and that automobile traffic will not increase to a point that it puts the safety of school children crossing the street into Nichols Park at risk.

Editorial Comment: It's rather curious the way school children always pop up in these petitions, threatened by lack of sunlight, cruel and oppressive walls, racing cars, or any number of other NIMBY demons. We would point out, purely as an aside, that congestion tends to slow things down, most likely making it safer for children, and that cars drive faster in lower density areas. But that is beside the point. The insanity here is the idea that parking ratios should be increased to 1.5 spots per unit from the current requirement of 1:1.

In the Code rewrite of 2004, every progressive urban planning organization in the Chicago region pressed very hard to keep this ratio at a maximum of 1 to 1, based on extensive research showing that lower ratios reduce congestion and discourage auto use. Lots of progressive urban planners would have liked to have seen an even lower ratio than that. In fact, the City average is already less than 1:1, as we pointed out in a previous post. So what makes the petitioners think it should be different here, in a dense urban neighborhood served by transit where lots of folks don't even own cars? What NIMBYs don't realize is that these higher ratios guarantee more cars, not less.

The crowning irony of these strictures is that they are very likely to discourage anything from getting built at this site. This shouldn't be surprising, as obstructionism by now is a time-honored local specialty of Hyde Park NIMBYs.

By upping the parking, and downscaling the building, the petitioners have simultaneously increased the developer's costs, and lowered the developer's revenues. Not only this, these strictures discourage what little prospect there already is for moderately affordable new housing, because whatever gets built will be more expensive than it would were the building taller. The developer thus has every reason to build on as much of the lot as is allowed, leaving less room for a back-yard and green space.

So there you have it. As stated above, our petitioners ask us to demand a development that would 1) increase congestion by allowing more cars on the block; 2) drive up the unit selling prices; and 3) bring fewer new shoppers into our neighborhood to support local business and fewer homeowners to pay property taxes to support local schools.

Way to go, Jack and Jill.

NIMBY's Corner #5

This week, once again, we have a solid vintage of NIMBYism -- not perhaps the finest harvest of recent weeks, from lesser terroirs and uncommon varietals, but recognizable nonetheless as belonging to the Hyde Park appelation.

What's distinctive about this week's pressing is a certain bouquet of incoherence, with peppery notes that finish with an aftertaste of contradiction. Such unpredictabilities, tho', are part of the joy of NIMBYism. Heretofore, we haven't devoted much time to a noisy little row among the neighbors of Bar Louie, one that has catapulted Sharonjoy A. Jackson to neighborhood fame and has taken up fully half of this week's Op-Ed page. Her arrival as an Establishment figure was this week Heralded when she was interviewed as a "source" in the conflict over Boisterousness and Parking near the controversial restaurant.

It will be remembered that Ms. Jackson, one of the first guests to NIMBYs corner, is East Hyde Park's promoter of Bucolic lakeside living, full of Tranquility not known in the commercial districts to the north. This week, her plaint is directed mostly to other people not taking her seriously, and though not therefore really related to NIMBYism, she does finish this week's letter with the following:

The only other chain that has entered the Hyde Park community is Borders, which, as predicted, is not doing well. Let us keep and nurture the small businesses, which are assets to our community, rather than those large, commercial entities that add nothing positive to our community -- and which show little, if any, interest in our community, our needs, and our uniqueness. And, yes, this is a community.

Editorial Fact Check: Quite a number of chains are alive and doing well in Hyde Park. I shop at most of them. A few of them are: Starbucks (3 locations that I know of); Potbelly Sandwich Works; Edwardo's Pizza; Jimmy John's; FedEx-Kinkos; Pepe's; Ace Hardware; Office Depot; Harold's Chicken; Leona's; McDonald's; Dunkin' Donuts; Baskin Robbins; Wok-N-Roll; The Great Frame Up; CVS; Walgreens; Boston Market; UPS Store; Radio Shack; Binny's; Domino's Pizza; Edible Arrangements, and Hollywood Video. I've probably missed a few. Borders wants to move out of two other custom-built stores (at Broadway and Lawrence in Uptown, and Clyborn and North in Lincoln Park), so the Hyde Park situation is not unusual, and most likely is related to the same trend to internet commerce that has doomed Dr. Wax.

Upshot: much of Hyde Park commerce ALREADY consists of chain stores, and no one is complaining. We need a lot of what they offer because we can't get it anywhere else. Painting Bar Louie with the brush of failed chain stores in Hyde Park therefore doesn't convince.

A much more curious piece of NIMBAGE is authored by one William F. Zieske, who actually introduces the term NIMBY into his letter. We only hope he's been reading NIMBY's Corner! But we can't quite figure out what he thinks: is he a NIMBY, or not? At first glance, he seems to be with us in denouncing NIMBYism everywhere:

Hyde Park-Kenwood is an affluent neighborhood, and is blessed with more parkland than ANY other neighborhood in the entire city. Look at a city map -- we are surrounded by vast green spaces and the blue of our beautiful lake. We have the right resources, transportation facilities, a location just minutes from the Loop, and already have the community vitality and prominence to make Hyde Park an attractive destination for Olympic athletes and fans world-wide.

Are we the ones who should be making [a] NIMBY argument, selfishly refusing to share a small fraction of our pristine parks, and hoving the burdens of hte Olympics on other neighborhoods?

Editorial Comment: All well and good so far, and full of good common sense. But here comes the CAVE to Establishment Orthodoxy.

We in Hyde Park-Kenwood should gladly give up some of our over-abundance of green grass for venues that would attract the world to visit Chicago in 2016, and to spend money here that can help build the much-needed parks, hospitals, and community centers -- not a stadium --in the communities that need them.

Mr. Zieske is therefore on board for doing everything we need to in order to host the Olympics, with the exception of being able to host the Olympics. So use the parkland, bring the people and the cash, but don't build a stadium. Just pass out folding chairs and pretend it's Ravinia. Alas, this letter came a hair's breadth from our Hyde Park Heroes column; instead, it landed in NIMBY's Corner for failing to perceive the anti-stadium argument as textbook NIMBYism.

Lastly is another itemization of complaints against the proposed Marriott, this one slightly different from that of Hans More-bucks and notably lacking the delightful category of "façadism". Mr. Allan Rechtschaffen notes with almost Victorian disapprobation that the Marriott plan is driven by "the profit motive." This variety of NIMBYism has distinct top-notes of know-it-all-ness given structure by solid anti-capitalism.

Many have questioned why we need a 380 room hotel. Surely it is more than we need for university and community purposes. The answer again was that this size favored profitability.

Editorial Comment: Surely it is more than we need? What neighborhood coffee-clatch did the market study to back this one up?

It is ultimately a matter of taste, but most people I have spoken to think the design is not what we want at the gateway of the university community...My understanding is that it is not Marriott's top-of-the-line model. Costs and profits again!

Editorial Comment: We've already highlighted the high aesthetic bar set by the proposed hotel's neighbor, the Vista Homes. But here it is inferred that what is called for is Marriott top-of-the-line hotel (fully unionized of course). But could low-paid academics and frugal Hyde Parkers really afford Marriott's top-of-the-line model? We need a hotel for conventions, conferences, and private events, but it's unlikely that anyone's tab is going to be underwritten by J. Walter Thompson, Citadel Group, or Aon Corporation. A little more familiarity with "the profit motive" and how it works might help the writer understand what it takes for an academic neighborhood to get a 5-Star, "top-of-the-line" hotel in its backyard.

NIMBY's Corner: Hans "All You Can Squeeze" More-bucks

We told you he'd be back, and he is: a warm round of applause for our first two-time winner of NIMBY-of-the-week, Hans More-bucks. We looked hard for a new face this week, but either the Herald is trying to lower its profile with fluffy "no news is news" stories, or is opening its editorial page to all the reasonable folks who were bumped when they printed More-buck' s massive Encyclical last week. If this keeps up, we may have to give him our Fidel Castro Award for indulging in unreasonably long letters and speeches.

In honor of our guest, we're posting a short letter sent to the Herald on Wednesday, August 1, the very afternoon of the 31st edition. As it was not printed this week, for some odd reason, we share it with our readers here:

Mr. Hans Morsbach's recent, all-too-brief letter of 1,232 words (Hyde Park Herald, August 1, 2007) made many points of principle regarding the proposed redevelopment of the vacant Dr.'s Hospital building.

Not mentioned is the fact that opposition to the hotel, which will include two restaurants for Hyde Parkers to take their families out on Friday and Saturday nights, is being led by the owner of a restaurant where Hyde Parkers take their families out on Friday and Saturday nights.

This might explain the writer's suggestion that the hotel and restaurants be located at 61st and Cottage Grove.

In some places, competition gives neighborhood folks more choice. This sounds more like a plan for "all you can squeeze."

chicago pop

NIMBY's Corner: Burger-Meister Morsbach

The Selection Committee here at NIMBY's Corner usually has a tough time choosing one from among the pool of qualified applicants to be highlighted with us. This week, there was no contest. Restaurant Mogul and Status Quo SuperHero Hans More-bucks, welcome! We expect this to be only the first of many repeat visits!

Mr. More-bucks is proprietor of a 57th Street restaurant popular with students and known as a good place for Hyde Parkers to take their families. He leads the opposition to a proposed development that would include two restaurants that might be popular with students and a good place for Hyde Parkers to take their families. As he puts it in his Letter to the Editor (The Hyde Park Herald, August 1, 2007), he is among "many...local citizens who have a stake to maintain the amenities in our community."

Editorial Comment: "Maintain amenities?" WHAT amenities? The amenity of a near-monopoly on the 57th St. restaurant business? Ah hah! NIMBY logic!

We had not considered the possibility that for a restauranteur, preserving share in a captive market might be considered "an amenity." But we see his point of view. Two more restaurants would be two too many for the King of 57th Street. This might explain why Mr. More-bucks proposes relocating the Restaurants and Hotel to areas far outside the Golden Rectangle, such as the present location of the ramshackle Ramada at 49th and South Lakeshore, or the charming corner-of-death at 61st and Cottage Grove, both far, far away from 57th Street.

Cottage Grove and 61st St./Corner of Death

Editorial Comment: As we live quite near to the first of his proposed quarantine locations, we would like to thank him for thinking of us, and the possibility that we in the drab northern reaches of Hyde Park-Kenwood might benefit from a location that, as he puts it, "would diffuse the affluence and charm of Hyde Park and create less controversy."

Moving beyond this colonial project to bring uplift to the natives beyond the pale of the Golden Rectangle, Mr. More-bucks' NIMBY-ism is made still more clear in his attitude to parking. We'll quote directly:

I like to park my car near my house on Harper and I do not much care how much more money will be required to provide adequate parking on the site.

Well, now that I think about it, I'd like to park MY car near YOUR house on Harper, too, and seeing as how we both pay the same ridiculously low flat-rate wheel-tax for unlimited use of City Streets as private parking garages, I feel that I have as much right to park a few of my jalopies in front of your house as you do, which I may start doing. Instead of freeloading on the City, perhaps some of those pizza-profits could go towards a bigger garage. Or maybe try walking to work.

So, as expressions of classical NIMBY-ism, we'll add entitlement to subsidized, free, and plentiful parking to entitlement to a big slice of market-share in the pizza-burger business. Entitlement is the key word here and, if I may indulge in a wee smidgen of Marxist sloganeering, is so terribly petit bourgeois.

But that's why we're here, at NIMBY's Corner! To pull the cover off of barbecue bolshevism, and expose it for what it is -- the voice of a few cranky activists who undemocratically impose a minority voice on a much larger community.

This Week's Guest in NIMBY's Corner

Sometimes things just fall in your lap, like this classic specimen of NIMBY logic from a Herald letter writer (Diane Durante, July 25, 2007). I'm pinning this one up on my wall like a butterfly in a collection. Let's review a key selection closely:

Today I ran an errand on the North Side between 1pm and 2pm and it was ugly: except for five minutes picking up an item, I spent the entire time negotiating heavy traffic.

Editorial Comment: Perhaps if that store had been located in or near Hyde Park, you wouldn't have had to spend all that time in traffic. But wait ... it turns out the writer LIKES it this way!

I returned to Hyde Park as I always do -- happy and relieved to be in a more sane environment.

Editorial Comment: Let's think about this. All the shopping is in one place. All the people live in another. They all have to drive 20 miles to buy stuff. So it's congested in one place, and quiet in another. Does that sound like a "sane" arrangement to you? The subtext is that the writer thinks we shouldn't be able to shop in our own neighborhood!

Well, it certainly isn't sane in terms of providing people with the opportunity to WALK to their shops, reducing CO2 emissions, national dependence on foreign oil, and other nice Liberal causes that Hyde Parkers are supposed to support. And it means that it's really tough for folks who don't have a car, or can't afford to burn gas like paper in order to do the weekly expedition to the North Side.

This is, as advertised, classic NIMBY logic. The writer is taking her own personal pleasure as the Greater Good, when the "peace and quiet" she refers to is actually part of a larger problem.

Let us not take for granted the relative peace of our community. We must represent our interests to developers and their associates who want to exploit us for profit.

Conclusion: The writer of this letter could use the addresses of a few monasteries where she might find people who are willing to debate whether commerce and usury are sins against God's laws of nature. Meanwhile, I'd like some exploitation for profit, especially the kind that involves good groceries and a movie theater. All those who want to grow their own food, raise goats in their yard, and make their clothes from hemp are free to do so.

The folks who want to keep developers and improved retail out forget that they are following in the footsteps of the folks who booted the retail out in the first place, and with it the Poor Black Folk that used to live here. It's sure been a lot quieter since, hasn't it?

NIMBY's Corner

Our newest feature here at the 3-day old Hyde Park Progress Blog (HPPB) is "NIMBY's Corner." No, NIMBY is not the latest Saturday morning cross of a Jim Henson Muppet knock-off and an uber-cute Japanese animation character. NIMBY is an acronym that stands for "Not In My Backyard." NIMBYs generally espouse NIMBY-ism. In Hyde Park, NIMBYs are perhaps the broadest demographic group, transcending racial, class, religious, and occupational lines.

Each week, we will highlight a classic NIMBY issue, and examine how NIMBYs advance their own self-interest as higher principles, and personal conveniences as the Greater Good. As a population, this group is highly susceptible to DMMCS, a common suburban homeowner pathology known as Don't Move My Cheese Syndrome.

Common signs of NIMBY DMMCS are breaking into hives on hearing the word "density", erotic hallucinations at mention of the word "parking", and allergic reaction to public transportation and the possibility that people from OUTSIDE the neighborhood might want to come INSIDE the neighborhood. The most common sign, however, is the use of ad hoc and contradictory arguments against proposed high-rise or commercial development in the neighborhood.