Productive? More like, “Drop dead!”

Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave Mayor Lori Lightfoot the time of day, as the two of them had a one-on-one meeting Saturday to discuss various issues – including whether or not state government would be capable of offering help to city government in meeting pension obligations.

LIGHTFOOT: Wants state aid on pensions

Oddly enough, both officials issued canned statements where they both said the meeting was “productive” without offering much of anything in the way of details.

WHICH I SUSPECT really means the governor told Lightfoot something the equivalent of “drop dead,” and waited until after she left the room before bursting out in hysterics.

With Lightfoot muttering under her breath at the lack of consideration she saw the governor offering up aid to the state’s largest city.

For what it’s worth, the city currently has pension funds that are about $28 billion underfunded. Which had various reports indicating that the mayor saw the solution as having the state combine the city’s pension funds into the funds that cover other municipal governments across Illinois.

In short, the state would have taken on the city’s problems – with the city then being allowed to use its sources of income to pay for other issues and problems it would rather resolve instead.

IT DOESN’T SEEM to be happening, although both officials feel the need for showing a sense of decorum. Largely because both of the government officials carry the “D” label following their names.

PRITZKER: How quickly did gov. say 'no'

If this were the “good ol’ days” of Democrat Rahm Emanuel and Republican Bruce Rauner, the two of them would be dreaming up choice insults to toss in each other’s direction. And you just know Rahm’s insults likely would have included a borderline vulgarity or two.

Because it really would be fantastical for anyone to think that Illinois state government, which has financial dilemmas of its own, would have any willingness to get itself into resolving a city government problem.

RAUNER: Would he have offered any aid?

If anything, I could envision that residents of the 96 counties outside of metropolitan Chicago (who at most account for about one-third of the state’s population) would be prepared to have a hissy-fit if Pritzker offered up any sort of aid on this issue.

IN FACT, I’VE heard so many tales throughout the years of the amount of aid the state has had to provide to bail Chicago interests out of assorted problems that I have no doubt any attempt to contemplate state aid to resolve a city pension problem would run into serious political opposition that I’m sure Pritzker would not want to have brought down upon himself.

Meaning it was a fantasy, at best, to believe the state would be able to offer up much help.

The pension problems the city now faces are most likely going to be ones that will dominate the Lightfoot Years, and may be what prevents her from being able to afford the kinds of things that Mayor Lori would prefer to be doing so as to build herself up a municipal legacy of significance.

One other point I should note; it seems that both Lightfoot and Pritzker managed to use an identical phrase – they “look forward to continuing to work together” on various issues.

EMANUEL: How vulgar would his vocabulary become?

AS IN BOTH of them still plan to ask the other for many, more favors in the future. They’re expecting that the “D” they have in common will result in each of them having their phone calls to each other returned.

They both have to continue to deal with each other for the next few years.

So Saturday’s meeting wasn’t of real significance. With the real story being what was said immediately after the two met.

And whether either one of these esteemed public officials said anything in private that would top Rahm Emanuel’s vocabulary at its most vulgar.

  -30-

EXTRA: Burke ‘not guilty,’ or so he pleads; Lightfoot still wants him out!

Long-time Alderman Edward M. Burke entered his legal plea in court on Tuesday, saying he was “not guilty” of any of the criminal charges for which federal prosecutors are now trying to have him put away for up to some 20 years in prison.

BURKE: Claims innocence

For the record, Burke is charged with racketeering, conspiracy to commit extortion, two counts each of attempted extortion and federal program bribery and eight counts of use of interstate commerce to facilitate unlawful activity.

NOT THAT SUCH a plea was unanticipated. The shock would have come about if Burke were willing to actually admit to doing anything illegal. His defense is likely to be that the strongarm tactics he uses is merely the way Chicago government operates.

Which could be why Mayor Lori Lightfoot is so eager to keep ranting that Burke ought to resign his post in the City Council – the one that he won so easily back in February even though he had Latino activists trying desperately to dump him from office.

Lightfoot followed up Burke’s plea at the Dirksen Federal Building with her own statement saying the alderman must go NOW!!!, even though he’s under no legal obligation to do so. It’s federal prosecutors who must prove their case in court before Burke can be removed from office.

Which wouldn’t bother me so much, except that it’s the third time Lightfoot has called for Burke’s resignation in the less-than-a-week it has been since Burke’s criminal indictment became publicly known.

FOR SOMEONE WHO is herself a former federal prosecutor, she has to know her pleas for resignation are meaningless. Is she really that much of a broken record?

I can’t help but think that every time from here on in that she opens her mouth on this issue, she merely builds up Burke’s reinforcement to want to fight this charge in court.

LIGHTFOOT: Keeping up rhetoric of resignation

And also bolsters the Burke backers who probably don’t have any serious objection to what he is alleged to have done. Yes, those people do exist!

Ed Burke’s fate will be decided in due time, most likely in the next couple of years – it takes time to work one’s way through the judicial process. And if Burke is destined for a dismal fate, there’s no need to rush it just to appease the ego of Chicago’s newest politico.

  -30-

Will electorate trust Lori Lightfoot to fill city school board vacancies?

I’ve never been amongst those people who think we ought to be putting it up to the Chicago electorate to decide every few years who should be serving on the board of education for the Chicago Public Schools.

del VALLE: New school board president

Yet there are those who have argued incessantly that giving the mayor the authority to make such appointments is far too much power and influence to be entrusting to one individual.

SO I’M GOING to be curious to see what kind of reaction arises to the fact that newly-elected Mayor Lori Lightfoot has gone ahead and made appointments to the school board.

Seven, to be exact, including the pick of one-time city Clerk and state Senator Miguel del Valle to serve as the new school board president.

Who, as somebody who once tried himself running for mayor against Richard M. Daley, has a political reputation of someone who wasn’t exactly a part of the old boys network and was interested in bringing about change.

Which would sort of put him in line with the image the Lightfoot is trying to create for her own term as mayor. Although Lightfoot herself was opposed to the bill that would have created an elected school board for Chicago (just like all the suburbs have), because she thought the bill’s mechanism was too convoluted.

BUT ARE THE people who view Lightfoot as being all about change and shaking everything up going to accept a school board that they didn’t personally pick?

It could be the big issue. Although I don’t have much of a qualm about accepting it – largely because I think it’s absurd to go about expecting voters (many of whom think there already are too many obscure political posts to have to pick people for) to make qualified choices.

I could easily envision an elected school board becoming a lot like all those judicial posts people are asked to make picks for. Many would wind up skipping over the ballot spots, while others would randomly pick people without much of a clue as to who they’re voting for.

LIGHTFOOT: Picks former mayoral challenger

And yes, I’d put into that category the kind of people who say only semi-jokingly that they look for good Irish-sounding names on the ballot; figuring that’s a sound of respectability and experience.

PERSONALLY, I THINK it is nonsense, and there have been times I’ve been spiteful enough to deliberately vote against an Irish-sounding name – just because I figure that candidate will get too many votes from other people.

I did find it interesting that Lightfoot, amongst her school board picks, were people with education backgrounds – instead of what often becomes of school boards. They get filled with people who have electoral ambitions who, for whatever reason, wind up being unable to find any other office for which to run.

And the idea of del Valle in the top post is also intriguing – and not just because I personally have an interest in seeing increased political empowerment of officials with Latino ethnic backgrounds.

I’ll admit that any Spanish-sounding name on a ballot usually gets a second-glance and extra bit of consideration. So the idea of del Valle – once the first head of a Latino caucus in the General Assembly – isn’t exactly the most outrageous pick that a mayor could make to be in charge of the school board.

WOULD HE HAVE had a chance of getting the post if it had been up to voters making picks on the ballot?

EMANUEL: Would he have ever appointed del Valle?

I don’t know. I suppose he might have, IF the political bosses who put together candidate slates would have seen a benefit to themselves to having del Valle be in the running for the post.

But this may have been an example of how we’re better off with the school board members being political appointees. After all, we always can hold the mayor accountable for her picks if they turn out to be poor ones.

Besides, I suspect the desire of many people to have an elected school board will wither away, now that we have a mayor, such as Rahm Emanuel, whom many of them found so objectionable and whom they were eager to diminish in authority to whatever degree was possible.

  -30-

Illinois Supreme Court sides with the aged, not with fans of “food trucks”

I have a cousin, some 20 or so years younger than I, who considers himself something of a “foodie.” Quick to check out exotic cuisines and always on the lookout for an interesting place to eat.

Dining under the "L" tracks. Photos by Gregory Tejeda

Yet I know he’s also a big fan of the “scene” that has developed in Chicago to have “food trucks,” rolling restaurants of sorts that are capable of bringing unusual food items to the neighborhood.

THOSE TRUCKS RECEIVED a legal blow from the Illinois Supreme Court, which on Thursday ruled previous rulings by the Cook County and Illinois Appellate courts that have sided with Chicago city government’s restrictions on food trucks.

Such as the one preventing a food truck from parking itself within 200 feet of a more conventional restaurant. Or the rules requiring the food trucks to contain GPS devices to make it easier for city officials to track their movements.

The food truck operators filed their original lawsuit back in 2012, contending that such restrictions harmed their ability to do business. And as for the GPS, they say it’s a violation of their right to privacy to have someone being able to track their movements throughout the city.

Yet the Illinois Restaurant Association contends they’re willing to work with the food truck operators to reach some sort of compromise to allow them to operate in partnership with more conventional restaurants.

ALTHOUGH I DO suspect that for the restaurants, the “compromise” resembles something along the lines of “withering away and dying.” They don’t really want more competition when it comes to the concept of preparing and serving food.

Particularly from a food truck, which is an operation that has far lower overhead costs than maintaining a conventional restaurant in a physical building and having to maintain the kind of staff required to operate a restaurant.

I don’t doubt the restaurants think these food operators are thinking the food trucks are playing unfair. Probably the more we hear the phrase “roach coach” used to refer to them, the worse business is becoming.

 

Can this Pilsen neighborhood restaurant compete?

 I do have to admit to a bias, and it’s probably one because of age. I personally have little interest in searching out the food truck that serves the best Korean-inspired tacos, or even the best conventional (ie, ketchup-less) hot dog.

FOR ME, PART of the appeal of “eating out” is to check out the physical ambiance of a restaurant, while also having someone serve me.

Which are aspects that a food truck tries to eliminate from the process.

Although I don’t doubt my cousin probably thinks I’m being overly ridiculous, as do, I’m sure, the other many fans of food trucks, who probably think it’s cool when a particularly unique one decides to pull up and operate right by where they work.

A quickie lunch that, I’ll admit, is probably much more interesting than the servings of a Subway sandwich franchise (I don’t mean that as an insult, my first job ever was working a late shift at a Subway – and my own standard order on those occasions when I eat there is a “Spicy Italian” sandwich).

WHICH MAKES ME think this is a matter of age. There is a younger crowd, I don’t doubt, that will take this issue much more seriously than I.

For all I know, the day may come when the state Supreme Court will find some sort of case that gives them the opportunity to reverse themselves on Thursday’s ruling.

BAULER: Ain't ready for food trucks either?

That is, assuming the concept survives the amount of regulation they would now face – as the Institute of Justice has its own studies showing the number of food truck operators is now 40 percent smaller than it was some six years ago.

It could be that food trucks in Chicago are a similar concept to how legendary Alderman Paddy Bauler once described political "reform” – we just “ain’t ready for it” yet.

  -30-

Is Lightfoot providing a mayoral “plus” or “minus” for the Chicago P.D.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot is putting together the team of people who will comprise city government for the next four years, and it was interesting to see her initial moves that relate to the Chicago Police Department.

JOHNSON: Same police superintendent

Eddie Johnson, the man who became police superintendent after long-time law enforcement veteran Garry McCarthy was sacrificed by Rahm Emanuel to try to appease people p-o’ed about the shooting death by a police officer of teenager Laquan McDonald, is being retained.

IT’S USUALLY not at all unusual for a new mayor to want to have her very own police chief – someone whose political loyalties would be to her.

So if Johnson were really to be thrown out on his keister, now would have been the perfect time to do so. Nobody would have questioned it. If anything, it would have been expected.

For Lightfoot to keep the veteran Chicago police officer (beginning with the department as a patrolman back in 1988 is a sign of confidence in his professional abilities. Or at least evidence he hasn’t done anything that would offend Lightfoot.

So perhaps Lightfoot, whose past professional experience includes a stint as head of the Chicago Police Board, is not about to make radical changes in police operations – if she’s keeping the same person in charge.

BUT THEN, THERE’S the other decision she made on her first full day in office as mayor. As in the one involving her personal security team.

For the mayor of Chicago usually has a special detail within the Police Department whose duties include protecting the mayor, accompanying her to all public appearances, and usually serving as the driver of the mayoral automobile.

Yes, that’s a sworn police officer behind the steering wheel, while also keeping his eyes open for any potential that could become a threat to the mayoral persona.

SMITH: New head of mayoral security

Only not this time!

FOR LIGHTFOOT IS hiring the services of Silver Star Protection Group to handle her mayoral security detail. That company is run by James Smith – who prior to going into business for himself worked as a corrections officer at the Cook County Jail, then served for 26 years as a U.S. marshal based in Chicago who was in charge of providing protection for Supreme Court justices and other federal officials.

Perhaps it’s only logical that Lightfoot, who once also served as a prosecutor with the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago, would turn to someone with a sense of federal law enforcement to provide protection with herself.

But as the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday, Smith is married to Margaret Houlihan-Smith, who once was a managing director for United Airlines and now works as a lobbyist both for United and AT&T.

Is it a conflict for a lobbyist to now have a direct tie to the mayor? Is it the kind of thing that could be a mini-scandal in and of itself? As though it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest!

WHO’S TO SAY. For what it’s worth, a whole series of questions to various officials along that line of questioning resulted in a whole slew of “no comment”-type responses. Or maybe I should say, “nunayabizness”-type answers.

LIGHTFOOT: First law enforcement picks

Does the new mayor not trust Chicago police enough to ensure that no one tries to harm her while in office? Is she rewarding someone who comes from similar outside-the-established circles that she thinks she can trust better?

Or does James Smith really have a skills set that just isn’t possessed by anyone within the Chicago Police Department? That is something we’ll have to see.

While we also see if the retention of Johnson as police superintendent is a sign that the Chicago Police Department is on the right track, and not about to undergo significant change. Or is it really just a matter of Johnson getting about a year on the job before getting pushed into what she’ll call a “retirement” so she can make room for a police chief of her own pickings.

  -30-

How much of a change-agent can Lori Lightfoot really represent for Chicago?

Come Monday, Lori Lightfoot will take the oath of office essentially promising to uphold the constitutions of the United States and Illinois while overseeing the municipal structure of the city of Chicago.

Chicago's new 'first' family, Lightfoot, wife Amy and daughter Vivian. Photo by Lightfoot for Chicago

It is one that she has engaged in quite a bit of rhetoric implying she plans to revamp everything about the city. I also don’t doubt one bit that many of the people who voted to give Lightfoot three-quarters of the vote in last month’s election have visions of sugar plums dancing about in their heads.

ALMOST AS THOUGH the coming of Lightfoot is a Christmas holiday present for Chicagoans, along with residents of any other community whose operations are impacted by the Second City – only St. Nicholas’ visit has come along with the May flowers.

But I’ll have to admit that whenever I read the reports about how Lightfoot is going to come in and make significant change and is prepared to push around anyone who tries standing in the way of her vision – well, I’m skeptical.

Mostly because I can see all those political people of experience and influence who aren’t about to let their own amount of control be reduced by some woman who’s never held a day of electoral office before in her life.

Same kind of rhetoric once was used  … 

But then again, I also have been skeptical of the whole image that has been peddled about Lightfoot, the candidate. I actually think many of her backers have created an image of Lori that bears no reality as to who she really is.

THE LIGHTFOOT I saw during the campaign cycle (I never really paid much attention to her prior to this year’s elections, as did most Chicagoans, I suspect) had her experience with the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago – along with a corporate law firm and that stint she did with the Chicago Police Board.

She may well be a prosecutorial-type who viewed city government from the perspective of trying to figure out who needs to be taken down a notch or two – and who now thinks she has the authority to do just that.

But we may well find out that the daily operations of the city may be beyond her grasp. As though she has a learning curve to go through before she can truly get a grasp on the city’s operations and trying to figure out which of its problems she can actually have influence over.

… to describe Jane Byrne's 1979 mayoral victory

Otherwise, she could find herself bogged down in the morass of the city structure. Which would result in Lightfoot finding herself four years from now having achieved nothing of lasting significance.

SHE COULD BE the woman who made it through her term as mayor having been thwarted by aldermen at everything she talked about trying to achieve, but couldn’t because aldermen weren’t about to be reduced to the level of insignificance that some of Lightfoot’s backers, I don’t doubt, dream she’s going to do.

Of course, I suspect that the number of people who were concerned about having a person of some experience in charge of city government is probably about 26 percent.

That figure is the number of voters who actually cast their ballot for Toni Preckwinkle in the run-off election back on April 2.

When you combine that percentage with the roughly two-thirds of Chicago’s registered voters who didn’t even bother to cast a ballot for mayor, you realize how embarrassing the 2019 election cycle was for the city.

'House that Rahm built' will host Lightfoot inauguration

THE REAL QUESTION may well be how much more embarrassing will it become if Chicago’s municipal government structure devolves into petty bickering by the over-bloated egos of those officials who are going to be in charge of our city – and the influence it exerts over other parts of our Midwestern society.

Now I’ll concede it’s possible that I could be underestimating Lightfoot or exaggerating the level of pettiness that the City Council will exert against her.

But then again, my years of writing about political influence in Chicago have taught me that far too many things have been wrecked by the egos of all who have managed to gain a majority of the vote in past election cycles.

So come 10 a.m., when Lightfoot takes her oath at the Wintrust Arena (a structure that likely wouldn’t exist if not for the vision of soon-to-be former Mayor Rahm Emanuel -- despised by many of Lightfoot's most vociferous backers), we’re likely to see for ourselves just how much (if any) of the political trash-talk stands a chance of becoming reality.

  -30-

No more Mayor Rahm-bo?!?

For all practical purposes, the era of Rahm Emanuel as Chicago mayor is over.

EMANUEL: Kaput as of Monday, but will he return?

The transition to the Lightfoot Years comes Monday, so unless Rahm has some sort of “midnight surprise” planned for the weekend, his time being able to do much of anything in municipal office is kaput!

ALL THOSE “HUZZAHS!!!” we’re hearing are from people pleased that we’ve managed to survive the past eight years, and that Emanuel is no more. Or so they think.

Because personally I think it’s wishful thinking to believe that the Era of Rahm is over and that we’ve sent the man packing into political oblivion.

I’ve heard the same political reports of the mayor saying he’ll focus his life back on the business community – for the time being. But I can’t truly envision him a political has-been.

If anything, I won’t be the least bit surprised to learn Emanuel becomes a “behind the scenes” political player who winds up being connected in some form to whichever of the dozens of Democrats with dreams of becoming president in 2020.

THE MAN DID, after all, serve as a significant part of that 2006 effort that shifted the House of Representatives back to Democratic Party control. He did serve as a White House chief of staff under the “beloved’ Barack Obama presidency that many progressive politicos fantasize about returning to in spirit.

TRUMP: Do we despise more than Rahm-bo?

Could it be that many of the same people who are thinking thoughts of “Drop Dead!” at the very thought of Rahm Emanuel’s continued existence will wind up touting the man’s merits (through gnashed teeth, most likely) at the fact he’s likely affiliated with whoever it is they wind up touting for president?

Because it may wind up being that these people of progressive political leanings will despise the notion of “four more years” for Donald Trump far more than they do the thought of Emanuel.

They may wind up coming to appreciate his hard-core political leanings that are willing to play hardball just as much as any Republican ideologue does. Adopting the notion that history only remembers who won an election, and doesn’t care in the least about praising the merits of the good loser.

Can Rahm turn unknown Dem into 2020 winner?

OF COURSE, THERE were those people who always despised the notion of Emanuel as mayor – maybe because they’d rather be the loser with a so-called sense of morals who can then blame the opposition politicos for running roughshod over everything they desire for our society.

Looking back on commentaries I wrote back in those days of 2011 when Emanuel beat three other mayoral hopefuls to avoid having a run-off election, what catches my attention was the notion that Emanuel would be the mayoral hopeful who placed the business interests of downtown first.

Not all that different from the days of the Mayor Daley eras (both elder and younger), if you think about it. So perhaps we shouldn’t be the least bit shocked by the way the Emanuel era turned out.

For those who still rant about the way Emanuel early on oversaw the closing of public schools in predominantly black or Latino neighborhoods, the reality is that many of those schools were failing their students. You can say Rahm didn’t do enough to replace them, but we’d be worse off if many of those schools were still lingering in existence – providing inadequate services for the students stuck there because of a lack of alternatives.

THEN, THERE’S THE key issue that I’m sure upsets people – the relations between police and the African-American segment of Chicago. As evidenced by the 2014 shooting death of a teenager that took more than four years to finally get a case to trial – and resulted in a police officer getting a minimal penalty.

LIGHTFOOT: Her era begins Monday at noon

Although to some, even that three-plus year jail sentence is too harsh. But for others, the injustice is that it wasn’t Emanuel himself who had to suffer some punishment.

I don’t doubt that the same people who were pushing for a 90-something-year prison term for Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke are also the ones who would have wanted Emanuel to suffer an indignity – rather than being able to walk away from office with his political win streak intact.

A streak that I really believe will be put to the test by those people eager to Dump Trump next year. We may have to decide just which character do we despise more – and will we have to put aside our contempt for Rahm if it achieves a “greater” good.

  -30-

Lightfoot starting pre-mayor activity by putting aside ideology for practicality

The City Council gave its support to a pair of proposals desired by outgoing Mayor Rahm Emanuel for tax incentives to spur real estate development in wealthier parts of Chicago – the very concept that some activist-types think is exactly what is wrong with modern-day Chicago.

LIGHTFOOT: Already upsetting some people

In fact, the very idea that caused many of them to excitedly cast votes for Lori Lightfoot as mayor in the hopes that she’d use her mayoral powers to put a halt to.

SO WITH THAT in mind, there are many activist types who already are feeling sold out by the fact that Lightfoot let it be known late Wednesday that there isn’t much of anything she can do to stop the projects known as Lincoln Yards and the 78s.

Basically, Lightfoot isn’t about to conduct herself as mayor in the manner that Donald Trump has behaved during his presidency – as in trying to abolish or repeal anything (and I mean ANYTHING) that was once supported by Barack Obama.

Lightfoot is going to let stand the proposals that Emanuel is likely to sign into law during his final weeks of his mayorality.

Lightfoot gave lip service to the concept of holding accountable the developers who are behind the real estate developments that are meant to create new communities along the north (Lincoln Yards) and south (the 78s) branches of the Chicago River.

SHE SAYS SHE will “engage with the community and committed activists who have forcefully advocated for affordable housing, park space and the responsible use of tax increment financing dollars for many months.”

But when you consider that activist-types usually aren’t pleased unless they can say their actions caused some undesirable proposal to be killed off, this kind of legalese is likely to create the perception that Lightfoot hasn’t even taken the oath of office yet – and she’s already falling short of perceptions by her backers.

Now I’ll be the first to admit to not following the Lincoln Yards debate closely, or that of the 78s that offers up a sort-of South Side response to the proposal meant to create a wealthy community near the already-wealthy Lincoln Park neighborhood.

LINCOLN YARDS: Desired by some, detested by others

In short, to create more upscale communities within Chicago. Something that might seem desirable if one can actually afford to live in such places. But not the kind of thing that would get a resident of a place like Gage Park or the East Side excited.

BUT WHAT CATCHES my attention about all of this is Lightfoot’s reaction – or lack thereof.

In reality, there’s nothing she could do since she’s not mayor yet. Unless she’d be prepared to start engaging in the same kind of reckless, irresponsible behavior that Trump is doing to try to erase any trace that Obama of Hyde Park ever was permitted to set foot in the Oval Office.

But Lightfoot is realistic. She’s not looking to provoke political brawls with people who could take down her mayorality before it even starts. Anybody who expects her to do so is being absurd.

Not that this surprises me. Personally, I came out of the recently-completed mayoral election cycle thinking there really wasn’t much difference between Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle – and that many of the Lightfoot backers have created a false image of Lightfoot that bears little reality to who the woman is or how she intends to govern.

IT’S A LARGE part of why I have trouble taking seriously all the talk of this being an election cycle of a historic nature. I don’t think many of us have a clue what to expect from Lori Lightfoot – the mayoral years.

A new mayor, but same policies?

That shouldn’t be interpreted as a slam or as praise for her. It means we ought to pay attention to what happens in coming months. For as Lightfoot says of the two real estate deals, “we’re going to be able to exercise a tremendous amount of control and it’s going to be able to give us the opportunity to bring community voices into the process that didn’t happen before.”

If it happens, it could be encouraging for Chicago. In a way that a knee-jerk negative reaction to all that happened before her would wind up being reckless and ridiculous.

The “jury” is still out on what kind of mayor Lori Lightfoot will be. The last thing we need is a jury determined to convict her of incompetence because she didn’t give them a pre-ordained verdict of their ideological choosing.

  -30-

EXTRA: A 'bye, bye' to Rahm-bo

While Lori Lightfoot was in Springfield to meet with the Statehouse-types she’ll be doing business with for the next four years, soon-to-be-former Mayor Rahm Emanuel was the focus of activity at City Hall.

Even Rahm has a 'bubblegum' card

Where aldermen used Wednesday’s City Council session to praise the memory of the man whom many of them lambasted often during his eight years as mayor.

BUT IT SEEMS now that Emanuel is on his way out, aldermen are more than willing to venerate his memory.

Wednesday was a celebratory occasion because it was Emanuel’s last City Council meeting. By the time the council meets again, Lightfoot will have been inaugurated and will have to endure the constant headaches of dealing with her aldermanic colleagues.

For what it’s worth, Emanuel went along with the celebratory mode – taking in character the Hall of Fame baseball player Lou Gehrig, who when he was pushed into baseball retirement in 1939 said he was the “luckiest man on the face of this Earth.”

A moment that later was turned into pure Hollywood by actor Gary Cooper in the 1942 film about Gehrig, “Pride of the Yankees.” Which makes one wonder which actor will someday portray Emanuel, should anyone ever decide to give the cinematic treatment to his life.

EMANUEL PLAYED ALONG with the celebratory mode in moments such as when Alderman Carrie Austin said of Rahm, “You always stood tall even though you’re short.”

Gary Cooper played Gehrig -- who'd be Rahm?

To which the 5-foot, 7-inch Emanuel said, “I’ve got a big mouth.”

But then there was Alderman Edward Burke, who likes to view himself as the City Council’s oracle. Some were wondering prior to the council session whether he’d be willing to play along with the celebratory mode for Emanuel. Or could he use the chance to lambast Hizzoner?

He wound up informing us all that the word “Emanuel” (actually Immanuel) appears in the biblical Book of Isaiah as the protector of the House of David. Which Burke said meant that Rahm essentially was “protector of the House of Chicago.”

  -30-

Will Lightfoot make deferential gestures to Mr. Speaker to get along?

Just a thought about what the relations will be like in coming years between Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and the almighty and powerful Speaker of the Illinois House – Michael Madigan.

MADIGAN: Makes conciliatory remarks

It’s probably going to be up to Lightfoot on whether she desires an antagonistic relationship with “Mr. Speaker” himself!

IF SHE IS willing to show gestures indicating that he’s the guy of prominence within Illinois state government, it would be likely that Madigan would give support to the city’s needs and desires.

Of course, one possible key is that many of the people who were inclined to vote for Lightfoot and view her mayoral election as a moment of great historic significance likely are the same people who wish that Madigan somehow could be voted out of office.

I don’t doubt that at least a few of Lightfoot’s followers eagerly would want her to be hostile and do whatever she can to undermine his political influence.

If that happens, we’re going to see a political relationship that will sour quickly – and will make us think of the “good ol’ days” (heavy sarcasm intended) when people like Bruce Rauner and Rod Blagojevich were in positions of authority.

THIS ISSUE IS coming to the forefront because Lightfoot – although she won’t actually be mayor until mid-May, is making her first trip to the Statehouse Scene in Springfield.

LIGHTFOOT: Will she retort in kind?

She’s expected to be there until Thursday, although Madigan felt the need to issue a statement Tuesday welcoming her (sort of) to the capital city.

“I’m proud to welcome Mayor-elect Lightfoot to a Capitol where women, people of color and members of the LGBTQ community (Illinois House Majority leader Greg Harris is openly gay) are serving in critical leadership roles within the Illinois House Democratic caucus,” Madigan said.

I don’t doubt he’s being sincere, in that he wants all of those groups of people to not view him with hostility. As to whether or not he really believes in Lightfoot as mayor, that remains to be seen. But as long as he doesn’t view her as “the enemy,” perhaps she won’t view him that way either.

IT SHOULD BE noted that Madigan publicly always acknowledges the significance of Chicago’s interests in defining his job. I remember back to the days of Richard M. Daley as mayor when Madigan would always downplay talk of his own political power by saying that the mayor was the number one Democratic political official.

PRITZKER: Says he'll get along fine with Lightfoot

In theory, he’s giving Lightfoot the same treatment – respecting her new job title. Will Lightfoot return the gesture?

I couldn’t help but notice comments she made recently to WTTW-TV where she talked of “not wanting to be part of the (Democratic) party apparatus,” and also hinted that perhaps Madigan has held his dual role as Illinois Democratic chairman (since 1998) for too long.

“I respect the speaker, but I believe in term limits,” Lightfoot said – a line that likely will appease the North lakefront crowd that was the base of her voter support this month but had to have Madigan and his loyalists seething deep inside.

SO WE’LL HAVE to see just what kind of relationship Lightfoot is able to create with the state government officials. For what it’s worth, Lightfoot had dinner last week with Gov. J.B. Pritzker at his Gold Coast neighborhood residence, and he says he thinks he’ll get along just great with the new mayor.

Political amateur Lightfoot gets introduction to Statehouse Scene

But just as we’re still waiting to see how well Pritzker and Madigan manage to co-exist, it will be equally intriguing to see how the Lightfoot/Madigan ties play out.

As Madigan said on Tuesday, “I believe Illinois is strongest when Chicago succeeds and when all are heard.” Which certainly is true enough. But it seems we’ll have to see for ourselves just how sincere he is, and how much Lightfoot is willing to put aside her own ego for the betterment of the public good.

And we’ll have to see what kind of reaction she has the first time someone puts a “horseshoe” before her, that so-called sandwich concoction many Springpatchers try to portray as a culinary delight!

  -30-

EXTRA: History WAS made; with a pathetically-low vote turnout for mayor

There are going to be the people who will spew about the term “historic” to describe Tuesday’s mayoral run-off election – the one that saw a black woman (who also happens to be openly gay) get elected mayor of Chicago.

LIGHTFOOT: Now Herhonor-elect

Which does make us the largest U.S. city to have a chief executive who falls into those categories.

THERE ALSO ARE those who are going to see the roughly 3-1 voter ratio by which Lori Lightfoot defeated Toni Preckwinkle and they’re going to spew out the term “mandate”—as in implying her voter margin is so large that her election reflects the mood of the people. Such as the sentiment that Donald Trump fantasizes he has amongst a majority of the American people at-large.

As in people ought to feel an obligation to go along with Lightfoot’s political desires. As in going against Lightfoot somehow shows one just can’t get with the program. They need to accept her.

It is true that, with some two-thirds of the votes tallied Tuesday, Lightfoot had 74 percent of the mayoral vote – compared to 26 percent of people voting for Preckwinkle; the woman who once was considered the mayoral frontrunner.

But I’m going to admit that while some people are eager to toss out the terms “historic” and “mandate” on the Election Night, the term that keeps coming to my mind is “pathetic.”

PRECKWINKLE: Remains at County Bldg.

AS IN THE voter turnout was less than stellar.

The 2007 mayoral election that was Richard M. Daley’s last campaign may be the record low at 33 percent. But Tuesday saw a 34 percent voter turnout – which as late as 5 p.m. was as low as 29 percent. It took a last-minute surge of voters in the final hours the polling places were open to prevent this so-called “historic” election from being a record-low in terms of voter apathy.

EMANUEL: One more month as mayor

Which, by the way, was the same percentage we saw for the Feb. 26 election that reduced the 14 mayoral candidates down to the two finalists. Basically, two of every three people who were registered to vote decided they couldn’t be bothered.

Which really is odd because of the fact that the reason Rahm Emanuel chose not to seek a third term in office was because he supposedly sensed that the electorate wanted him gone. Could it really be that they likely would have been too apathetic to do much of anything to remove him from office?

  -30-