Hairston Fail #1: The Point Collapse

posted by chicago pop

HAIRSTON FAIL #1:

Early in her tenure, Fifth Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston lost control of negotiations over the repair of a crucial and decaying stretch of lakefront, and ultimately lost $24 million in federal funding to fix it. Her lack of leadership led to the eventual rejection of the Compromise Plan of 2003 -- the best chance for a solution that met the demands of modern engineering and reasonable community input. Hairston was intimidated by a vocal group of activists and the plan was dropped in 2005.

Since then, funding has evaporated.

The lake shore revetment that surrounds what Hyde Parkers affectionately refer to as "The Point" is rotting. Every winter it is hammered by ferocious waves so that its once level and tiered limestone blocks (ca. 1920s-1930s) sink in a ragged jumble even further into Lake Michigan, and the steel and timber crib that originally held them all together juts out ever more visibly. The soil of Promontory Point itself is slowly eroding around the edges.

This is not how Promontory Point was intended to be. It may look nice from a distance and in fuzzy watercolor paintings, but it is incontrovertibly and dangerously dilapidated. It must be rebuilt. Its current condition is a danger to public safety, a disgrace to the Chicago Park District, and the fact that it was not fixed in the early 2000's is the most conspicuous HAIRSTON FAIL.

Third-Party Review and other Sugar Plums

posted by Peter Rossi

Our local NIMBYs burst with "community" pride as they relate how the they halted City plans to repair the crumbling Point revetment and restore the landscaping. As of January 17, 2009, it will be eight years since the first community meeting on the Point. The "community task force" has dissolved and shut down their stale web site. The Chicago Park District has shelved the project, awaiting the "Third Party Review." Park District officials are understandably gun-shy of the review process which has the nominal support of a congressman and the President-elect.

At HPP, we have tried to do a little reporting on the fate of our community treasure. Our own Elizabeth Fama called up Mr. Foxall who will be in charge of the Third Party Review, if it ever gets funded and off the ground. Her conversation reveals a disturbing naivete of Mr. Foxall about the history and use of the Point, engineering design constraints, and funding. But there is one thing that Mr. Foxall is very clear about: the Third Party Review is in limbo.

How can any real progress be made on the Point? Let's review the facts. The shoreline revetment program is funded by a combination of Federal (via Army Corps), State, City (department of environment), and CPD funds. In the late 90s, the Feds appropriated approximately $250 million for the entire shoreline project. At the time, this was supposed to fund about 65 per cent of the costs. The balance was to contributed mostly by the City and CPD. The project has proceeded in sections. As each section is completed, funds are drawn down from the Federal appropriation and matched with local support. It should be emphasized that there is no "line" in the Federal budget that supports this project. The Federal portion has be allocated by the Army Corps on an on-going basis.

A check with Rob Rejman, who is the project manager at the CPD, confirms that the shoreline project is nearing completion. Only the Point and Morgan Shoals (between 47-53rd) portions have no completed designs. All other sections have been completed or in the construction/bidding phase.

The funds for the Point must then be appropriated at some future date and depend critically on the continued availability of the Federal and local contributions. The Compromise Plan we have supported (and currently the only viable plan) would cost about $24 million. The CPD has also promised to restore the Caldwell landscaping at a cost of 1.5 million. No one knows the fate of this promise and the funding for landscaping. In the meantime, the revetment crumbles into the lake and a few ragged scrubs and trees cling to a barren landscape.

In order for some real progress to be made on the Point revetment, the following events must occur:

1. Funds for the Third Party Review must be appropriated. The legislation authorizing the review does not specify an amount nor compel the Army Corps to allocate these funds.
2. The review process must start and reach a design that meets engineering and aesthetic standards (min 6 months). It is entirely possible that the Third Party Review may fail to reach a design that is acceptable to all involved.
   
3. If step 2) results in a design acceptable to all parties, the design must be approved by the Illinois Historical Preservation Agency (2- 6 months). This is required by the so-called Memorandum of Agreement (see E. Fama's post for details).
   
4. The design must be completed to what is known as the 80 per cent point. The Third Party Review will not produce a design but only some guidelines. Completion of the actual design must be done by architects and engineers here in Chicago (6-12 mos).
5. At the 80 per cent completion point, the design could be let for bids (6 mos).
6. It has been estimated that construction would take a minimum of 2.5 years.

The most optimistic scenario has the Third Party Review initiated in 2009. This means that the earliest we could expect results (completion of steps 2-6) would be in 2014. Perhaps, some of our local NIMBYs, including the Hyde Park Sermonist, can use their personal influence with God to speed this up.

What disturbs me the most is not the prospect of more than 10 years of unnecessary delays, but, rather, the very real possibility that nothing will get done.

Mr. Foxall is already on record as stating that he would like to use materials similar (in color and texture) to what is already there. He doesn't like the color of concrete. It is not clear what he thinks of tinted concrete, but he should be aware that no one has yet figured out how to make a structure that would meet Army Corps standards for a 50+ year life with limestone structural elements. Anyone who has studied this project in detail knows that you need a concrete core and steel pilings. You can't apply limestone veneer, either. Some pipe dreams will be conjured up at his soiree but should get a big laugh from the engineers at the Army Corps.

If Mr. Foxall's group does succeed where all others have failed, there is the little problem of cost. Unless his design costs <= $24 million, it can't be built. We are now in the most severe recession since the early 1980s and, perhaps, since the 1930s. There is the very real possibility that the CPD and City contributions for the Point will not be available when the dust clears.

In any event, it seems likely that the restoration of the Caldwell landscaping will be a casualty of the long and unnecessary delays. This would be the ultimate irony as the Caldwell landscaping is the one truly historic aspect of the Point that could be restored. Funds for this must come from the CPD alone and are not strictly part of the shoreline project. The so-called community task force has done their level best to alienate Park District officials and the landscaping plan was an act of good faith by the CPD that has not been reciprocated.

Finally, there is nothing about the Foxall process that can insure that the needs of the users of the Point be heard. I fear that water access will be lost in the hub bub.

The most likely outcome is more of the same: eight more years of nothing.

Hungry for Preservation or Power?

(Photo by Marc Monaghan, from the Hyde Park Herald, 3/5/2008)

posted by Peter Rossi

The Dry Petition vote is a remarkable event. Only 20 Hyde Parkers turned away the only real chance for development in Hyde Park for sometime to come. While most Hyde Parkers shake their heads with a mixture of disbelief and anger, some are popping the champagne corks.

Who would celebrate such a dark hour?

Not the preservationists. The most likely outcome now is that the abandoned DH buildings will be torn down. The buildings will certainly not be "reused" as some preservationists insist.

Not the Alderman. Her record on development in the 5th ward is now a big fat zero and she showed little leadership in this affair.

Not the University. They have a $10 million albatross and a real problem -- a beautiful campus and vibrant institution stuck in a backwater.

Perhaps, there was some warm beer drunk at local 1, Unite-HERE headquarters. Then some bright spark must have pointed out that this was a charity project by White Lodging and it doesn't really help in the fight to unionize this hotel developer. Unite-HERE big shots have probably figured out that they were the victims of a con scheme.

The champagne was flowing at the house of Jack Spicer in 30th Precinct. Mr. Spicer saw the DH ruckus as way of advancing his own influence on community developments. Before his defenders get upset that I am exposing their hero, I do have evidence that Mr. Spicer misrepresented his motives in the DH affair.

At the community meeting on August 4th, Scott Travis of White Lodging agreed to meet with the preservation interests. A meeting took place several weeks later. Present at the meeting were Mr. Spicer and Scott Travis, of course, but also representatives from Landmarks Illinois (a private group that claims to advance preservation), representatives from the City of Chicago's Department of Planning and Development, and representatives and consultants employed by University of Chicago.

Most of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of re-use or preservation of the existing buildings.

Mr. Spicer stood up toward the end of the meeting and dropped his own bombshell. Preservation of the DH buildings is not really necessary, he noted, what is necessary is that three of my demands are met.

Speaking directly to Scott Travis, Mr. Spicer pronounced "I can help you turn this around" if you:

1. "address" the union issue
2. insure the hotel is of high quality
3. assure me that I will have input and veto power over the design

We now know that Mr. Spicer never had the slightest interest in preservation. After all, he had been working on the Dry "neutron bomb" option for months, including going door to door collecting signatures himself.

This exchange reveals Mr. Spicer's true motivation. What this is all about is that Mr. Spicer thinks he should be in charge of designing the hotel. He can add this property to his other "design" credits -- the crumbling and abandoned Point revetment, vandalized St. Stephens, and the vacant lots on 53rd Street.

I hate to break up Mr. Spicer's party, but this Dry Petition dirty trick will not be forgotten. When people ask, why is there no development in Hyde Park, smack in the middle of what is now the first city in the US? Fingers will point at the radioactive Mr. Spicer who has done his part to keep White Lodging from spending $90 million in Hyde Park.

Ten Reasons to Vote NO

posted by Peter Rossi

On Tuesday, residents of the 39th precinct will vote on a referendum that seeks to ban the sale of alcohol in the precinct. Vote no for any or all of the following reasons:

1. You don't want to rule out any development in the precinct for at least 5 years.
2. You want to find a productive use for the DH site.
3. You find the abandoned DH buildings ugly and want them replaced with better architecture.
4. You want a hotel to house your visitors and provide jobs for community residents.
5. You resent the interference of local 1, Unite-HERE that wants a union hotel no matter what collateral damage is done to your neighborhood.
6. You see through local NIMBYs who lie to you, claiming the dry petition is a "negotiating tool."
7. You believe that the fate of development in Hyde Park should be decided by the community as a whole and not by any one small part of it.
8. You don't want to kiss $90 million good bye as we enter a period of economic desperation.
9. You recognize that congestion is not an issue.
   
10. You believe that any potential parking problems are easy to resolve by other methods

Calling Our Alderman

posted by Peter Rossi

5th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston is in a very tight spot on the Doctor's Hospital hotel proposal. Some of this is her own doing and some of this is the result of some cynical political maneuvering on the part of local NIMBYs.

Let's review the record. Elected in 1999, the alderman is in her third term. Throughout most of this tenure, development has been booming in Chicago. Countless condos have risen all over, including marginal neighborhoods such as the far south loop. Hundreds of restaurants and boutiques were not far behind.

In the 5th ward, however, development has been at a standstill (unless you get excited about a Starbucks opening on Stony Island). There has been only one project that has even gotten as far as the drawing board - Solstice on the Park (a 26 story midrise at 56th and Cornell). However, the recent economic downturn casts a real shadow on this project. I hope it will fly in the face of the collapse of our financial markets, but there is every reason to worry.

Alderman Hairston has nothing to show for the last nine years. One would think that the hotel project would be manna from heaven -- jobs for her constituents, a much needed hotel for the neighborhood, and real evidence of major development progress, some $90,000,000 worth.

Instead, the Alderman has followed an erratic course. When it was announced that the U and White Lodging proposed a hotel for the site, she scheduled a series of "community meetings" without thinking through the possible objections. Special interest groups, including a hotel union and power hungry NIMBYs, crowded in. Clouds of noise and unverified assertions were produced but little progress.

Instead of seeking answers to the legitimate concerns and cutting short the objections without merit, the Alderman proclaimed "It would be best if White Lodging went away" and "the concerns of the community for preservation must be addressed."

The Alderman's rejection of the original project put the whole process on hold for almost a full year. At the August 5th meeting, some progress was made. It became clear that preservation was not possible and that there were many who thought these ugly old hospital buildings should be torn down. Even the union was taken to task for interfering in local politics. Things began to look up for the project.

Unfortunately, since this meeting there have been 3 new challenges:

1. the dry referendum which would kill any hotel proposal
2. local 1, Unite-HERE visited the alderman to apply political pressure
3. the mortgage and credit markets collapsed.

We can hardly expect the alderman to fix the credit crisis. However, we can expect a firm stance in favor of development. She is on record as calling the dry referendum a "dirty trick." She knows that this will cast a pall on development in her ward. She knows that the people behind the referendum are simply against all new development and do not represent her constituents. However, she has not come out publicly and urged 39th precinct residents to vote against the referendum.

We know that representatives of local 1, Unite-HERE went to the alderman's office. I can only speculate on what happened there, but I'm sure it involved threats to mobilize union manpower in support of the alderman's future election opponents. This is scary for someone without an organization and few funds, but it's time for the alderman to think about doing the right thing for the community.

We are at a turning point for the 5th ward, the only possible development in the foreseeable future is the hotel at Doctor's Hospital. This means that the alderman will be held responsible if she doesn't pull this off. It is well within her political abilities to do so. She needs to calm the residents of Vista Homes and move forward aggressively against those who oppose change and pose a threat to her legitimacy as an elected representative.

She should worry less about a few union stiffs working for some mope who runs against her next time. She should worry a lot more about Hyde Parkers and South Shore residents asking, "what have you done for us over the last 10 years?" and "why did you shoo away jobs?"

If you agree, please email or call the alderman and urge her to come out publicly against the dry referendum. Her coordinates are:

• Ward Phone: 773-324-5555

• E-Mail: lhairston@cityofchicago.org

Where have all the Developers Gone?

posted by Peter Rossi

Many NIMBYs are fond of the theory that there is a long line of developers begging to build hotels on the DH site. Whether this is borne of ignorance or an incredibly inflated sense of self worth, it is an absurd fiction.

The fact is that there is only one developer, White Lodging, with any interest in DH. The current "white knight in the wings" is supposed to be Eli Ungar who is thought to have a limitless source of funds. Well, Mr. Ungar has a very full plate and needs to bring home his own Solstice, Shoreland, and Village Center proposals. He is on record as stating that he has no interest in this project at this time.

If you need any further evidence of how tough the climate is for development now, you should be interested to know that White Lodging has laid-off Scott Travis, who has been overseeing the DH proposal. In addition, White Lodging has put on indefinite hold ALL of its hotel development projects. However, they have made an exception for the DH project. This is due to the personal commitment that the owners of White Lodging have made to the University. The owner's father was treated at U of C Hospitals and this is the source of some affection for the old U.

Get real, this is the only chance for development in HP for some time to come.

Propaganda, NIMBY Style

posted by Peter Rossi

Residents in Hyde Park have received propaganda mailings on the Doctor's Hospital Dry Petition. Opponents of development at the Doctor's Hospital site have been made many public pronouncements about their interest in open debate and obtaining the facts. The mailing is anything but this. A blatant fear tactic, the mailing is chocked full of distortion and outright misrepresentation.

The most egregious lie in this little gem is that by voting "YES" residents will buy time to "get what the neighborhood deserves." By voting yes, residents will insure that no hotel of any type will ever be built on this site. If you vote yes, there will be a law prohibiting sale of alcohol on the books and all development ceases.

The leaflet would have you believe that the Doctor's Hospital could be restored into something like the Blackstone Hotel. This is a direct insult to Hyde Parker's intelligence. We all know that Doctor's Hospital was a former HOSPITAL not a former luxury HOTEL. Anyone who thinks that Doctor's Hospital looks like the Blackstone hotel needs new glasses. The Doctor's Hospital buildings are ugly and unimaginative institutional architecture that can't be converted to other uses.

A picture of a Marriott hotel, taken from the street level to show ugly overhead electrical wires and a neighboring used car emporium, is supposed to represent what is being proposed for the site. Sorry to break the news to the script-writers on Kimbark Avenue, but the Doctor's Hospital is across the street from a beautiful park and surrounded by other residential structures. This is Stony Island Avenue not Western Avenue.

The truth is that a design for this site has not been finalized. At the last community meeting, this was emphasized many times. By foreclosing any discussion, opponents of development at DH are simply refusing to consider any proposal from White Lodging.

Finally, the handful of NIMBYs behind this can't convince their fellow Hyde Parkers to help fund their efforts so they went to Local 1, Unite-HERE to fund this leaflet. The leadership of Unite-HERE couldn't care less about our neighborhood but simply want to punish White Lodging for not being a Unite-HERE shop. Whatever your views regarding labor union organizing, this should have no role in whether or not there is a hotel on Stony Island.

Hyde Parkers are a pretty smart and independent bunch. This sort of simplistic propaganda is apt to blow up in the face of our NIMBY princes.

Anatomy of A Blackmail

posted by Peter Rossi

Just when it looked like the community had the NIMBY war council on the ropes, they bounced back with the Doctor's Hospital petition drive. At their secret meetings, I'm sure they are grinning like Brian Urlacher after laying a blindside hit on a quarterback. The community be damned, we have interjected ourselves as decision makers.

This petition drive required months of work. In this post, I will describe what I have learned about this little spot of blackmail. Some of what I have learned comes from public records, some of it is simply inference, and some speculation.

Sometime last winter, I imagine one of our NIMBY Princes got the idea of voting the precinct dry. This would stop a hotel of any kind at the DH site. Not only that, but it will discourage developers not just in the 39th precinct but all over Hyde Park.

A search of the precinct maps on the City of Chicago web site showed that the 39th precinct is a tiny area consisting of Harper Ave, the west side of Stony Island Ave, and the east side of Blackstone Ave between 57 and 59th. This could be doable, thought our NIMBY field generals.

But there are a couple of obstacles to overcome: 1. They needed legal help to insure they produced the most credible blackmail threat (i.e., the measure makes it to the ballot), 2 They needed help obtaining signatures -- this includes both manpower and an entree to the voters of this precinct.

The problem with the first obstacle is that legal help can be expensive. Our friends would require the consulting services of a lawyer well-versed in election law. We now know that this group hired a very well-known election lawyer, Michael J. Kaspar. Mr. Kaspar is a partner at Hinshaw and Culbertson in the loop and well-known around that state. Mr. Kaspar was clearly involved at a very early stage as procedures for collecting signatures and filing were scrupulously adhered to. Mr. Kaspar might also have advised our local folks that it would be wise to collect signatures at the last moment so that opposition to the drive does not have a chance to get organized. Indeed, the signatures were collected between 7/29/08 and 8/6/08.

Stellar legal representation is very expensive. So where did our, not terribly well-heeled, friends get the kale? White Lodging has clearly been targeted for union organizing by Unite-HERE. WL is not a union shop and this really drives the shrinking union base crazy. Unite-HERE was formed by a merger of textile workers and hotel employees unions. Local 1, Unite-HERE, is very large and has a budget of over $3,000,000 per year. Each year, unions are required to file LM2 forms with the U. S. Department of Labor, detailing their disbursements. The rank and file dues from local 1 have funded almost $1,000,000 in legal expenditures in 2007. Unfortunately, the LM2 form for 2008 does not have to be filed until 2009, so I can't prove that Unite-HERE paid Mr. Kaspar's bills but it does seem very likely.

That takes care of legal representation. No doubt, Mr. Kaspar informed our NIMBY hawks that the law requires signatures of at least 25 per cent of the registered voters in the precinct. Precinct voting records obtained from the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners showed our friends that there were 600 odd voters in the 39th. Ok, now we need manpower.

Not to worry, local 1 Unite-HERE can help us on this as well. After all, there are plenty of union organizers on staff. Local 1, Unite-HERE has summer interns who are mostly students. The timing was perfect for this. Local 1 assigned staff member, Alexandra Canalos, and summer intern Francisco Herrera to the project. Ms. Canalos appears as a petition circulator on a number of the filed petition sheets. Mr. Herrera is a summer intern from a program at the Institute for "Interfaith Worker Justice" and appears on several forms.

It wouldn't do to have a large number of petitions circulated by outside labor organizers, so Ms. Canalos and Mr. Herrera enlisted the aid of various students. Omar Ramirez is a second year in the College. Alberto Roldan is a Northwestern U film major who didn't circulate any petitions but added his name to Mr. Ramirez's in a recent letter to the Herald. I haven't found any information about their other acquaintance, Luke Carmon who circulated petitions and added his name to the "labor oriented" Herald letter.

Petitions circulated by Canalos, Herrera, Ramirez and Carmon all used the same Notary Public, Marcia Nikoden. Ms. Nikodem lists an address very far from Hyde Park. All of the NIMBY circulators from Hyde Park used different notaries, most located in Hyde Park. So I think it is fair to conclude that the Canalos et al group worked together.

As we have pointed out in HPP, the idea of labor organizers working to deny jobs to hotel workers by plowing salt into the DH site is very strange. But, I am sure, our NIMBY strategists told them, "don't worry this is just a blackmail tactic. We will force WL to its knees." What the local NIMBYs didn't tell them is that once the petition is on the ballot, it is likely to pass. However, destruction of potential jobs is a subtle concept for labor union leaders who don't always represent their rank and file well.

College students can be a bit naive and they don't really have any long term affiliation with the neighborhood. "I had fun in the summer, beating up on evil White Lodging." It may not be clear to these folks that there really is no evidence that White Lodging has "questionable labor practices" and that their efforts could hurt future hotel workers.

But the bankroll of local 1 and the union manpower is not the whole story here. At least 100 regsitered voters in the 39th live in Vista Homes on Stony Island. To really be effective, our NIMBYs needed someone on the ground there. Allan Rechtschaffen was tailor-made for this purpose. A retired U of C prof, Mr. Rechtschaffen lives in Vista Homes and has some time on his hands. From his letter in the Herald, it seems clear to me that Mr. Rechtschaffen relishes his role as a thorn in the side of WL. He also seems to be genuinely peeved by what he feels is the lack of respect by WL and the reprsentatives of the U. However, he would have to admit that our NIMBYs hijacked the adgenda at meetings held in Vista Homes and at broader "community meetings." This made it very difficult to hold a dialogue.

In the end, this about upper middle class, mostly white, Hyde Parkers wanting to have more say in the Doctor's Hospital hotel development. It appears the local 1, Unite-HERE joins a long line of folks at the Unversity, local politicians, Chicago Park District employees, officers at the IHPA, and others who have gotten burned by our NIMBY handful.

Doctor's Hospital Petition: Hypocrites or Blackmailers?

posted by Peter Rossi

On November 4th, residents of the 39th precinct will vote on a referendum to make their precinct dry. Opponents of a hotel at the Doctor's Hospital site gathered the 150 signatures required from the 600 odd registered voters in this tiny precinct. A simple majority of those who vote on the referendum is needed to prevail. That means that only a handful of voters will determine the future of commercial development in HP.

An interesting soup of local "preservation" activists, labor organizers, university employees, and students canvassed for signatures.

Several of the petition circulators are local "preservationists" who are on public record as favoring a "re-use" of the existing Doctor's Hospital buildings. I reproduce two petition forms that were circulated by these "preservationists" below.

So much for "we want good development not this development" and "I'm in favor of a hotel; I just want preservation" and "I'm pro-development." Exploiting an absurd 1934 Illinois law, these folks have turned tail on their preservation roots. Voting this precinct dry will make any mixed used development infeasible, including re-use of the existing buildings. In all probability, the passage of this referendum would condemn the Doctor's Hospital Buildings to remain vacant indefinitely.

Would any developer come to Hyde Park after the cross has been burned on the lawn of Doctor's Hospital? Not likely, "those people are crazy; they would hurt themselves to avoid a restaurant or hotel in their neighborhood." So this petition has the potential to do great harm to Hyde Park and surrounding communities.

This looks pretty bad for the track record of some of the same folks who opposed development at McMobil, on Cornell, at St. Stephens, oppose fixing the Point, and want to gum up the works at Harper Court. They are more like undertakers than preservationists.

The sponsors of the petition have now signaled that this was all about a spot of blackmail. Vista Homes resident and winner of the petition sweepstakes, Mr. Rechtschaffen, let the cat of the bag in a letter in the Herald. Well, we want you (the developer and the U) to play ball; we aren't necessarily that interested voting the precinct dry. The head of the HP-KCC Preservation committee approached University officials and intimated that he didn't think the petition "had to go through," wink, wink.

Ah, the Prince would be proud of his HP proteges. They don't give a damn about preservation, they just want to hold feet to the fire. To what end, though? Mr. Rechschaffen is concerned about parking and noise. It's not clear he has any solution other than no hotel. He dances around the idea of a smaller hotel but this doesn't really help with his noise problem.

Mr. Lane of Harper Ave is even more obvious, "this has always been about the community process not the hotel." Translation: we want say in this project. We don't really care about the outcome; we just want power. Our other NIMBY friend is shy, or should I say sly, and doesn't say.

This was all accomplished by some pretty cynical political maneuvering. Our NIMBY handful went to some of their close neighbors at Vista Homes and Harper Ave and said "I know you are nervous about change, don't trust the wicked developer and arrogant U; let's slow this whole thing down." Well, they haven't "slowed it" down. In this kind of high stakes game, there is only go or no go. If the petition passes, this dooms the site and probably our neighborhood to no commercial development for some time.

The doomsday machine has been turned on. Does anyone seriously think that Mr. Rechtschaffen, Mr. Lane or the man behind the curtain are going to turn it off? Are they going to go door to door to tell their neighbors -- "Just kidding on that petition, the developer licked our boots clean, please vote NO?"

In the end, reasonable people will prevail and this measure will be defeated. Folks in the 39th will think it through and point the gun away from their foot.

The real question is will our students of Machiavelli be held accountable for this irresponsible act?

Next week: Anatomy of A Blackmail. A look at how this was set in the motion with the aid of local 1, Unite-HERE.

Antheus Capital Takes on the Shoreland

posted by Peter Rossi

Last week, Antheus Capital purchased the former Shoreland Hotel for $16,000,000. Antheus Capital owns an number of rental properties in the Hyde Park area and has two other major projects in various stages of production (Solstice in the Park (a 26 story condo at 56th and Cornell) and Village Center (a makeover of the Village Shopping Center at Hyde Park and Lake Park Blvds)).

At the current time, Antheus Capital is said to be studying the possibilities at the Shoreland. One nifty idea would be to make one wing of the massive former hotel just that -- a boutique hotel and leave the other to condos. In any event, this will be sure to draw NIMBY fire (aren't those condo owners noisy!). It may also add fuel to the "big is bad" argument (did you hear that Antheus Capital is partnering with Walmart?).

I'm delighted to see some positive movement. The Shoreland has a great location and is a grand old dame. One request please: Eli, can you please restore the portion of the cornice that was "repaired" by our dirt poor U? You know, the section in the middle with the sheet-metal covering that looks like it belongs in Naperville. But, I'm not going to threaten to vote you dry to get this. I put my trust in the profit motive - who wants to buy a condo or rent a hotel room in a building with a prominent missing tooth?

Forget Preservation...PROHIBITION!

posted by Peter Rossi

Photo illustration by GFC

As you sit down to dinner in Hyde Park, the doorbell rings and you cringe: chances are it's either a solicitor or a "cause."

Residents of Harper and Stony Island Avenues opened their doors early this month to find a bearded NIMBY or one of his minions, armed with a petition. What was the petition about? It sought to put a referendum on November's ballot voting the 39th Precinct dry. "Dry," of course, means to prohibit the sale of alcohol in any commercial establishment. Hey, Hyde Park is already a nuclear-free zone, so why not also take aim at the devil's brew? Visions of corseted women being raped by drunken immigrants, children being neglected by their alcoholic parents, and Bar Mitzvahs gone mad drift into your head.

But no, this petition is pure subterfuge. The Bearded One is a longtime NIMBY who wants to halt development in Hyde Park. It's no accident that the 39th Precinct includes the old Doctors Hospital.

On the subject of Doctors Hospital, popular opinion appears to have turned against the NIMBYs, so how can they block the hotel project? It's easy: hotels depend on restaurants for profits, and restaurants depend on liquor licenses. There's no surer way to plow salt into the DH soil than to forbid the sale of alcohol.

But wait. Isn't this Bearded One the same man who stood up at the August 5th community meeting on Doctors Hospital and solemnly declared, "I'm in favor of development"? Isn't this the same person who insists he's not against a hotel, but merely wants the developer to "reuse" the existing building in the construction? Isn't this the same person who feigned righteous indignation when the developer, White Lodging, said "reuse" was not feasible for this project? How can this man be publicly in favor of development and "preservation" of the structure as a hotel, and at the same time go door-to-door, trying to submarine not only the proposed development but any future development?

Welcome to the Wonderful World of NIMBYs. They think the means justify the end, and that no one will hold them accountable for their outrageous actions.

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

posted by Peter Rossi

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

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

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

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

2. selective omission of important facts

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

4. Misquote where possible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Herald a newspaper or a NIMBY newsletter?

Herald's Chicken: Translating NIMBY Speak

posted by Peter Rossi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herald's Chicken Classico: No News is News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psst! You can talk about Village Center now!

posted by Peter Rossi

For several years, there have been rumors that Antheus Capital (owners of the Village Shopping center at Lake Park Avenue and Hyde Park Boulevard) was interested in replacing the run-down shopping center with a combination residential and commerical development.

At the 53rd Street TIF meeting held Monday (7/14), developer Eli Ungar was allowed to let the cat of the bag. The proposal is nothing less than stunning and represents the most ambitious project attempted in Hyde Park in more than 30 years. Ungar and associates propose a development of more than 500,000 sq ft with 170 residences, dozens of retail spaces and more than 500 parking spaces.

The development would cover the entire parcel, bordered along Lake Park Ave by a 10 story structure with retail on the bottom floors and 2-4 bedroom condos above. At the northwest corner of the property at Harper and Hyde Park Blvd sits a 24 story residential tower. Along Harper, south of the tower, would be small scale retail spaces. Between the tower at the west and the "bench" along Lake Park would be a transparent retail bank on Hyde Park Blvd that hides an interior parking structure.

Elevation from Kenwood Academy Grounds

Along Lake Park Ave at Night

Designed by Studio Gang (creators of Aqua in the Lakeshore East development and designers of the yet to be constructed Solstice on the Park in HP), the development features a very transparent look that goes out of its way to relate to the streetscape and hide parking from view. The transparency is designed to reduce the mass of the development which is considerable.

At 244 ft, the tower is sure to get local NIMBYs stirred up but fits rather nicely with the 51st and East Hyde Park area.

View from atop Blackwood Apts at 52nd and Blackstone

Given the massive capital requirements, the development is to be attempted in two phases. Phase I will construct the "bench" along Lake Park and the interior parking and retail space, leaving most of the existing buildings along Harper occupied by current tenants. Phase II would add the tower and new retail spaces immediately to the south.

Cross-Section Viewed from South

The development faces a number of steep challenges including: leasing the retail space and generating residential interest, some current tenants who are holding long term leases, garnering Alderman Toni Preckwinkle's support, and dealing with the usual nay-sayers who oppose change in our community.

It should be noted that this is the ONLY development of any size that is on the drawing board for our neighborhood. Harper Court redevelopment is nowhere in sight and the University-funded Harper Theatre development is dead in the water. Add this to the stalled high rise at 53rd and Cornell, no clear future for the Shoreland, and vacant Doctor's Hospital and McMobil properties and you really have a ghost town in the making.

Millions in University and public funds have gone down the rat-hole of improving HP retail and yet the only development in Hyde Park comes entirely from the private sector. I hope our elected officials understand where the future of our neighborhood lies and offer to help speed this through the necessary zoning changes required for a more than eight-story structure.

The development will proceed with no TIF funding. The 53rd street corridor is fast degenerating into a mass of cell phone stores, vacant storefronts, dollar stores and branch banks. One wonders where our TIF dollars have gone?

There will be those who scoff at the sheer audacity of this proposal in the midst of paralysis in the mortgage markets. Ungar is betting on the future of HP. Who knows, with a windfall from the Olympics, he may end up having the last laugh.

Make no little plans!

Herald's Chicken: Point Savers Enforce Swimming Ban

posted by Peter Rossi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Peter Rossi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Obama's Neighborhood Redux

posted by Peter Rossi

Character assassination is the stock and trade of politically motivated writers.  In the presidential season, this reaches a fever pitch.  Backers of each candidate search far and wide for dirt.  Andrew Ferguson, desperate for something on Obama, has invented a new ploy- attack the candidate's neighborhood ("Mr. Obama's Neighborhood," The Weekly Standard, 6/16/08). 

I give Mr. Ferguson credit for creativity.  Usually, if you want to attack the candidate, you find some friends in dark shirts with yellow ties and fat envelopes. Or you look for philandering.  But most of those angles have been taken and Obama presents remarkably few personal foibles.   Let's take aim at Hyde Park -- it surely must be an easy mark.  We all know that university towns are a bit quirky.  We can always find some local talent to help ferret out the neighborhoods dirty past.

Mr. Ferguson's thesis is that Hyde Park is not really a neighborhood but a strange,  failed University of Chicago experiment.  An enclave of transients with no roots, just like Barack. Ironically, Mr. Ferguson's sources are all neighborhood residents who have lived in Hyde Park most of their adult lives and whose politics are about a mile to the left of the Weekly Standard.

It would be too easy to go through the article and point out the factual errors, inconsistencies, and misconceptions.  But the real problem is that Mr. Ferguson had the makings of an understanding of what makes Hyde Park special. He was blinded by the need to grind his political axe.

We can start with the University of Chicago.  The U of C is one of the world's best kept secrets; even Chicago cabbies don't know the difference between U of C and UIC. Other universities influence the world primarily via their alumni ("I went to Harvard, but I can't tell you what I learned there").  The U of C has had more than its fair share of influential alums, but has had the most impact on the rest of the world through the ideas of its scholars.  The U of C is fundamentally a modest place -- your ideas speak for you.   This presents some problems in developing neighborhood pride in the institution.

The University has also played a major role in the neighborhood.  It is popular to criticize the U for heavy-handed "urban renewal" that took place more than 40 years ago.  I  too wish that the U had left a few of the clubs and bars standing, but, without a major intervention, Hyde Park would be a bombed out non-neighborhood.   Street crime was a huge problem (even the alderman was shot) , housing prices were plummeting, students were afraid to walk on campus.  Today, street crime is at an all-time low and Hyde Park is one of the most stable neighborhoods in the city (too stable as we have been quick to point out here at HPP).

I'm not sure what is so bad about living in a neighborhood with "shade trees and lawns  and stately brick mansions and huge, tidied up apartment houses."  Mr. Ferguson alludes to the diversity of our housing stock.  There is a bit of something for everyone in Hyde Park from mid rise to the Prairie school.  I  really can't think of any urban university in the US that has it so good (Evanston might come the closest).

Mr. Ferguson fails to mention the lakefront.  We have the best part of what is truly a unique Chicago asset.  There is nothing like the Point elsewhere on the Chicago lakefront.

There are the delights of the rest of Chicago, certainly one of the most vibrant US cities.  

Mr. Ferguson takes Hyde Park to task for being elitist. Hyde Park is certainly more diverse in income and race than any other university town in the US.  But there are no slums or housing projects in Hyde Park.  Is there something wrong with that?

It is true that there are parts of Hyde Park that are solidly upper middle class.  But there is less interest in material goods and more interest in ideas  than in the standard affluent suburbs.  You can take your children to the neighborhood play lot and not worry about swathing them in the latest children's fashions or impressing the other parents with your knowledge of vacation spots and chic restaurants.  At the Lab School, learning is more than just a means to the ivy end.  Black and white kids are seen at the same lunch tables.

Hyde Park is home to a fascinating array of people who are NOT affiliated with the University of Chicago.  A friend is a great example.  She came to Hyde Park in the 50s as a stewardess for United Airlines and ended up marrying a Chicago attorney and raising a family in Hyde Park. Several of her grown children still live here.  Many of the people I know in Hyde Park are second or even third generation Hyde Parkers.  Claims of transiency help Ferguson paint a  picture of an alienated community but have no basis in fact.  The only true transients are the some 4 thousand undergrads; a drop in the bucket for a community of over 40,000.

One of the most heartening recent developments has been the influx of "new blood" to the neighborhood.  Families are attracted to Hyde Park by the unique suburban (for want of a better word)/urban aspects.  Wicker Park or Bucktown may be relentlessly hip, but try schooling your kids there or fighting your way to the lakefront.  Mr. Obama and his family are a part of this new crew.

Mr. Ferguson's parting shot is at black Hyde Park residents: "the blacks who moved here have the same sense of displacement ..."  I note that most of the quotes in Mr. Ferguson's article are from white Hyde Parkers.  He must have some hidden sources for the black ennui.

A recent Chicago Tribune featured an obituary that speaks volumes to this point.  This fellow graduated from Howard University medical school and got his start on the battlefields of the Korea.  The obituary goes on to cite this man's many achievements and grateful former patients.  Where did he make his home for more than 40 years? Hyde Park, of course.  

note: in the interest of full disclosure, I am a supporter of Mr. Obama. However, it is the distorted and incomplete view of Hyde Park that I object to in Mr. Ferguson's piece.

U of C: Guardian Angel, Despot, or Sucker?

posted by Peter Rossi

In recent years, our favorite (and only) neighborhood university has gone on a buying binge. First, Doctor's Hospital and the Hyde Park Theatre and related buildings at 53rd and Harper. Then a multi-million dollar bail-out of the Co-Op. This was followed by the purchase of the radioactive Harper Court. Most recently, another transfer payment to take over the Chicago Theological Seminary.

All told, these various purchases and subsidies are close to topping the $75 million mark. We haven't seen this kind of activity since the old Urban Renewal days. It mirrors work that other universities are doing.

The Guardian Angel

There has always been a sense in which the U has been the buyer of last resort for HP, somewhat like the Federal Reserve. If things get bad, we can always count on the U to bail out the neighborhood. The Hyde Park Theater building is a case in point. Neighborhood theaters are a thing of the past (why settle for one screen when you can have your choice of 15 at AMC with parking too!). It was clear no one would buy this abandoned building. So along comes the U, patiently plunking down its millions and engaging a top notch developer to make something of the old Cinema Paradiso.

The same story was played out with Doctor's Hospital. Who is going to spend $50,000 a year to send the kiddies to the U and feel good about it when you can't even stay near the campus? The various units of the U spend millions each year to feed and house visiting faculty and speakers in downtown hotels. It seems very logical to build a hotel on the site of this eyesore. An auction was held and guess who suffered from winner's curse? This whole deal has gone sour as local NIMBYs hid behind preservation and labor issues to stop the U dead in its tracks.

Harper Court has suffered from NIMBY attention. The HP-KCC (in the person of its "preservation task force") rushed in to control this development under the assumption that there would be a long list of suitors willing to develop under the most intrusive conditions. No one was stepping up to the plate, so again our white knight reached into his wallet.

We have been over the Co-Op many times here in this blog. But the bottom line is that the University forgave past due rent and satisfied the Co-Op's creditors with bushels of cash. Again, one could argue that this was absolutely critical for the neighborhood and the U. Who would live in a neighborhood without a functioning supermarket, however great Peapod is?

The latest and largest (more than $40 million) investment is the take-over of the Chicago Theological Seminary at 58th and University. These buildings will house the new Milton Friedman Institute (there is even a chapel to worship the free market!). It is easy to make the argument that this is a great deal for the university. The CTS buildings are right in the middle of the campus and are also very striking. The Milton Friedman Institute is a smart move to attract donors who want to honor Milton and the economic principles that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, let the University of Chicago win the Cold War.

The Despot

This flurry of activity and huge investment is sure to stir up our local conspiracy theorists. The U is an evil empire that reveals an arrogance that makes Bill Clinton look bashful. The U will only pay lip service to community input. The U and its wealthy donors will build academic temples inlaid with gold and tony shops to satisfy the temporary residents (students) and fussy faculty.

The problem with this theory is that it presupposes that the incentives of the University are different from that of the community. This is clearly false. It is very much in the interest of the University to have a vibrant neighborhood. Those who think that the University only wants luxury condos and expensive shops are woefully ignorant of the U payroll. Thousands of staff members and graduate students pull down modest pay and want to live in our neighborhood.

Never Give a Sucker An Even Break

My biggest worry about this latest spending spree is that the U won't pull it off. The U has an spotty track record in managing and developing commercial real estate.

A review of a few recent episodes is in order. A prime example is the Hyde Park Theater mess. As the Herald reported this week (yes, friends, once is a blue moon reporting can be found there), the U has just fired the developer for this parcel. This is worth thinking about as this developer (Brinshore and Baum) has an excellent reputation. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the whole idea of developing the Theater site is flawed. 53rd street is not Damen Ave. It can barely support a collection of marginal shops (HPP and Freehling Pot and Pan, notwithstanding). Where are the customers going to come from to browse the cute boutiques this development was to feature? The immediate central Hyde Park neighborhood doesn't have enough customers, with enough income to support specialty shops. Either you have to attract customers from elsewhere (but you need to provide parking) or you have to increase the number of residents.

Perhaps, the U fired the HP Theater developer in order to coordinate with the development of nearby HC. However, this does not explain why they chose to start this process with Brinshore and Baum in the first place. Local NIMBYs have been effusive in their praise of the HP Theater development "process." The fact that it proved to be another dead end keeps up their dismal track record.

The Co-Op fiasco is a lesson in commercial real estate management as well. In 1999, the Hyde Park Shopping Center (owned by U of C) was renovated and Co-Op signed to a long-term lease. The plans for renovation were singularly lacking in ambition and mass. There just aren't enough stores in the center to attract customers. The Co-Op footprint is way too small to attract the interest of major chains. Finally, we all know how Whole Foods was shown the door!

There are other examples. There have been all sorts of failures in attracting restaurants to the "golden rectangle." Any one can see the reason (even Hans Moresbach gets it) -- the precinct is dry. This needs changing before you start subsidizing restaurants.

There is also a real concern that the U is not very savvy in negotiating real estate deals. Harper Court and the Shoreland are cases in point. The U paid 6.6 million for HC and sold the Shoreland for a song. The 6.6 million is more than other developers have offered for HC. And these other offers were made in heady times of inflated real estate values. A search of Cook County records tells the tale of the Shoreland. The U sold the property to a developer in 12/04 for $3,750,000 (based on tax stamps). The developer flipped the Shoreland for $10,000,000 in 9/06.

In the end, the success of the U in bringing about a change in our neighborhood is critical for us all. I hope President Zimmer is thinking long and hard about bringing more expertise in commercial real estate to bear on these critical developments. But this is not all, there has to be a concerted effort to increase the density and population of Hyde Park. This means supporting large scale residential development in East Hyde Park and elsewhere.

We can't afford to develop the reputation as the only prime area in Chicago that actively discourages development. We all need to do a better job of selling our local officials on change and making the case that the 50 cranks who show up at "community meetings" don't speak for us all. The U needs to step up and be counted on this one.