The Parking Meter Deal: Right Idea, Wrong Reasons

posted by chicago pop

Parking is the gender-bender of urban policy issues. It has the capacity to make free-market Republicans slam their fist on the table in defense of subsidized parking anywhere and anytime, while making social democratic types of a green coloration passionate at the prospect of allowing market-clearing prices for curb parking.

But, like Chicago's notorious Blue Bag recylcing program, the higher rates for curb parking that will accompany the privatization of the city's 36,000 street meters give only the appearance of taking the lead of the civilized world, while in fact doing nothing of the sort, and disappointing both of the above constituencies in the process.

To take a few examples: London has implemented congestion pricing of roadways by zone; Paris has reduced the total number of parking spaces in the city, and has actually increased sidewalk space and built separated bike lanes by removing lanes from major boulevards.

New York City recently debated congestion pricing on the London model. The RAND Corporation has determined that the only realistic policies for congestion reduction in Los Angeles are road pricing and higher parking fees. San Francisco is pioneering a high-tech pilot program that will let parking meters charge a true market rate, based on hourly variations in demand (from $0.25 to $6) at individual meters in a given neighborhood.

If a parking system actually did that -- let the true market cost of public curbside parking vary with demand -- then, as parking researcher and guru Donald Shoup argues, you would considerably reduce congestion, as well as the frustration of circling for a parking spot at ungodly hours in ungodly conditions. You could then channel the revenue, through neighborhood parking benefit districts, to projects in the district area, or to related public goods such as a modernized transportation system in Chicago.

The latter prospect, however, is entirely lost in the Morgan Stanley privatization deal. What could be a long-term revenue generator for a city in budgetary crisis and with an enormous backlog of deferred public transportation maintenance has been traded for a one-time fix in operating revenue.

And it leaves one of the most powerful of transportation planning tools -- parking policy -- in the hands of a privately held company that specializes in parking garages. Is anyone at LAZ Parking, in which Morgan Stanley has an equity stake, thinking about Shoup's parking benefit districts? Will they be monitoring San Francisco's experiment with a spot market in street parking?

It's not clear, but there could be some positives. The fact that Chicago's meters will be owned in part by Morgan Stanley, the former investment bank that has since become a "financial services company", leads one to speculate that LAZ Parking may, at some point in the future, be taken public.

There would be every reason, prior to any IPO, for fully modernizing Chicago's street metering. This could go far beyond the contracted promise of non-cash metering by 2011, to include the San Francisco model of a block-by-block spot market in parking.

For Chicago, the benefits would be real but unintended, and the cash benefits more diffuse. Congestion currently costs Chicago commuters approximately $3,000/year, so any congestion reduction resulting from the reform would have the effect of a tax repeal. But the direct revenue benefits from the higher rates themselves would be foregone.

In the City's press release, not a single word mentions transportation, public transit, or any of the innovations in parking charges that are being tested in other areas to deal with these problems.

With long-term higher gas prices likely, and flat property values in suburban regions, people will still need to come and to stay in Chicago. Devising a system of metered parking that adequately prices that demand would be a great boon to the city, in terms of revenue; in terms of freeing up the supply of parking; and in terms of mitigating congestion and the CO2 emissions given off by cars circling for a parking spot.

If the new deal for parking should make anything clear, it is that street parking is not free. It has been massively subsidized for over half a century (Shoup estimates that in 2002 "the subsidy for off-street parking alone was between $127 billion and $374 billion") such that several generations of Americans have grown to maturity believing that street parking is like air or water -- free and plentiful. But, as our economist friends will tell you, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

And in an age of climate change, unstable oil prices and the foreign wars they generate, the unintended consequences of cheap parking are becoming less and less palatable.

There is thus some solace to be taken in the fact that, despite the bad deal that Chicago signed with Morgan Stanley, cheap parking is obviously going the way of cheap oil and cheap credit -- and largely for the better.

But as always, the devil is in the details. Raising parking meter rates is much easier than raising property taxes. If the City had the will to do this itself, instead of outsourcing the dirty work to a "bank holding company", it might have kept the revenues and used them to make Chicago the sort of world city worthy of hosting the Olympic Games.

[This post also appears on Huffington Post Chicago]

Report from the Shoreland Meeting, September 30, 2009

posted by Richard Gill

The Shoreland Hotel, built 1926

About a hundred people attended a September 30 public meeting in the Crystal Ballroom of the old Shoreland Hotel, 5454 South Shore Drive, at which developer Antheus Capital presented its proposal to resurrect the empty structure as a luxury rental apartment building. The firm’s principal, Eli Ungar made the presentation and answered questions. Comments and questions from the floor comprised most of the one-hour forty-minute meeting. Overwhelmingly, the discussion dealt with worries about parking, voiced primarily by a relative handful of residents of 5490 South Shore Drive, located immediately south of the Shoreland. Neighbors’ worries about parking and traffic tend to dominate Hyde Park meetings about development proposals.

Fifth Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston was in attendance, as her concurrence with the proposal is required before it can be brought to the City Council for approval. She said that she wanted to hear what people had to say, before she would say yea or nay.

Shoreland Hotel Driveway

When the historic hotel went into decline, the University of Chicago bought it for use as a student dormitory. The dorm was closed this year, with the opening of a new dorm on south campus. Knowing the Shoreland dormitory would be phased out, the University sold the building in 2004 to the Kenard development firm, which later sold it to developer Bob Horner. Both firms had plans for a condominium development. When those plans fell apart, Antheus acquired the property. Antheus will need to obtain City approval for a change in Planned Development (PD) No. 1062 that was approved for the prior condominium proposals.

Under Antheus’ plan, the 450,000 sq. ft. building would have 325 to 350 apartments (primarily one bedroom and two bedroom; with roughly 30 studios; and 30 three-bedrooms). The lobby area and function rooms would be retained, and a restaurant included. Antheus estimated that 450 to 500 people would reside in the building, compared with more than 700 students in the former dormitory.

Rockefeller Chapel and University of Chicago
as Seen From Roof of the Shoreland Hotel

Meeting attendees were generally favorable toward the building plan, which would include a lot of restoration work. That informal consensus left a vacuum of sorts for 5490’s complaints and worries about parking to take up most of the time and dominate the meeting. The people of 5490 said the development would worsen a tight parking situation in the area.

I state here that I like the proposed project and I believe that, at least in this neighborhood, anti-project parking arguments are mostly used in narrow self-interest, despite claims that they are for the general good.

The 5490 building, with about 20 units, has no on-site parking. The building does have a large area in back that could accommodate perhaps 20 cars. This was noted from the floor, and by Eli Ungar. In addition, Ungar repeated what he has said at every similar meeting – that a specific building project cannot solve the neighborhood’s “parking problem” and that adjacent property owners shouldn’t expect someone else’s project to solve their problems. Alderman Hairston has generally agreed with that position, adding that the parking issue should be addressed community wide, not project-by-project. That’s old news, and the tone of the audience seemed to be that they were weary of people trying to stop beneficial projects by using parking as a wedge.

Decorative Corbels on Shoreland Facade

In refutation of 5490’s prediction that parking gridlock would be caused by the Shoreland development, there were two general arguments: (1) by Antheus citing their recent experience, and (2) by people in the audience who essentially said this project is what the neighborhood needs, and parking is not the pivotal issue.

Antheus and its property management company MAC Properties have experience with rehabbed rental buildings in Hyde Park, such as Windermere House and Algonquin Apartments. They said that about one-third of renters use parking facilities on the properties, and that both properties have unused parking spaces in their lots. Ungar said they expect the Shoreland to follow this pattern. He also said that Antheus has more than 100 vacant parking spaces in its “portfolio.”

Ungar said it’s feasible to get 100 “legal” parking spaces into the building without encroaching upon the residential space. A “legal” parking place is one that meets the City code’s criteria for self-parking, in terms of square area, access and maneuvering room. The City figures a building’s “parking ratio” in terms of “legal” spaces. That in itself would meet anticipated demand for about one-third of the Shoreland apartments. However, a valet operation with staff-operated lifts and stackers would enable the garage to handle about 220 cars. In its PD application, Antheus is seeking a variance that will permit this arrangement, which will be important for accommodating function and restaurant parking, as well as residents’ needs. The condominium proposals had included parking on a one-to-one ratio (which 5490 liked), but it required a multi-story garage that would have consumed residential and public space. Antheus says the rental proposal is not economically viable if that residential space is taken up by parking.

Entrance Hall, Shoreland Hotel

Speakers from 5490 took the position that plentiful parking is necessary for property values and quality of life. Others took the opposite position, stating that walkability, density, ability to live without a car, are what make for a desirable neighborhood, and they said that many vibrant places thrive with an extremely tight parking environment, maybe because of it. Hyde Park’s good public transportation was noted. Strong statements were made about the benefits of this project (which has funding commitments despite the present economy). One speaker went so far as to say that if you see a neighborhood with plenty of parking for everyone, you wouldn’t want to live there. An owner of Open Produce on 55th Street said storefront businesses need foot traffic more than they need customer parking.

My overall take of the meeting is that most people want the Alderman to approve the proposal and move it forward. I believe she received that message. She would also like to hear individually from people.

Ungar closed by asking anybody with an alternate proposal for the Shoreland to come forward with it. Further, he said that he understands that the parking issue will continue to be prominent, and that Antheus would be pleased to commit financial support to city public parking projects in the neighborhood.

I hope very much that this project is approved in its present form. The alternative is probably a vast derelict building. Hyde Park is already saddled with two large vacant buildings—Doctors Hospital and St. Stephen’s Church. Narrowly focused opponents stopped redevelopment of these two sites. Both buildings are hulking corpses. Hyde Park cannot have another.

How Hairston Used Infrastructure Funds to Pay for Free Parking

posted by chicago pop

Leslie Hairston's letter to the editor of this week's Hyde Park Herald discloses a little-known fact about the Fifth Ward's magical bookkeeping: it's possible to spend aldermanic menu funds dedicated to infrastructure on non-infrastructure items like parking give-aways, while using the same money to make capital improvements on the South Shore Cultural Center!

It's a 2-for-1 deal! Impossible, but true! Vote for Leslie!

Right. Now let's take a minute to sort through just what's going on with Hairston's 2010 summer parking give-aways at the 55th and 63rd lakefront lots.

In her letter, Alderman Hairston offers an accounting of how she spent the money.

Approximately $42,000 went towards maintaining the traditionally free parking lot at 63rd St. Beach...I allocated another $52,000 towards the lot at 55th Street and South Shore Drive to cover nearby residents from June through December 2010 who traditionally park there at night.

And: "The Park District agreed the money my office paid for the meters would be used for capital projects at the South Shore Cultural Center."

As the Herald previously reported:

Alderman Leslie Hairston (5th) is touting a deal she arranged to provide 100 free parking spaces at 63rd Street beach this summer, but she is providing few details about how she is planning to pay for her largesse...

She plans to pay the Park District for its lost parking revenue out of her aldermanic menu, a $1.32 million fund given to each alderman for infrastructure improvements throughout their wards -- projects such as road resurfacing or streetlights [italics added] ...

But she declined to provide any further information about how much of her aldermanic menu she will spend on the free parking.

("Hairston gets free parking at 63rd St. Beach -- at what cost?" by Kate Hawley, Hyde Park Herald, 24 June 2009)

The Herald went on to estimate that this would cost the citizens of Chicago $77,000, a figure which HPP blogger Elizabeth Fama added to the Tribune's reported $52,000 subsidy for free overnight parking at the 55th and South Shore Drive lot, to come up with a grand total of $129,000 in one-time parking giveaways. In her letter to the editor, Hairston claims that paying for the 63rd Street lot cost $35,000 less than the Herald's estimate, or $42,000.

Even so, that still means Hairston spent $94,000 of public money on parking freebies that 1) weren't means tested, and 2) at 63rd Street, were available on a first come, first served basis -- hardly an equitable or rational form of "monetary relief."

But here we come to the most interesting thing in Hairston's letter, which is her claim, repeating the Herald's statement of June 2009, that the parking subsidies came out of funds dedicated for infrastructure.

How is a parking subsidy classifiable as an infrastructure expense?

Anybody?

No wonder Hairston didn't want to talk about it. It turns out, according to her letter, that the money to pay for the spots at 63rd was given to the Park District with the understanding that it be used to make repairs at the South Shore Cultural Center.

So then who paid for the spaces? Would Standard Parking, the concessionaire responsible for installing and maintaining pay boxes for the Park District, agree give Leslie a free ride for the summer, just because she has great hair? Unlikely. The best interpretation I can come up with for this rather opaque arrangement is that the Park District ate the $42,000 due to Standard Parking for 63rd Street beach, in exchange for Hariston's funding of work on the Cultural Center.

Very creative bookkeeping, indeed. But the Park District still paid for those spots, which means ultimately Chicago taxpayers gave them away with no foreseeable benefit other than helping Leslie Hairston get reelected. It still amounts to a publicly funded parking spots - for votes program.

And we haven't even mentioned the question of Hairston's use of 63rd Street as a VIP parking lot over the 2010 July 4th weekend.

Preserving Indian Village Parking Lots: Behind the Powhattan, Narragansett, and Barclay

posted by chicago pop

The HPP intelligence network recently picked up a bit of electronic NIMBY chatter. Just a few whispers detected and processed at our global listening station, alerting us to the possibility that someone might decide to build a building near the Powhattan -- a tall one, maybe a little taller than the ones already there -- on some of the parking lots pictured below.

Prime Use of Lakefront Property

Whether the chatter is true or not, what is true is that the current use of this land for surface parking only is economically inefficient, and even wasteful, from the perspective of the local economy. Land given over exclusively to surface parking lowers the residential density of a neighborhood, which reduces the local trading area and makes it harder to do shopping close to home.

And it just looks like hell.

What do you think about the fact that in one of the sections of Hyde Park-Kenwood closest to the Lake, home to some of the most impressive interwar and post-war residential high-rise architecture in Chicago, and with some of the neighborhood's best access to public transportation, significant chunks of city blocks look like this:

Barclay/East End Parking Lot from Intersection of Cornell and East End Avenues, and 49th Street

The only reason these blocks are public eyesores paved for private parking is because this little area has been a real-estate black hole for nearly half a century. But, as an urban planner friend of mine put it when he saw these lots, "those aren't going to remain parking lots forever."

Local folks might want to get used to the prospect. At some point, someone is going to buy them out and allow them to pay to park in someone else's building.

On land this close to the lake, with such abundant transportation infrastructure, and already designed to accommodate high urban densities, it's practically inevitable. And it's probably a good thing.

A Little Piece of Manhattan (+ Surface Parking)
1640 E. 50th Street -- The Narragansett and Powhattan Buildings

Surface Parking Lot for 4940 S. East End and 5000 S. East End Avenue -- the Barclay and East End Buildings

Replace these parking lots with density of housing, and auto congestion will flatten or even decrease. Because whatever new building shows up on any of these lots, it will have its own parking, which will probably hold most people's cars stationary, going nowhere, for most of the week. It would also likely house things like convenience stores, or more amenities like Istria cafe.

It's all basic stuff. Which you'll know if you scan hipster-liberal zines like Salon.com:

As parking lots proliferate, they decrease density and increase sprawl. In 1961, when the city of Oakland, Calif., started requiring apartments to have one parking space per apartment, housing costs per apartment increased by 18 percent, and urban density declined by 30 percent. It's a pattern that's spread across the country.

In cities, the parking lots themselves are black holes in the urban fabric, making city streets less walkable. One landscape architect compares them to "cavities" in the cityscape. Downtown Albuquerque, N.M., now devotes more land to parking than all other land uses combined. Half of downtown Buffalo, N.Y., is devoted to parking. And one study of Olympia, Wash., found that parking and driveways occupied twice as much land as the buildings that they served. (Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon.com, October 1, 2007).

So if and when the day comes that someone wants to build something reasonable on any of these parcels -- say something comparable to the Powhattan or the Newport in size or shape -- don't be fooled by cries of "Congestion!" or "What about parking!"

These are the neuroses that keep Hyde Park's biggest NIMBYs tossing in bed at night, but like most neuroses, they have little to do with reality.

The cry that you probably should take seriously is this one: "Not another high-rise to block my view of the Lake!" In the 4th Ward, we've seen the lengths to which people will go to protect the "views" over which they have no proprietary rights.

Trees illegally felled near 44th Place and Lake Shore Drive, allegedly to open a view of the Lake from nearby 4th Ward condos.

If anyone already living in a high-rise between 51st and 49th Streets cries out about another high-rise going up next door, we'll be able to expand the NIMBY taxonomy beyond the owners of quaint Victorian frame houses on Harper Avenue.

The new species, if it is ever discovered, may well include inhabitants of vintage Deco towers, and perhaps a few Modernist ones. Specialists at that point will have to recognize this species as a local variant of the world-wide "last one in the door" genus (from the Greco-Latin nimbyotopus rex) or:

"I've got mine, now you stay out."

On Leslie Hairston's Parking Populism, or: Panem et Circenses

posted by chicago pop

Alderman Leslie Hairston (seated) together with Goddess of the Hyde Park Herald (standing)
Signal for Chicago Park District Reps to be Thrown to Lions

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for handouts and petty amusements that politicians use to gain popular support, instead of gaining it through sound public policy. The phrase is invoked not only to criticize politicians, but also to criticize their populations for giving up their civic duty.

In this week's Hyde Park Herald (April 14, 2010), both Alderman Hairston and the paper's op-ed make a handful of arguments against the coming of metered parking at a few lakefront, Park District lots.

Since the arguments are virtually identical, I refer to their advocate as "Herald Hairston". They are all fundamentally misguided, if not wrong. Here's why. Herald Hairston asserts, drawing deeply from a reservoir of bathos put at her disposal by the creative writers of the our local paper, that;

1. Parking at, and enjoyment of the lakefront parks, is and has historically been "free".

2. Metering lakefront parking is regressive because it prevents the disadvantaged (people with cars) from accessing the lakefront

3. No one told us this was going to happen and we are shocked.

Herald Hairston errs on each of the above points in the following ways:

1. Nothing is "free" in the web of obligations known as "society." We all pay for the facilities and upkeep of Chicago's parks through our property taxes. Parking spots in all parks are subsidized by city taxpayers even if they themselves don't use those spots. Those who make intensive use of the lakefront benefit from the largess of those who don't.

Parking at these and other heretofore unmetered locations has therefore never been "free," only subsidized, by the good graces of one's neighbors and the degree of fatness in the city budget at any given time, both of which are independent variables.

We pay: just not at the point of use.

2. People who own cars are not disadvantaged. Vehicles don't come with free gas or car washes. They shouldn't come with free parking. Making parking free amounts to a first-come first-serve policy that does not equitably distribute the resource.

The assumptions hidden within the contrary argument are that a) people have a right to park a car on the lakefront if they own one, and b) charging them a minimal fee for use is more economically burdensome to them than their private decision to own and care for a vehicle.

a) is problematic because the lakefront could not possibly accommodate every city resident with a car, which is what a) assumes, and which is unjust to those who cannot find parking. Those who find parking at the expense of those who cannot are not only freeloading, but also preventing their fellows from enjoying the fruits of their taxes.

b) reinforces a deeply held prejudice that owning cars should be costless, and that public treasure should be dispensed to facilitate everything -- including recreation -- being centered around automobiles.

The argument that a meter policy "will cause inconvenience and expense for people least able to afford it" is sophistry of the purest kind.


3. If you didn't know this was coming, you are ignorant.

If you are ignorant, Herald Hairston did nothing to prepare you.

If Herald Hairston did nothing to prepare you, it was the better to cultivate your outrage at "not knowing" in the run-up to an election year, the better to manipulate your discontent with bread, circuses, and parking.

Grown-ups in the rest of Chicago read about this in the papers and heard about it in the news for months well over a year ago.

To sum up our response to the 3 points above:

1) Parking was never free, so it free parking cannot be taken away. Metered parking is based on the principle that, in addition to base support from property taxes, those who use the facilities most assume some level of responsibility for paying for them.

2) That mythical poor family who can afford to buy and maintain an automobile, but not to enjoy 2 hours worth of parking for $1, needs to sell their vehicle and get a CTA pass.

3) Surprise!

MAC Restoring Grande Dames at the Shoreland and Del Prado

posted by chicago pop

Terra cotta figure on upper stories of Del Prado Building

A community meeting on MAC's plans for Shoreland will be held at 7PM, at the Shoreland, on Wednesday evening, September 30, 2009.

As part of the community discussion of MAC Property's plans to restore the Shoreland Hotel to its former glory, HPP offers you a photo tour through the inside of both the Shoreland (this post) and the Del Prado (forthcoming). Bringing these historic and unique buildings back onto the market for modern, quality mid- to high-end rental units at key locations in Hyde Park will be an inestimable service to the neighborhood, its local economy, its heritage, and its quality of life.

HPP supports both of these projects 100%.

Crystal Ballroom in Shoreland Building

What criticism there is of the Shoreland project has focused on parking. This is no great surprise. It is also no great argument against either project. Parking is tight in East Hyde Park, as it is in all urban, dense, high-rise neighborhoods, and that will never change.

MAC's current proposal will add considerably fewer units to the market than the building was meant to hold as a hotel, or ever did as a dormitory. Which means that, in an auto-centric age, its impact on neighborhood parking is already considerably less than it could be.

Fallen Mask Wall Decoration, Shoreland Hotel

And, if it adds the maximum number of parking spaces allowable within the physical constraints of the building and Chicago city code, it will be able to provide parking for all patrons to any restaurant in the Grand Ball Room, and rental spaces for approximately 30% of the Shoreland's occupants.

Al Capone's Old Hideaway, Shoreland Building

MAC tells us that this number (30%) is in line with the demand for rental parking at its other high rise properties. HPP adds that this is in line with what ideal parking ratios should be -- and often are by default -- in high density urban areas as well.

Parking ratios lower than 1:1 (one parking space per residential unit, as opposed to 1:3) help to lower housing costs for everyone, while allowing MAC to invest more in its building and amenities than it would otherwise have to spend on a parking garage. Lower parking ratios also stimulate demand for people who may choose a car-free lifestyle, relying instead on alternatives such as car-sharing through I-Go or Zip-Car.

Entrance to Grand Ballroom, Projected Site of New Restaurant, Shoreland Building

Upshot: bringing the Shoreland and Del Prado back on line will not add to Hyde Park's parking problems, because higher-density development tends to reduce auto ownership, lowers development and neighborhood housing costs, and will ultimately support those amenities that make it less desirable to drive everywhere.

Adding more parking than what MAC has proposed would mean gutting a significant portion of the southern wing of the Shoreland. This would go counter to the goals of either preserving the integrity of the building, and of making more room in Hyde Park for people instead of cars.

Fallen Plaster Wall Decorations Stored in Attic of Shoreland Hotel

MAC's Shoreland plan will restore the great majority of a historic building at a conspicuous location, bring a new restaurant to the old Grand Ballroom and rental banquet space to the Crystal Ballroom, and add up to 350 units of rental housing to Hyde Park's housing stock. These are clear benefits to the neighborhood, to the South Side, and to Chicago as a whole.

Solace on the Park

posted by Peter Rossi

A new development is slated for the corner of 56th and Cornell Avenue. Dubbed “Solstice in the Park” by developer Antheus Captial (NIMBY warning), the building will be 26 stories tall with 145 units. The architectural renderings below show this to be a striking building – one that will certainly draw attention from the passerby. More importantly, it will breathe life into a desolate stretch of 56th Street. Residents of this building will patronize local businesses and increase foot traffic and neighborhood safety. Who knows – if this starts a trend, we might see some new businesses in Hyde Park (it will take a lot more than this one building to do that). If all goes well, ground will be broken in the summer of 08 with completion at the end of 09 or early 10.

Architectural Rendering of Solstice in the Park

What will this building replace? After all, there is not much vacant land in East Hyde Park. It will replace the Windemere parking lot. This ugly lot is underutilitized. The new building will feature underground parking for ALL of the Windemere users (about 200) and ADD 250-300 MORE parking spaces for resident of the building. This information and the drawings were provided by Mr. Eli Ungar of Antheus Capital.

What does this mean for “congestion” in our neighborhood? This is a ratio of parking spaces to units of more the 1.5. My guess is that this will mean that parking spaces in this building will be rented to others in the East Hyde Park community who are now parking on the street. So it is entirely possible that this building will reduce parking congestion while increasing foot traffic.

Streetview of Solstice in the Park

Current Streetview

When rumors regarding this development were first heard, NIMBYs wrote into the Establishment organ, the Hyde Park Herald, complaining. What were their complaints? – unspecified “congestion” and that their views might be blocked. Actually, it is very hard to figure out how this new building will block any desirable views. The view from Windemere west toward the ugly parking lot and Metra tracks?

There will be a community meeting on this development on November 14th (place to be announced – we will feature it in this blog). Let’s not let a few self-interested people block a great addition to our neighborhood. I should also note that there are some NIMBYs who don’t like the developer Antheus Capital because it is headquartered in New Jersey and it is “big.” Let me point out that only those with deep pockets can afford to develop something like this. I really don’t care where the developers are headquartered; Taipei would be fine by me if they are willing to invest in our neighborhood!

The NIMBYs who oppose all positive change in our neighborhood have a new tact: We are under fire for opposing all change; let's say that we are "ok with" or "like" some developments and focus our opposition on others. In this way, we can give the illusion of being reasonable without having to support any actual change. So it looks like this development will go through smoothly but don't count on any help from these folks!

Provision of parking spaces is held up by some as evidence of good faith on the part of the developer. This development goes overboard on parking. For a development right next to the Express Bus Stop and Metra, we don’t need anything more than 1:1. My guess is that Antheus would like to make a bit of money by renting or selling parking. Sounds like the free market at work to me!

Empty Windemere Parking Lot (Sat 11/3/07)

Is Alderman Hairston A Parking Junkie?

posted by chicago pop

Alderman Hairston Does the NIMBY Hustle
(Illustration by Tom Tian of the Chicago Maroon)

If you read the Maroon or the Editors Blog, this is old news. Thanks to Alec Brandon for tipping us off this past Sunday, and to the Maroon, from which the most very comical illustration by Tom Tian above was taken.

The scoop? Hairston's office wants to, and sounds like it will, remove the northbound 171 bus stop at University and 57th Street, to add room for (free) street parking.

Here's Brandon's take, which is pithy enough to be quoted here:

This is just insane. The utility people get from four parking spots can't outweigh the inconvenience to hundreds of students. I have no idea why Hairston is trying to do this, but it just seems insane.

I agree. It is insane. This is like selling your pancreas for another hit of whatever. It makes absolutely no sense. 550 people use that bus stop every day. You trade that for 4 cars, which could sit there for days. It's a quick fix -- not even a fix, really -- for a much more complicated problem.

Hairston's office is keeping quiet on just what set this decision in motion. So what comes of it? A decision to reroute a bus from a strategic stop at the heart of campus, causing all sorts of complications -- like getting north- and southbound CTA buses to pass each other on Ellis -- in order to add 4 more spots to the curbside inventory.

Four more spots.

Here's what Hairston had to say, quoted from the Maroon:

“As you are well aware, [there is a] lack of parking in Hyde Park and a balance must be kept between bus service and parking for residents,” Hairston said on Friday in an e-mail to Ronald Weslow, a member of the CTA’s traffic and engineering crew.

According to Director of Campus Transportation and Parking Services Brian Shaw, over 550 people use the endangered stop on an average day, making it the second-busiest bus stop on campus.

Note that there are no metered parking spaces there. Nor is this a primarily residential block. Conceivably, I could park my uncle's VW bus there while he spends a week or two in Thailand and no one would notice. If you did the same thing for your uncle, that's 2 spots out of circulation for a few weeks. Perhaps the logic here is that, by adding these 4 new spots on University, it will become easier to park over on Dorchester. Hmm.

Even if these spots turned over much more regularly, adding inventory at the expense of a well-routed and heavily used bus route is just backward.

The northbound 171 makes 2 key stops: the first, right across the corner from the Reynolds Club, at University and 57th; the second, right across from Pierce at University and 55th. I see mobs of students at both stops day and night.

We've heard from a lot of students about how difficult it is to get out of Hyde Park using public transportation; the last thing anyone needs is for it to be more difficult to get around within Hyde Park.

And it doesn't solve the problem! Adding parking is like adding lanes to a freeway -- no sooner do you build them, but they are congested again!

This isn't the first time, apparently, that parking spots for a few vehicles have been given preference over room for public transportation. Hairston has blocked other, proposed bus stops nearby.

[Director of Campus Transportation and Parking Services Brian] Shaw ... has been trying to get a bus stop for the #174 El shuttle between Cottage Grove and Ellis Avenues since the route was introduced a year-and-a-half ago, but the alderman’s concerns about parking halted his efforts.

Here, too, we're talking a handful of spots for a bus stop that could improve mobility for all sorts of people coming and going to the science and hospital complexes.

There's a lot Hairston could be doing to reduce congestion and free up parking in Hyde Park. Like putting meters on the Midway. But that would be a bold initiative, rather than stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Hairston Fail #3: Leslie's VIP Lot at 63rd St Beach and Other Parking Give-Aways

[This essay was originally posted as "Alderman Hairston's VIP Fireworks Parking" on July 6, 2010]

posted by Elizabeth Fama

57th St. Beach and fireworks, 7/4/2010.

Yesterday the Tribune reported that 5th-Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston reserved the 63rd Street parking lot on July 4th for an "afternoon anti-violence event." She said she distributed the spaces to "local organizations, vendors, and workers." Ordinary people driving to the fireworks were out of luck if they hoped to park there, even if they arrived early for the celebration.

So apparently free parking along the lakefront isn't a right, as Hairston has ballyhooed for more than a year, it's a privilege. I'd really like to know precisely who in her judgment merited permit parking at the beach on the 4th of July.

From the Tribune: "Hairston said....that she modeled the event after the Air and Water Show, where people have to walk to the area and have few parking options."

"'It's a bunch of bull,' said Alex Hall, 39, who arrived early hoping for a parking spot at the beach, where he has been celebrating the holiday since he was a child. 'We should be able to park and have our own Independence Day.'"

So much for Ms. Hairston's claim in April that spaces in the 63rd Street lot should be as accessible as possible to all Chicagoans, regardless of their means (Maroon, April 30, 2010). So much for her insistence that beach parking should be free. So much for her worry that installing meters is what "discourages people from using the parks."

And so much for the City's goal of making the fireworks more accessible and reducing congestion by moving the display from Grant Park to three separate locations along the lakefront.

I guess since Hairston paid an estimated $77,000 out of her discretionary funds to subsidize summer parking at 63rd Street, she figures she can be queen of the lot.

********

[Editor's note: Alderman Hairston claimed in a letter to the editor of the Hyde Park Herald (December 15, 2010) -- 5 months after the above post was originally written -- that the total subsidy for the lot at 63rd Street Beach was $42,000 rather than $77,000. At present there is no way to verify this claim. See further discussion of this issue here.]

Solstice on the Park Update: Community Meeting

On Wednesday, November 15th, a community meeting was held on the proposed Solstice on the Park development at 56th and Cornell. More than 70 people turned up to hear presentations from the developer, architect, and traffic consultant. After these presentations, the developer took questions and comments for more than one hour.

Solstice on the Park would replace the largely empty Windemere parking lot with a 26 story condominium building and a 500 car parking garage. The tower would be located on the south end of the lot with a circular drive facing 56th street. Behind the tower would be a garage covered with a garden and swimming pool. To provide affordable housing, the developer, Antheus Capital, has acquired the rental apt building at 5528 S. Cornell (directly north of the garage) and has agreed to keep these 53 units as rental in perpetuity.

Architectural Rendering of South and East Elevations

The architect, Jeanne Gang, made a presentation on the details of the building and how she sees it fitting into the architecture of Hyde Park. One of the strengths of Hyde Park is the diversity of high quality architecture. Mies van der Rohe's Promontory Apartments made of glass and concrete with a "glass box" lobby sit right next to the red brick Baroque Flamingo Apartments. Raphael Vinoly's Graduate School of Business complements its classic neighbor, the Robie House by Frank Lloyd Wright (both feature cantilevered building sections). Modern architecture should relate to its surroundings but does not have to be a bad copy of them either in design or materials. Solstice features a deep setback with circular drive just as its neighbor, Windemere House, does.

Ms. Gang emphasized that Solstice is also compatible with the height of other buildings in East Hyde Park. A panoramic view of 56th showing Solstice and other buildings shows how correct Ms. Gang's assertion is. Solstice is by no means very tall. 1700 E. 56th is about 20 per cent taller. The Windermere House is about 30 per cent shorter at just under 200 ft (it has much higher ceilings so that you can't simply compute a multiple of stores - 14 vs 26). Shadow studies show that the Solstice tower will not shade another building except 5528 S. Cornell and then only in the early morning and late afternoon on Winter days.

Solstice has an unusual design in several respects. The building can be thought of four story modules stacked on top of each other. This gives the South elevation of the building its dramatic "sawtooth" look. The purpose of this is to use the building to shade itself in the summer, while letting natural light in in the winter. The East and West elevations are not sheer walls like so many buildings of this type in Chicago. A seemingly random pattern of cut-outs are filed with windows. These and many other features make Solstice an unusual design with also an unusual level of energy efficiency. The building will be featured in a television program on energy efficient architecture as the Midwest representative.

The Solstice developers have also tackled the traffic flow problems at this site in a thoughtful way. The existing condition has two bad features: 1. there is two-way traffic for about 150' of Cornell Ave; 2. there is a dangerous situation as buses and parents attempt to pickup or drop off their children in front of Bret Harte school. With a land swap and some good design, the new development will correct both problems. Parents will be able to drop off their children in a new dedicated alley just to the east of the school. Parkers will enter the garage on 56th street allowing Cornell to be restored to one way northbound. In addition, teachers will have a larger and relocated parking lot that does not pose a safety threat to children playing around the school.

Site Plan

As a result, the development has received wide support from it neighbors and neighborhood groups. Gary Ossewarde of the Hyde Park Community Conference spoke up in favor of the development, praising the willingness of the developer to listen and respond positively to community input. John Murphy of the Coalition for Equitable Community Development also endorsed the development and praised the developer for their efforts to promote affordable housing. Robert Mason of the Southeast Chicago Commission also supported the development, warning of the dramatic decline in population of Hyde Park in the last 50 years. A neighbor who lives in a single family house directly across from the development welcomed it after "looking at a parking lot all my life." The Bret Harte School Council is an enthusiastic supporter.

Numerous residents praised the development and were met with thunderous applause. A few residents asked informational questions. Rebecca Moore, a neighbor on Cornell, asked about potential for problems for pedestrians crossing the entrance to the garage. The traffic consultant responded that there are good sightlines to avoid conflict. Jerry Pryor from the U of C medical facility at Windemere House asked about parking during construction. The developer replied that parking arrangements and shuttles would be provided but stated that any major construction project would involve inconvenience for the residents. All current users of the lot would have access to parking in the new structure (note: the developer also owns Windemere House so there is no reason to design a development which reduces the value of their adjacent property). A resident of 5528 S. Cornell asked numerous questions about how the development would affect those apartments.

Four local residents, calling themselves "Cornell Neighbors," circulated a document in the neighborhood prior the meeting. This bulletin opposes the development and urged those of like mind to attend the meeting. The memo was signed by Diana Jiang, Robert Greenspoon (who lives on Cornell directly across the street from the proposed parking garage), Rebecca Moore, and Kathy Newhouse. Mr. Greenspoon graciously provided more details regarding the positions discussed in the document.

The bulletin makes two basic arguments against the development: 1. the architecture is "incompatible" in the sense that it does not contain "shapes or patterns" or materials found in neighboring buildings and 2. the tower is too tall. The very same argument of "incompatibility" could have been raised to block the construction of the Robie House or any of Mies's buildings. In my opinion, this shows remarkably little appreciation for the evolution of architecture that has made Chicago so great.

The argument against the size is specious as there are other buildings in East Hyde Park that are larger and the building fits well in the street scape of 56th street. "Cornell Neighbors" don't specify what the maximum size that would be acceptable to them is. In addition, Cornell neighbors feel that the garage to the north of the main tower is too tall at 50' high. Here we have two alternatives: reduce the amount of parking (a Hyde Park No No) or go underground. Underground parking is expensive and the developer apparently does not feel they can recoup the expense of underground parking in higher condominium prices.

The document contains other curious arguments such as the development violated the Lakefront Protection Ordinance or that the development is priced badly by the developer or that the developer has designed something that makes service access to his own Windemere House impossible. The idea appears to be that the Lakefront Protection Ordinance applies to a property located 5 blocks from the Lake but fronting a park which connects with the lake By this same reasoning, much of the Jackson Park Highlands violates the Lakefront Protection Ordinance.

The memo goes on to praise Antheus Capital for being so responsive to the community. Here the argument is: they have been so accommodating in the past, let's press them for even more (but unspecified) concessions.

The most curious sentence in the letter is on page 3 as part of set of bullet points providing the reader with a list of possible actions. The memo urges you to write letters to the Hyde Park Herald and "avoid calling for no development at all." Given that the memo starts out with the statement "it can be stopped," this sentence is puzzling to say the least. Perhaps, the authors mean that we don't like this building but we might like some other building. Since the authors do not specify what they would find acceptable, the developer is faced with an impossible task of guessing what would be acceptable. This has the net effect of discouraging any development, no matter how thoughtful. There will always be someone who doesn't like it.

Mr. Greenspoon has filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Education and the developer regarding the purchase of Board of Education land to allow for the new alleyway. The essence of the complaint is that there was a no-bid sale and that this contravenes normal operating procedures. Mr. Greenspoon shared correspondence from the Board of Education which indicated that the Board as rescinded it's earlier decision, but "the board remains interested in improvements to Bret Harte School. Therefore, the board directs the Chief Administrative Officer and the general counsel ... to further consider this project and present recommendations to the board regarding its implementation." While it is always hard to intrepret these sort of messages, it appears that the Solstice proposal for improvements at Bret Harte is considered desirable. It may be just a matter of time. A land swap for the purpose of improving both parties is not some sort of under-handed deal.

It is clear that Mr. Greenspoon does not want to look out from his house on Solstice as currently conceived. The community meeting was one referendum on this building. It is clear from this meeting that Mr. Greenspoon's views are not shared by others. It will be incumbent on him to show that there are more than just a handful of people who agree with him. Mr. Greenspoon reported to me that he has a petition against the development signed by about 60 of his neighbors.

Mr. Greenspoon also contends that Solstice will not be able to get a zoning amendment approved. He believes that the building will not comply with the RM6.5 designation as he contends it is too tall in relationship to the site. Why a developer would make such an substantial investment of time and funds without an expectation of success is not clear. In the interest of promoting development, Antheus should be given a chance to convince municipal authorities to give the go ahead for this development.

Aldermanic Candidate Anne Marie Miles on issues Facing the 5th Ward

From Anne Marie Miles campaign website, her take on local issues affecting the 5th Ward:

1. (a) What are your three highest priorities for your ward?

i) Economic Development, with specific attention to “green” development, i.e. solar or urban farming.
ii) Increased educational opportunities, and
iii) Public safety.

1. (b)What do you regard as the most critical issues facing the ward? If elected, how would you go about addressing them?

i) I will create a Ward wide Advisory Council to focus on plans for Economic development, with specific attention being given to opportunities in “green” industries. For example there are many grants available for urban farming initiatives which create local sustainable jobs.
ii) The money -- over 100K -- which has been spent from ward funds on providing free parking spaces will be used to leverage monies and services available from programs with proven track records that provide needed services to students in school.
iii) The Fifth Ward is served by two police districts. The Alderman’s office can facilitate an exchange of information regarding criminal activity when appropriate. Further, innovativemethods of crime prevention must be explored, including the expanded use of emergency boxes.

2. Is there a need for a reconfiguration of the transportation system for the ward? Do you have suggestions for changes to the public transportation system? Do you have suggestions for changes that will make the ward friendlier for pedestrian traffic, or for automobile use?

The current configuration of the transportation system will be reviewed in light of recommendations regarding economic development in the ward. An issue of changing the location of a bus stop to enhance safety for children has been raised and will be
reviewed.

As I have walked the Fifth Ward, the issue of parking has been raised repeatedly. The parking situation caused by commuters who drive in to Fifth Ward to avail themselves of free parking while commuting to downtown jobs must be evaluated as should summer parking issues. The Ward Wide Advisory Council will address the parking issue. Some type of residential parking permits may be considered.

3. Are there significantly underdeveloped areas (or empty spaces) in your ward? Do you have suggestions for the uses of such spaces? Are there specific areas that can be developed to encourage retail, provide green space, or increase the availability of affordable housing?

There are a number of vacant lots on Stony Island and South Chicago. These lots should this may include urban farm initiatives. These lots may also be used to provide affordable housing as may infill lots in the interior of the ward.

4. What is the proper procedure for the management of TIFs? Should the ward have more or fewer TIFS? What is your view of the value of the TIFs that are now in place in the ward?

The entire TIF program must be re-evaluated in terms of economic feasibility in this economic climate. That being said, while the TIF program continues the Fifth Ward is entitled to its share of the economic benefit. I will work to create other TIF districts to
benefit the Ward.

While the current TIF program is in effect, I would support the Proposed Sweet Home Chicago ordinance designed to aid in stopping foreclosures.

5. What problems do you see in the present level of public services (e.g. garbage and litter pickup, street maintenance, park maintenance, police presence) in the ward? What can the alderman do to address those problems?

The delivery of constituent services has been a major concern of Fifth Ward residents. There are numerous complaints about garbage collection, potholes, park maintenance. Yet this must be viewed in the context of Chicago’s budgetary crisis. In order to reduce costs and provide equal or better services, I believe that the City must go to a regional system of garbage pickup. This move alone would save 30 Million dollars.

On a local level, rather than use Ward Funds to pay for free parking some portion might be used to augment street maintenance and park maintenance services.

6. Do you see any significant problems with real estate zoning in the ward? Do you believe that upcoming issues can be effectively resolved through individual variances, or is there a need for zoning review or for zoning revisions in any specific areas of the ward?

The Fifth Ward Advisory Council which I will create will address the issue of zoning review if it becomes apparent it is needed as the Council focuses on economic development and affordable housing issues. If urban farm initiatives are being considered then zoning issues would be addressed in that context.

7. What is the alderman’s role in addressing the popularly perceived inadequacies in the public schools? Do you have proposals for additional youth-oriented programs in your ward?

I would make the majority of the monies from the Ward budget which were spent on free parking spaces available for additional youth-orientated programs. As a member of the Safe Youth Chicago steering committee of the Union League Club, I have realized that one important consideration is not to re-invent the wheel, but to use funds to support programs with a proven track record. Examples of programs that I would consider providing funding for include Youth Guidance, After Schools Matter, Boys and Girls Clubs.

It is the educators, including school administrators, who are in the best position to advise me on what programs they need and what services would provide the most benefit for their students.

Alderman Hairston's VIP Fireworks Parking

posted by Elizabeth Fama

57th St. Beach and fireworks, 7/4/2010.

Yesterday the Tribune reported that 5th-Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston reserved the 63rd Street parking lot on July 4th for an "afternoon anti-violence event." She said she distributed the spaces to "local organizations, vendors, and workers." Ordinary people driving to the fireworks were out of luck if they hoped to park there, even if they arrived early for the celebration.

So apparently free parking along the lakefront isn't a right, as Hairston has ballyhooed for more than a year, it's a privilege. I'd really like to know precisely who in her judgment merited permit parking at the beach on the 4th of July.

From the Tribune: "Hairston said....that she modeled the event after the Air and Water Show, where people have to walk to the area and have few parking options."

"'It's a bunch of bull,' said Alex Hall, 39, who arrived early hoping for a parking spot at the beach, where he has been celebrating the holiday since he was a child. 'We should be able to park and have our own Independence Day.'"

So much for Ms. Hairston's claim in April that spaces in the 63rd Street lot should be as accessible as possible to all Chicagoans, regardless of their means (Maroon, April 30, 2010). So much for her insistence that beach parking should be free. So much for her worry that installing meters is what "discourages people from using the parks."

And so much for the City's goal of making the fireworks more accessible and reducing congestion by moving the display from Grant Park to three separate locations along the lakefront.

I guess since Hairston paid an estimated $77,000 out of her discretionary funds to subsidize summer parking at 63rd Street, she figures she can be queen of the lot.

Leslie's Lack of Leadership: Case #1

posted by chicago pop

When it comes to 5th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston, this blog has one thing to say:

FEBRUARY 22, 2011

That's the date of the next city elections in Chicago. In an ideal world, it should be the last day of Alderman Hairston's job.

There are a lot of reasons why we think this -- serial instances of disastrous community leadership running from the Promontory Point fiasco, her utter invisibility in the Doctors Hospital controversy, through to her bizarre power plays in the replacement of popular bus stops with free parking, and most recently, her protection of the stealthy NIMBYs roosting next to the Shoreland Hotel property at 5490 South Shore Drive (more on that, later).

But let's start with something simple. Hairston is holding a meeting next Thursday (see details at bottom) on the subject of new parking pay boxes being installed in Jackson Park and surrounding areas.



This latest circus act promises to involve the shooting of a hapless Chicago Park District in its barrel by Hairston, one of five Aldermen who voted against the parking deal. (We've given our opinion on the deal here). You can argue that the deal was a bad one, but it's done. And you can't argue that free parking optimizes access or is equitable. In fact, as has become visible in streets throughout the city, it's now easier to park almost everywhere.

Peruse, if you will, the following news article, forwarded to us from an exasperated reader living in East Hyde Park. As usual, EDITORIAL REMARKS ARE INSERTED IN PARENTHESES:

A South Side alderman is blasting the Chicago Park District over its moves to put parking meter “pay and display” boxes in South Side parks and other facilities. (YOU VOTED AGAINST IT ALDERMAN, BUT IT'S NOW IN EFFECT CITYWIDE. WHY SHOULD YOUR CONSTITUENTS BE EXEMPT?)

5th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston says some residents in her area were upset (NO KIDDING -- PEOPLE LIKE FREE STUFF) when they saw pay and display parking meter boxes being installed in the park near the Museum of Science and Industry, the South Shore Cultural Center and even (EVEN!) near some basketball courts.

Chicago Park District Spokeswoman Jessica Maxey Faulkner says the metered spaces are no surprise (EXCEPT FOR LESLIE HAIRSTON). She says the North Side parks already have meters, and plans for the South Side parks were announced some time ago (BUT SOUTH SIDE NIMBY'S ARE SPECIAL).

Alderman Hairston says there should have been a public meeting first (WAY TO GO WITH THAT FAR-SIGHTED LEADERSHIP THING). Maxey Faulkner says the boxes will not be activated until a meeting takes place later this month (AND THEN THE BOXES WILL BE PUT UP ANYWAY AND HAIRSTON WILL KEEP HER VOTES ANYWAY).

Analyzing this situation, what do we find? A number of aggrieved people who think that the public streets in Hyde Park-Woodlawn-Jackson Park are somehow not a part of the now private meter franchise that manages parking for ALL OF CHICAGO, including LAKEFRONT AND CITY PARK PROPERTY. Acting on a matter of principle, they chose not to complain when pay boxes were installed elsewhere, but only when it eventually affected them.

Not only is the upcoming publicity stunt wrong-headed in its probable defense of free parking, but it is only one of many examples of the way Hairston acts to appease every NIMBY reflex in the 5th Ward.

Help get Antheus rolling along with the Shoreland, Alderman, instead of putting on floor shows like this one.

********

Meeting Date: Thursday, April 15 2010

Time: 6:30 PM

Montgomery Place 5550 S. Shore Drive

For more info call: 773-324-5555

Meathead City: Winter Parking "Place-savers" and Other Primitive Behavior

posted by chicago pop

Giddyup!
Hyde Park Cowboy Attempts To Own the Street
5300 Block South Kimbark

People who fantasize about Chicago as a Presidential City worthy of global spotlight might interpret the tons of furniture moved to city curbs after every snowfall as a sign of collective generosity, of gifts made by regular, everyday people for the benefit of the less fortunate, the furniture-deprived, or to anyone with a pickup who can collect all the junk left on the asphalt altar as a sacrifice to the snow god.

If you need cheap lawn furniture for next summer, or maybe a few sawhorses for your basement shop, or maybe some milk crates for your kid's college dorm, or a usable ironing board, or a step ladder for the attic, or you just want to make a donation to the Salvation Army or to the guys that drive the scrap metal trucks down the alleys of Chicago, you can always find what you need by cruising many of Chicago's neighborhoods.

Free Furniture in Dick Mell's 33rd Ward!
Take My Furniture! It's Free!

[Source: Chicago Tribune http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d83451b4ba69e2010536e2cf33970b-pi]

After hanging out in Chicago for awhile, however, visitors might be disappointed to learn that all that furniture on the street is not meant for the needy.

Instead, using junk to claim a shoveled parking spot fits right into an ethically dubious tradition of getting what you can for yourself from the public domain, with a Sopranos-style edge,

Not that different from passing a kitty around the office at Christmas to make sure the boss can buy something nice for his wife, bribing the Alderman, or making sure your unqualified kid gets a padded job with the City.

The Parking Ticket Geek says it better than I can:

Street parking is first come, first serve. No matter the season, no matter the conditions, no matter if you happen to have your junk out on the street. No exceptions.

It's like standing in line, or waiting your turn. It's something you should have learned in kindergarten. It's a societal tradition that is so deep, so ingrained, it trumps this so-called Chicago tradition of using trash to save your parking spot.

I'm happy to say that Hyde Park, the Presidential Neighborhood in the Presidential City, is mostly free of this cranky vigilante behavior. In contrast, apparently, to Richard Mell's 33rd Ward, the neighborhood that gave us conjugal @#$%& pottymouths Rod and Patti Blagojevich.

[See transcript of Federal wiretap for deleted obsenity].

Even so, I've found a few cases of people trying to import the primitive "dibs" custom to Hyde Park. Just two instances so far, but they are so conspicuous in their meat-headedness that they are worth highlighting.

Take the note found on this lawnchair left at the curb near the southeast corner of Kimbark and 54th, in front of a student rental building:

"Move This Chair at Your Own Risk :)"

Dubious Claims and Vague Threats on Kimbark

Because the anonymous owner of the above lawn chair is in violation of City Code 10-08-480 (hat tip again to Parking Ticket Geek at the Expired Meter), he or she will have to do better than make wooly and unattributed references to John Locke's Two Treatises on Government and the philosopher's idea of usufruct to dissuade me from appropriating his or her lawnchair for donation to the back alley scap recyclers.

Locke's theory worked nicely to disposses Native Americans of any rights to North American land, but unfortunately it does not supercede Chicago City Code.

Anyone want to get that chair before I do?

Finally, here's a case of someone with the trappings of a conscience, as befits the landed gentry of Hyde Park: the ladder leaning against the inside of this homeowner's fence is occasionally left standing on the street, but then stored out of reach when the parking situation eases up.

Much more discreet. After all, this stately home is just a few blocks from President Obama's Kenwood mansion.

One wouldn't want to be too much of a meathead in a place where the world might be watching, would one?

[This post also appears on Huffington Post Chicago]