Is union membership so oppressive?

Learning that suburban Lincolnshire has declared itself to be a “right to work” zone makes me wonder what some people have against the concept of labor.

Are they really so trusting of management to always know better what needs to be done? Perhaps that would explain the fact that a sizable (if not truly a majority) of people think Donald Trump’s business experiences make him fit to lead the nation!

PERSONALLY, IT GALLS me to think that some people want to take on this issue that could easily be left alone. Why prod the rabid dog into attacking you if you don’t have to?

But that’s what happened in Lincolnshire, which became the first municipality to feel the need to take up this issue – which was something that Gov. Bruce Rauner for awhile had dreams that municipalities all over the state would adopt as a gesture of support for his fight with the Chicago-leaning political establishment of the state.

In this case, being a “right to work” place means companies based in that village do not have to withhold union dues from their employees’ salaries. If the workers really want their unions to have the money that badly, they have to write out a separate check to send to them.

Which is a hassle for the unions and their membership. Its purpose, as it is in all “right to work” states, is to undermine the ability of unions to organize the workers and discourage those workers from thinking they ought to be union members.

WHICH MAKES ALL the right-wing talk of personal freedom and how this isn’t anti-union a whole lot of hooey. It’s meant to single out anyone who wants to take the initiative to be in a labor union.

I’d respect management all the more if they’d only admit that!

It is a whole mess of an issue, creating a lot of tension that ought not to exist. And now, Lincolnshire has felt compelled to drag itself into this mess that truly is so far above its head.

You have to wonder what those officials are thinking? Or if they’re thinking at all. It’s quite possible they’re not, and that this is a blind-faith, knee-jerk reaction by GOP-leaning local officials who don’t truly comprehend what they’re doing.

CONSIDER THAT WHEN Lincolnshire’s village board approved the measure Monday, none of their village trustees had anything to say. They just voted “aye,” probably like their village president told them to – for all I know.

Not that this attitude surprises me. I have encountered people during life who, because of their upbringing, just don’t want to accept the fact that organized labor does serve a purpose.

I still recall when I first started working for United Press International and was handed the card to fill out to join the Newspaper Guild local that represented wire service workers then.

Because I had once interned at a central Illinois-based newspaper where the reporters were not unionized, but the competing newspaper’s staff were and were paid much better, I had no hesitation.

ONLY TO HEAR a plea from one of my co-workers who apparently couldn’t believe anyone wasn’t bothered by the very thought of “union” membership connected to their names.

The point is even though she didn’t join, she was still covered by the benefits of that union contract. Yet if the ideologues were at all accurate, she wouldn’t have been. Union membership truly isn’t oppressive, unless you create it out to be in your mindset.

And yes, I should confess that the UPI job I referred to eventually laid me off, but with ample warning and a competent severance package; as called for in that union contract.

All of the layoffs I have had since then at non-union jobs gave me nothing more than a week’s pay and that 15-minute timespan to clean out my desk before leaving the premises. Is that really what this fight truly is about?

  -30-

Get off your lazy duffs to make sure you’re registered to vote come Feb. 24

It’s my oft-stated belief that people who don’t bother to show up to vote come Election Day lose their right to complain about the ineptitude of their government officials.

Particularly since recent changes in electoral procedure now allow people to vote in advance of Election Day. You don’t necessarily have to wait in line for hours at a time on the big day in order to cast your ballot.

WHICH IS WHY I’m particularly worked up about Tuesday – which is the final day for people to make sure they’re registered to vote IF they want to be eligible to cast ballots in the mayoral election.

If you wait a couple of weeks, you could still be eligible to vote in the April 7 run-off elections that may well be necessary (the most recent poll I saw indicated no one is likely to win outright a month from now, and it will be Mayor Rahm Emanuel being challenged by Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia in a run-off).

But not being registered properly to vote will ensure that you would be committing a criminal offense if you were to try to cast a ballot come Feb. 24.

That would be truly a sad situation if it were to come about next month.

MY OWN BIAS is that I always want as many people as possible to turn out to cast ballots – and not just because I do think it is a civic obligation to take a few minutes to use one of those touch-screens that now serve as voting booths to express your opinion of who should serve in government.

Both as mayor, the clerk and treasurer positions, and who gets to represent your ward in the City Council.

I know there are some wards where the incumbent is unopposed, which gives people no choice for who will be their alderman. But there are others where there are ample choices.

Those residents ought to look at this as an opportunity to express themselves – to speak out in a way to make their pleasure (or displeasure) about City Hall known.

NOT BEING ABLE to do so because you were too lazy to even bother to register to vote is more of a negative statement about yourself rather than a wisecrack about the quality of government and its public officials.

Although I wonder how this upcoming municipal election cycle will turn out.

Because while I believe there are people who are appalled and disgusted by the current administration (particularly that of Emanuel) and who are screaming at the top of their voices to be heard, I also wonder if the apathy factor is going to cause many more people to care less.

Even if they are registered, they may not vote. And if they’re not registered, then activity on Feb. 24 (with a possible April 7 follow-up) is a moot point.

THERE ALSO WILL be conflicting perceptions because of the fact that so much of metro Chicago is suburban – about two-thirds, to be exact. In those communities, the municipal elections don’t come until April 7.

Within Cook County, only suburban Dolton and Morton Grove have any offices up for stake next month. Everybody else will wait until April to decide who should be the leaders of their local governments.

And if past elections are any example, few suburban people will bother to turn out. City elections are different in that politically-aware people take them more seriously than the state or federal elections. Some of the same city residents who couldn’t be bothered to vote for governor last year will think mayor means more.

But how many of last year’s lazy people will care less this year? And how many of them will scream the loudest come early May when the new local officials are sworn in for the next four years of service?

  -30-

Immigration “reform” drive won’t die off

Through the sister weblog to this site, The South Chicagoan, I often hear from the conservative ideologues who want to believe they have “killed off,” once and for all, any effort toward  immigration reform.

These are the people who want to dance with joy at the embarrassing political activity that occurred back in December, when the Senate refused to even allow a final vote on the DREAM Act, letting their ideological hang-ups insist upon thinking of young people trying to advance themselves in life as somehow subversive to their vision of the “American dream.”

YET THE REALITY is that this issue isn’t going to die off. It is not going to end until the day that the federal government (which has the ultimate responsibility to address the flaws in our nation’s immigration policy) gets off its collective duff and takes action.

The reason why that day is forthcoming is because of the young population that is growing  more and more so in our society. There’s too many people who are personally affected who are going to refuse to continue to be ignored – and too many people whose sense of compassion and decency makes us realize that the “problem” is the people who want to turn their backs on them.

That is how I see the gathering of activists that occurred Thursday at the Daley Center – the site of so many downtown protest rallies that it becomes too easy to lose track of which cause is up for debate on any given day.

Those officials holding their “National Coming Out of the Shadows” rally are marking their similar event held a year ago to the date, which was followed up by similar rallies in other cities across the nation. That is likely to be the pattern in coming weeks – people are going to be showing their continued support for this particular issue.

WHAT HAS ALWAYS amazed me about opposition to the DREAM Act in particular is that it is nothing more than people letting their ethnic hang-ups get the best of common sense, since the people who would benefit from it are the ones who are making every effort in the conventional sense to advance themselves.

Higher education, or military service – with the benefit of a visa (and eventual chance at U.S. citizenship) given only if one successfully completes it. I hardly think anyone capable of receiving an honorable discharge from the military is subversive to our nation.

There is one aspect to Thursday’s events that I think to be totally appropriate.

That rally at the Daley Center was within site (literally across the street) from the building we think of as City Hall – only the city portion is on the other side. It is Cook County officials who could look out their windows and see the young people.

CITY OFFICIALS ON LaSalle Street could pretend that nothing unusual was happening. Considering that those officials include Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel, it is ironic because Emanuel during his time as chief of staff to President Barack Obama did a good job of pretending that the issue didn’t exist.

Now the political observer in me understands his theoretical point – that the people who most oppose immigration reform measures would get so angry at anything he did on the issue that they would revolt and shut down Obama’s entire presidential agenda.

Then again, the hard-core Republican ideologues found enough reasons to try to shut down anything Obama desires to do as president. So I’m not sure that Emanuel gained anything for the president by steering him away from anything more than cheap rhetoric on immigration reform-related issues.

Now that we’re going to have Emanuel as mayor, he’s no longer in a position to continue to stall activity on this issue. Which means the voters of Chicago may well have done the nation a favor – although whether or not Obama’s new chief of staff, William Daley (as in the brother of departing mayor Richard M.) will be inclined to care about this issue remains to be seen.

IF BILL DALEY is really attuned to the mood of his hometown, he will have to care. Because this remains an ethnic city, where even the “white” people are fully aware of their ethnic backgrounds – and where the Latino people who take a heightened interest in this issue (because it relates to how we’re perceived as a whole, regardless of our citizenship status) have risen ever-so-close to the day when they’re exactly one-third of the city (29 percent, to be exact, according to the 2010 Census Bureau results).

This remains a “sanctuary city” where it is official policy that local police have no business getting involved in federal immigration enforcement. It makes us the antidote to places that view Arizona as some sort of model for local officials – whose training doesn’t come close to preparing them – desiring to meddle with this issue.

Which likely means that “the Chicago Way” is the way for the nation to follow. And there was a whole gathering of young people who on Thursday were more than willing to lead those of us who are reluctant down the proper path.

  -30-

How embarrassing WAS Chicago Election Day for African-American voter bloc?

HENDON: Has time passed him by?

Depending on whom one wants to listen to, Rickey Hendon is retiring from the state Senate (and electoral politics altogether, if his “out is out” statement is truthful) because he’s ill, he thinks it will help him avoid an indictment or because he’s embarrassed by “pathetic” vote totals by African-American voters in last week’s municipal elections.

Now I’m not sure which of the three is most accurate, although I can’t help but think that some people who talk about indictments are merely eager to reinforce their own racial hang-ups. But the one that catches my attention is the latter.

MANY GROUPS DIVERSE in ethnicity and religion experienced victories in the election results – the numbers provide evidence of their growing influence in the Chicago of the 21^st Century.

Yet influence is like a pie, in that no matter how many different ways one tries to slice it, there’s only so much to go around. So if ethnic politicos experienced gains, it only makes sense that someone had to lose out.

And it sure wasn’t the old order Irish-American politicos who lost anything – even if Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel were to dump 14^th Ward Alderman Edward Burke as chairman of the Finance Committee.

Was it the black voter bloc that lost out?

IN HENDON’S CASE, he tried to use his influence as a black politico to tout the campaign of Patricia Horton for city Clerk. It would have been a rise from her post as a board member of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.

Instead, she got whomped, barely taking 40 percent of the vote in a head-to-head campaign against state Rep. Susana Mendoza, D-Chicago.

The new clerk becoming the first Latina to hold that particular Chicago citywide office is a gain for Latino political empowerment, and it came about because the Latino voter bloc that was split by about a 2-1 ratio between mayoral hopefuls Gery Chico and Miguel del Valle found common ground for Mendoza.

Thereby giving her a solid base of voter support that Hendon and other black politicos couldn’t overcome on Horton’s behalf.

OF COURSE, THE mayoral campaign itself factors into this.

The official figure that will be recognized is 59 percent – as in the number of black voters who are believed to have voted for Rahm Emanuel to be mayor, rather than Carol Moseley-Braun, the so-called consensus candidate of the African-American activists.

There’s also the fact that Moseley-Braun couldn’t win a single ward, and in fact only one a majority of votes in 1 precinct (out of just over 2,900 precincts in the entire city).

By comparison, Chico’s mayoral campaign actually won the majority of 10 wards, and even got significant votes in places preferred by Emanuel.

IF THERE WAS a racial/ethnic factor at work in this election cycle, it was one of white and Latino, not white and black such as what existed back in those un-glorious days of 1983.

Now I think it would be overly-simplistic to write this off as a growing political feud between Latino and black voters in Chicago, in large part because I think the people most eager to promote THAT view are the ones who want to stir dissent in hopes that it will enable them to maintain control.

But it also is a factor that will have to be accounted for as Chicago takes steps to being a city with equal numbers of Latinos, black and white people. (As it is, we’re pretty close now – the 2010 Census results for Illinois released two weeks ago show Chicago with 33 percent black people, 32 percent white and 29 percent Latino – with Asians of various ethnicities comprising the remaining 6 percent).

If anything, the Census results may provide the biggest clue as to what happened on Election Day – there probably aren’t as many black voters.

THE RESULTS THAT show Chicago as a city with just under 2.7 million people indicate that the bulk of the 200,000-person population “loss” was of black people who moved to the inner south suburbs of Cook County – with many of those municipalities becoming majority African-American.

Which also pares up with the fact that the outer southern suburbs of Will County is the place that had the largest percentage increase (just under 35 percent) in Illinois, and gained about 183,000 people. Now we know where many of the remaining white people went, and that “white flight” remains alive – albeit not quite an urban concept anymore.

Think I’m exaggerating? I covered a criminal trial recently at the courthouse in Joliet and heard the lead defense attorney at one point during a recess talk about his family ties in the Bridgeport neighborhood that he still feels, even though, “We’ve all moved out here now and taken over.”

For the city’s white population in the past decade remained relatively stable in terms of numbers, although it shifted around to different neighborhoods.

WHICH MAY WELL mean that Hendon probably shouldn’t feel embarrassment. Maybe he did the best with the remaining number of African-Americans in the city who are registered to vote.

It means we’re going to have to think in these multi-ethnic terms when it comes to defining our city. Black and white (or white and “other,” the way some people prefer to think of it) just aren’t accurate anymore.

And if Hendon can’t accept that fact, then perhaps we should praise him for resigning his legislative post. At least it means he’s accepting that he’s a part of our city’s past, unlike some other activists who will try to carry their ways of doing things into the future on a quest that bears all too much resemblance to the Chicago Cubs saying each year that they’re really, really, really going to win a National League championship.

  -30-

Tuesday is here. Now go vote!

Although I started out this particular election cycle wishing it were possible for Miguel del Valle to run a competitive campaign, I have become comfortable with the concept of “Mayor Rahm Emanuel.”

NEELY: The only safe prediction



So if it turns out in the final hours of Tuesday that the former White House chief of staff has managed to get the sufficient percentage of votes so he can automatically become mayor in May (rather than endure an April 5 run-off election), I’m not going to be among those wishing to slit my wrists in reaction.

FOR THE ONLY real question at stake in terms of the city-wide positions in Tuesday’s municipal elections is whether Emanuel’s significant lead over each of the other candidates wishing to become mayor is a majority overall – or just 49 percent.

Not that I think a run-off would automatically result in all of the rest of Chicago uniting against Emanuel. I honestly think the ABRs of the world won’t be enough people to vote for Anybody But Rahm.

If I had to predict now, I think the people who backed former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun out of a desire to have an African-American person as mayor will be so disgusted that they couldn’t even finish in second place that most will sit out a run-off. That would turn Emanuel's current backers into a run-off majority.

Even if the backers of Gery Chico and del Valle come together, I can’t help but notice that Emanuel in various polls seems to get a sizable (if not overwhelming) chunk of the Latino voter bloc (some Latinos want to be on the winning side so that they have a chance to gain the “goodies” of government).

WHICH MEANS THAT whether it is on Tuesday or on April 5, I see Rahm Emanuel becoming the next mayor of Chicago.

I have the same concerns about Emanuel that some of the ABRs have – he’s a political operative with such a strong business orientation that I wonder if he can appreciate those individuals who have to work for a living.

MENDOZA: The next clerk?

Although I must admit the image out of Washington of a foul-mouthed, tough-spoken politico doesn’t bother me. Perhaps we need someone in charge who is willing to stand up to people, and knows there are times when the appropriate reaction is to tell someone where to go.

Also, I must admit to despising the sentiments of those people who are ABR because they’re desperately looking for something they can twist into a political defeat for President Barack Obama. A part of me wants an Emanuel victory just because I realize how much it would thoroughly upset the crowd of ideologues who want Rahm to lose because of his Obama (and Bill Clinton) ties.

BUT SINCE I see the election of Emanuel as being inevitable, a part of me is hoping that he manages to get the bare majority on Tuesday. Let’s get this campaigning over with. A run-off election cycle would turn into childish chatter that we’d all be better off without.

It’s not like the other city-wide offices are going to carry on after Tuesday. Stephanie Neely will continue to be the city Treasurer (she’s unopposed), while we WILL pick a new city clerk – and for the first time in city history, it will be a woman.

It’s just a question of whether it will be state Rep. Susana Mendoza, D-Chicago, who gets to come back home from Springfield to be a politico, or whether Patricia Horton gets to move up from the obscurity of her seat on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District to be the person that runs the office that sells you the city sticker that you’re supposed to buy every year and put on your car.

The one thing I do believe (we’ll find out for sure if I know what I’m talking about by day’s end) is that the Latino voter bloc that seems to be split by a 2-1 ratio for Chico over del Valle likely will unite and give a large-enough base of voter support that I think the end result of this election will be that Mendoza can give up her part-time Springfield residence to return to the city and run the clerk’s office.

EMANUEL: Is resistance truly futile?



I SUSPECT THE aldermanic races in the 50 wards will provide the true excitement that will drive voter turnout in the wards where the incumbent has decided to follow the lead of Richard M. Daley and leave voluntarily.

In particular, I am curious to see how the 20^th Ward turns out. I don’t live there, nor do I know anyone who does, but it will be a sight to see if rapper “Rhymefest” becomes 20^th Ward Alderman Che Smith, deposing ex-cop and incumbent alderman Willie Cochran.

I also have an inquiring mind, so to speak, about the 10^th Ward (which is my birthplace, and where I still have some relatives living), which had the city’s original Spanish-speaking enclave nearly a century ago and may elect its first Latino alderman (although Richard Martinez is actually a Mexican/Polish-American, to be technical).

Or, it may keep incumbent 10^th Ward Alderman John Pope, who has represented the far southeast corner of Chicago since 1999 and has managed to have significant Latino voter support in past election cycles.

I ALSO WANT to see who gets to replace 45^th Ward Alderman Pat Levar, since five of the seven candidates who will be on Tuesday’s ballot have taken to sending me unsolicited copies of all their press statements.

I haven’t written about that particular Northwest Side ward during this election cycle, but the feistiness of these candidates came through in what they were sending me. I can only envision if I had made it up to “Six Corners” sometime in the past couple of months (it has been about a year since I have been to the point where Milwaukee Avenue cuts through Irving Park Road and Cicero Avenue) how outrageous the scene must really be.

A true political “brawl” worthy of Chicago’s political reputation.

  -30-

Chico campaign digs out immigration reform (or lack thereof) to ding Emanuel

I have been wondering how long it would take before immigration reform (actually, the failure of anything to take place on that issue) would become an issue in the municipal elections.

CHICO: On the attack?



For the record, it was Sunday that Rahm Emanuel got hit for the fact that President Barack Obama did little to nothing to advance immigration reform, even though many of the Latino activists who gave him solid support in the ’08 election cycle did so with the belief that he would be sympathetic on the issue.

AMONG MANY LATINO activists, the belief is that Obama himself may be sympathetic. But it was Emanuel, his chief of staff, who made the decision to downplay the issue because he did not want to tick off the conservative ideologues (as though they aren’t already ticked off by Obama’s existence in the White House).

The failure of anything providing the necessary reform of our nation’s flawed immigration policies is something they want to blame on Emanuel. So it wasn’t at all surprising that Emanuel’s most significant challenger in the mayoral elections used that discontent among many Latinos to take a shot across Rahm’s bow.

Chico and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., held a Humboldt Park neighborhood rally on Sunday, using Roberto Clemente High School as the Latino-filled setting for the one-time Chicago Public Schools president/Park District head/City Colleges CEO to become the “Latino” candidate.

Of course, to give Chico that level of deniability that he’s delving into “ethnic politics” while still gaining its benefits, he had Gutierrez make the most incendiary statements, which might not even appear to be all that fiery except to those people who have been paying attention to the immigration reform debate (or lack, thereof).

“RAHM EMANUEL TURNED his back on working families by fighting immigration reform to enable the heart-breaking deportations that have torn Chicago families apart,” Gutierrez said. “Chicago can make history in just nine days by electing its first mayor who is Latino, but who also happens to be the best qualified candidate in the race.”

GUTIERREZ: El Gallito crows for Chico

An interesting spin, since by all factual accounts Emanuel is guilty of inactivity. Not exactly “fighting immigration reform.” It’s more about apathy toward the growing Latino population than anything else.

Insofar as families being broken apart (the reason that the Catholic Church always gives when it justifies its support for immigration reform), a University of California at Davis study last year estimated that 100,000 children had a parent deported between 1997 and 2007, and about 88,000 of those children were U.S. citizens, with about half of those being under the age of 5 at the time they lost a parent.

It’s not a pretty picture. The fact that Emanuel can be tagged as being apathetic toward such issues is not something he should be proud of.

BUT COULD IT be that Emanuel’s apathy toward the Latino population on a national level for the past two years will come back to bite him in the nalgas in his bid for city mayor? Could the Latino vote wind up providing just enough support that it denies Emanuel that desired “50 percent, plus one” in terms of votes he needs next week in order to avoid having to participate in a run-off election on April 5.

To me, that was the most interesting part of the Chicago Tribune poll from last week – the one that had Emanuel at 49 percent, with Chico solidly in second place ahead of Carol Moseley-Braun.

When one looks at the ethnic breakdown of would-be voters who were surveyed, one finds that 56 percent of the Latino voter bloc is giving its support to a Latino candidate – with Chico getting more support than Miguel del Valle by roughly a 2 to 1 ratio (38 percent for Chico compared to 18 percent for del Valle).

That could very well be because Chico is showing enough signs of being competitive politically that many Latino voters are getting on board with the “winner” (or at least the one they perceive as being the likely victor).

THAT ALSO IS what I think of the fact that 34 percent of Latino would-be voters were willing to ignore the immigration issue “controversy” and say they will back Emanuel. They want to be behind the candidate whom they think will win (and would be in a position to give them consideration when he gets elected to office).

EMANUEL: Unable to relax

So maybe what we have amongst Latino voters is a split between those backing Chico and those backing Emanuel, with the latter trying to portray himself as the candidate who can appeal to all the voter blocs that comprise this city (that Tribune poll had him at 55 percent support among white people and 48 percent among African-American people, along with his Latino support).

But would that Latino support be stronger had he been willing to expend even a little political capital toward immigration (an issue of growing importance to all Latinos because it often shows an individual’s attitude toward the ethnic group as a whole), rather than appearing to be apathetic.

Which makes me wonder if Rahm would be resting a little bit easier going into this final week before Election Day if there had been even a slight effort toward immigration reform?

  -30-

Residency for mayor, but not employees?

CHICO: Easing residency for public safety?

I find it ironic that mayoral hopeful Gery Chico this week came out for easing the residency requirements for city workers, at a time when an overly strict interpretation of “the law” when it comes to mayoral candidates could work to his benefit.

There are those people who believe that Chico, the one-time head of the Public Schools board, the City Colleges of Chicago and the Park District, would become the new front-runner, should Rahm Emanuel be unsuccessful in convincing the Illinois Supreme Court to keep his name on the ballot for the Feb. 22 municipal elections.

AFTER ALL, SAY the legal critics, Emanuel can’t run for mayor because he has NOT been a Chicago resident for a long-enough period of time – in accordance with that strict reading of relevant law.

There are those who think the people pushing this view are Chico’s backers (including Alderman Edward Burke), if not quite Chico himself.

So we have a case where overly-strict residency requirements are good for Chico if they bump off his most serious Election Day opponent. Yet he’s going around getting the endorsement of the International Association of Firefighters local that represents the Chicago Fire Department employees.

The way he’s doing that is by telling them this week he’d ease the residency requirement. I’d say that the move would also get Chico the endorsement of the Chicago Police chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police – except for the fact that the cop union has already endorsed him! But to keep the cops from feeling neglected, he made pledges Wednesday to put 2,000 more officers on the streets by the end (if elected) of his four-year term.

NOW I DO see the one major difference. “Mayor” is an elected position. We don’t pick our police officers and firefighters, or their leaders, at the voting booth. So I’m not quite calling the Chico campaign hypocritical when it comes to the concept of residency and government.

But at a time when political observers watching this particular election cycle are engaging in debates over what, exactly, does Illinois law have to say about residential status for an elected official, the whole concept of demanding proper residency for a city official has risen to a new level of attention.

EMANUEL: Easing his residency?

So it seems odd that at least one of those candidates for mayor is choosing this moment in time to get a little bit lax with the residency requirements for other city personnel.

Now I realize that residency has been a long-festering issue, particularly when it comes to employees of the agencies that are supposed to ensure the public safety of city residents.

WE MAKE JOKES about those “cop enclaves” in neighborhoods such as Jefferson Park on the Northwest Side or Mount Greenwood on the Southwest Side – the latter of which bears so much resemblance to neighboring Alsip that one can’t easily tell where city ends and suburb begins. (For the record, I have two uncles who were Chicago police – one who lived in Mount Greenwood, just three blocks from the city limits, and another who lived out near Midway Airport, although upon his retirement, he found himself a literal country estate in Arkansas to escape what he had come to see as the urban zoo).

I’m sure there are many police officers and firefighters who would have no qualms about moving those few blocks out further into a suburban town – if not for the residency requirement that has been in place for decades.

There are those people who make arguments in defense of residency requirements by claiming they are needed to keep the “middle class” living in the city. Without them, they say, Chicago would become a home address for very wealthy people who live in or near downtown, and the rest of the city would become for the very poor.

Actually, I think it is the quality of the public school system that is more important in that regard. A lot of people, if they don’t already live here, make a point of moving to the city in early adulthood. It is the belief that the local public schools are too low quality (and the parochial or other private schools too expensive) that causes too many people to leave – creating a case where roughly two-thirds of the Chicago-area’s population lives in a suburb, rather than the city itself.

MY REASON FOR thinking the residency requirement has merit is because it would be nice to have the public safety employees on hand.

I know there are suburban towns that are forced to ease up on residency requirements – or else they wouldn’t be able to hire and keep qualified public safety employees. The mode in those places seems to be requiring their workers to live within something like a 10-mile radius of the home town, or requiring them to live in town for a few years, then easing up on residency once they become veteran employees.

I’d like to think Chicago has enough to offer that it doesn’t have to ease up on residency in order to find qualified workers. People who talk about easing the requirement seem, to me, to be surrendering on a certain level. If Chico really does believe that residency for those city workers isn’t all that important, then perhaps he should make some sort of statement telling the people who are eager to boot Emanuel from the ballot based on residency technicalities to ease up.

Fat chance that will ever happen!

  -30-