• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

At least 60 people shot in violent Chicago holiday weekend, nine dead.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
chucky2 said:
Yes, I know. They knew exactly what they were doing when they did this. Those people are going to have to live somewhere, and somewhere is not where they've torn down their current residences.

Yep, I'm in one of them (far south suburb).

Well, when you tear down slums and build $500k condos, it makes it hard for the original slum residents to move back in. You are very right, it is a reverse great migration, and it's working exactly as designed. Chicago gets to clean itself up, and get more income it so desperately needs (note: it never has enough income), with less responsibilities (although Crook Co. doesn't really lose those responsibilities much), and the rest of the suburbs get F'd with what were Chicago's problem(s). <fade out with Rahm telling us how good of a job he's doing...>
Click to expand...

Most CHA housing was in deplorable condition, also they were starting to empty somewhat on their own accord due to factors I mentioned. The housing crash and credit market seizing up was poorly timed which stopped the rebuilding in a lot of places, some of this has gotten underway again. I don't really ascribe this situation to a master plan to get rid of black people. More like inadequate planning and bad timing.

The CHA properties can only be developed at certain ratios of affordability. They can't legally plop down a full market rate complex on CHA land or sell that land to developers who will. Mixed income developments are the order of the day and have seemed to work reasonably well where they've done it.

Daley probably should have retired before his last term. He made a lot of deals to buy time and labor peace that were not sustainable. I have a hard time being mad at Rahm for trying to clean up a mess that he didn't make.
 
thraashman said:
Just remember for any of you damn yankees that comes down here to Atlanta. It's coke, not pop. Don't use the term pop will look at you funny and then mock you. Otherwise, we're good people... And for your own safety's sake I recommend the suburbs to the north of the city proper.
Click to expand...

I'm originally from a pocket of the Midwest that calls it soda. I will call it soda until the day I die. 😎

And yes...I know to stay out most things south of I-20 and west of Northside Dr.
 
K1052 said:
Most CHA housing was in deplorable condition, also they were starting to empty somewhat on their own accord due to factors I mentioned.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't remember ever hearing they were emptying for anything other than being burnt out/meth lab - all I ever heard (from pretty much anyone that had anything to say about it) was that getting in was wait listed.

The housing crash and credit market seizing up was poorly timed which stopped the rebuilding in a lot of places, some of this has gotten underway again. I don't really ascribe this situation to a master plan to get rid of black people. More like inadequate planning and bad timing.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm more of a skeptic when it comes to Chicago Politician schemi, er, planning, er timing. What I know is Chicago's Think Of The Children and their parent(s) are all over the suburbs, and that was starting to happen as far back as mid nineties.

The CHA properties can only be developed at certain ratios of affordability. They can't legally plop down a full market rate complex on CHA land or sell that land to developers who will. Mixed income developments are the order of the day and have seemed to work reasonably well where they've done it.
Click to expand...

Legally. This is Chicago.

Daley probably should have retired before his last term. He made a lot of deals to buy time and labor peace that were not sustainable. I have a hard time being mad at Rahm for trying to clean up a mess that he didn't make.
Click to expand...

That was less to do with Rahm trying to appear to clean up decades of Democrat messes than each and every time I hear Rahm, he's telling us what new and splendid thing he's done. Perhaps now we know what it was so hard for Obama Admin to leave campaign mode after being elected...
 
chucky2 said:
Can't have fireworks here either, which is why all the fireworks going off were just figments of my imagination...
Click to expand...

Hmm. Laws and regulations against fireworks have proven to keep fireworks out of the hands of children in fireworks free zones! Perhaps, if only the same laws could exist for guns. Chicago could be a shining example of how gun laws can be properly done. Oh wait...
 
Where is Obama's and democrats cynical gun control full court press like after sandy hook? This stuff happens every week in Chicongo and not a peep. Obama hates black people?
 
Zebo said:
Where is Obama's and democrats cynical gun control full court press like after sandy hook? This stuff happens every week in Chicongo and not a peep. Obama hates black people?
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the Republican plan to clean up Chicago? Clearly they need more guns and tax cuts to fix all the problems.
 
Guns dont kill people. People kill people.

I'm not a republican they have their own ideas.

I mainly blame poverty, dissolution of families an community, lack of opportunity, drug war.

It's like Iraq. You know when it was stable in 1970s. HC for all, free education through PhD they had no gun murders and every house had a full auto AK? Now look at it.

Doesn't chage fact dems address nothing to fix violence only the tools of it. Which don't work anyway. Chicago guns are banned. And still...
 
Last edited:
K1052 said:
Most CHA housing was in deplorable condition, also they were starting to empty somewhat on their own accord due to factors I mentioned. The housing crash and credit market seizing up was poorly timed which stopped the rebuilding in a lot of places, some of this has gotten underway again. I don't really ascribe this situation to a master plan to get rid of black people. More like inadequate planning and bad timing.

The CHA properties can only be developed at certain ratios of affordability. They can't legally plop down a full market rate complex on CHA land or sell that land to developers who will. Mixed income developments are the order of the day and have seemed to work reasonably well where they've done it.

Daley probably should have retired before his last term. He made a lot of deals to buy time and labor peace that were not sustainable. I have a hard time being mad at Rahm for trying to clean up a mess that he didn't make.
Click to expand...
You could spend all day talking about the exact way democrats fail to get anything done but Chicagians keep voting more of them in so you guys must not have actually figured it out yet.

How is any of that even remotely productive. If Chicago weren't located at an intersection of a couple rail lines making it a hub of trade (beef in particular), it would have mercifully gone bankrupt decades ago.

It'll never get any better anyone who was smart got out of dodge or has a sweet wealth inequality boosting job worth sticking around for.
 
Zebo said:
Guns dont kill people. People kill people.

I'm not a republican they have their own ideas.

I mainly blame poverty, dissolution of families an community, lack of opportunity, drug war.

It's like Iraq. You know when it was stable in 1970s. HC for all, free education through PhD they had no gun murders and every house had a full auto AK? Now look at it.

Doesn't chage fact dems address nothing to fix violence only the tools of it. Which don't work anyway. Chicago guns are banned. And still...
Click to expand...

Lack of opportunity is because they aren't doing anything productive. San Francisco builds planes. Chicago recirculates the same rail trade money over and over again trying to figure out how to best give it away then realizes oh geez we have no money lets raise gas taxes chasing off any chance of anyone setting up some kind of productive business providing jobs because it costs an arm and a leg to get supplies trucked into Chicago. Derrrprprprpppepreprpepr
 
OverVolt said:
You could spend all day talking about the exact way democrats fail to get anything done but Chicagians keep voting more of them in so you guys must not have actually figured it out yet.

How is any of that even remotely productive. If Chicago weren't located at an intersection of a couple rail lines making it a hub of trade (beef in particular), it would have mercifully gone bankrupt decades ago.

It'll never get any better anyone who was smart got out of dodge or has a sweet wealth inequality boosting job worth sticking around for.
Click to expand...

Blaming everything on party affiliation is pretty much a cop out. Other cities run by Democrats (and that includes pretty much all the major ones) are doing fine. I already said that our former mayor stayed in too long to the detriment of the city. Longstanding fiscal issues were not addressed in any meaningful way and now have to be dealt with particularly CPS and and all the other municipal pensions. Unfortunately the legislature holds most of the means to really do anything since the IL constitution grants pretty explicit protections for pensions. Like most legislatures they aren't the model of efficiency.

Chicago didn't fail like Detroit (and other Rust Belt cities) because it was never dependent on one industry. There is significant corporate diversity both in the city and suburbs that enabled the metro to weather economic changes much better than a lot of places in neighboring states.

I split my time between SF and Chicago pretty evenly these days due to my husband getting a significant promotion at his tech company. We are both agreed that if he didn't work for them anymore that we'd be coming back here full time. The cost of living hit moving to SF was huge, even though his company was quite generous with his compensation. If you want a study in wealth inequality SF is going to become a textbook example as long as the current tech boom continues unabated combined with tortuous city politics/development entitlement processes.
 
smackababy said:
It is still a coke. All soda is referred to as coke in the South. If you asked for a coke, they would respond with "what kind". Thus, if you're not asking for a specific brand by name, it is a coke.

Also, don't order a tea. You must specify "unsweetened tea" otherwise, you're getting diabetes in a glass.
Click to expand...

Which is also what soda is. These days, it's water or straight (no sweetner) iced tea for me.
 
Chicago is a pretty simple solution, there are too many people there.

The high crime ridden neighborhoods have unemployment anywhere from 20-40%. Drugs and gangs sometimes are the best option for those affected by the unemployment.

Chicago and a booming city or state should team up to provide homestead vouchers out of Chicago and to the destination city. The crime isn't going to go down with all those people there any other way, and until that happens no company is going to be willing to invest in anything there that will provide any job growth.
 
OverVolt said:
Nooo it just depends how strongly democrat and when their time comes, not if 😛

I don't mind democrats actually, its the places that have been voting democrat for decades that wind up in trouble. Without any credible opposing opinions their politics get just as unproductive as the republican hick towns that vote republican for decades on end. A small town of 300 circling the drain isn't a big deal but all the places doing the vote democrat until the end of time routine are sprawling metropolises and they go TIMBERRRRRRRRRRRR for a long time before the thud.

😛
Click to expand...

Says the guy from a city who last elected a Republican mayor half a century ago and has the second highest median income in the US.
 
smackababy said:
Oh no. Sweet tea is far sweeter than soda. I can stand soda (and that is about the only sweet thing I can drink), but that sweet tea will make you gag.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sweet tea is about half again sweeter than soda (depending on the soda and the tea recipe of course). That shit is absolutely disgusting, although it does have some value in explaining America's obesity epidemic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top