Oakland

I've gone through two locksmiths now - Chitown Locksmith and Mega Locksmith, without getting any services. In the 1st case (Chitown) the tech called me 5 minutes before the 2-hour window passed, to tell me he'd be 45 minutes or more late. I told him don't bother. I let them choose whatever 2-hour window they wanted the previous day, and they didn't have the courtesy to show up in the time of their choosing or to let me know they'd be late until 5 minutes before I had waited for 2 hours.

While that sucks, it doesn't suck as much as a locksmith not showing up or calling at all, like Mega Locksmith did. I made an appointment yesterday with them for today, 12/31 between 9 and 10 a.m. Yes, I live on the South Side (on Lake Park in an affluent area) but why should that mean that we can't get any services at all?

The locksmith never showed up, and it is now 12:30 p.m. I got no call saying that they would be late or that they couldn't or wouldn't come. I am sick and tired of businesses not serving the South Side with any professionalism whatsoever. If they had at least called before the time passed for the appointment I would have given them some credit for professionalism which ChiTown Locksmith (barely) had a little of.

I called Ashland locksmith and made an appointment for next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. - we'll see if they show at all. What they said was troubling though - 'we only have one tech and we can't send him to the South Side today - we have to keep them here for business on the North Side. So North Side business is 'better'?

I'm considering cancelling them as well and going through the rest of the phone book until I find one business willing to come to the South Side and do business professionally and without comments like that.

Does anyone have any other suggestions for locksmiths (that come out and fix/change locks) on the South Side?

The recently published Urban Institute report on the impact of CHA relocatees on crime rates has stoked tension in communities between CHA and non-CHA residents.

The report is very nuanced. The topline summary provided by the media has served to only confirm the worst fears of middle class residents of communities with CHA relocatees.

While media attention has been focused on the impact of CHA relocatees on crime rates, some points must be made. First, crime rates dropped across Chicago in the 2000s. Second, the amount of the reduction in crime in communities with CHA relocatees is related to the concentration of CHA relocatees. Communities with low numbers of relocatees experienced a larger reduction in crime rates than communities with high numbers of CHA relocatees.

More importantly, the report demonstrates that communities that converted traditional public housing to mixed income transformation sites experienced significant reductions in crime rates. For many years the Fourth Ward has had traditional public housing projects such as Washington Park, Ida B. Wells, Madden, Darrow, and Lake Michigan Homes. The CHA transformation plan has converted traditional public housing into mixed income developments.

Mixed income housing disaggregates toxic concentrations of poverty, increases the median income of neighborhoods, grows population density, and spurs retail development.

Current and future mixed income housing developments in the Fourth Ward require drug testing for all residents, regardless of income, and prospective tenants submit to a rigorous selection process.

Finally, I have made it clear to CHA in public and private meetings that lease provisions must be enforced and that CHA residents who fail to comply with their leases must be evicted.

Today the Mayor's Ethics Task Force released its first report with recommendations on how to improve Chicago's ethics ordinance and the enforcement of the City's ethics policies.

The Task Force, attorneys, and consultants spent countless hours reviewing best practices from other cities and states and benchmarking Chicago's ordinance against those practices. Key leaders in this field including inspectors general, ethics commissions members, and reform advocates provided important insight on ethics policy.

I believe that this report strikes the right balance. The Task Force recognized that most employees and officials want to do the right thing. Here are some the highlights of the Task Force's first report. The report:

• calls on the Mayor's office and the Board of Ethics to revise its ethics guidance materials;
• recommends lowering the amount of gifts allowed from $100 to $50 for City employees and officials;
• urges pre-clearance by the executive director of the Board of Ethics for trips and educational missions taken by City employees and officials;
• offers cleanup language for conflicts of interest that make it simpler for employees and officials to understand;
• recommends disclosure of additional information on financial interest statements;
• encourages the City to incorporate the State's ban on prohibited political activities into the Ethics Ordinance.

The Task Force will continue to work on other issues related to the Ethics Ordinance and plans to introduce a second report in late July of this year.

Today the Department of Business Affairs & Consumer Protection (BACP) held the last public hearing about Jamaica Foods’ liquor license, located at 4252 S. Cottage Grove. These hearings are the venue for the community to voice its concerns about the store and the attendant quality of life issues. Twenty residents from the community came out to provide testimony about what they have seen since the last public meeting that was held on March 13.

At the first hearing on January 12, the BACP hearing officer ordered the owner of Jamaica Foods, Sam Judah, to stop the sale of low cost/high impact liquor products, but by his own admission he has continued to do so. Now after hearing the testimony from community residents and the Chicago Police Department, the record from the hearings will be forwarded to the commissioner of liquor licenses. The commissioner will determine whether to revoke Jamaica Foods’ liquor license. As soon as I am notified of the decision I will make sure to inform you.

I thank everyone who has taken the time to testify at these hearings. Together, we can make our community better and safer.

Do anyone know who I can contact to setup a tour at the the Back of the Yards, a neighborhood in the middle of the city once filled with acres and acres of stockyards.Now, you will find a jungle of a very different kind here.

It’s on the third floor of an old meat-packing plant, a humid hothouse, of sorts, filled with rows of greens and sprouts, even exotic white strawberries. Nearby, in large blue barrels, lurk tilapia, fish native to tropical regions.

It’s all part of the fledgling world of urban “aquaponics,’’ vertical farms set up in old warehouses, where plants and fish are raised symbiotically. The idea is that water containing fish excrement is used to feed and fertilize the plants, which then filter that water before it goes, through a series of pipes, back to the fish.
I’ve been making phone calls, but it seem like I’m not able to contact someone. If anyone knows any info, Please, Please, Please let me know. Thanks

These revisions and the Executive Order greatly improved the CIT proposal. But beyond these changes, it is clear to me that new financing tools are needed to build new infrastructure in Chicago. The federal government remains gridlocked on investing in America's infrastructure. Springfield has managed to pass a capital bill to the order of once a decade. Closer to home, many residents of the City of Chicago oppose higher property taxes even to finance infrastructure projects.

The purpose of the CIT is to link private investment with infrastructure projects with the possibility of a return on the investment. For example, the first project will involve financing energy efficiency retrofits in government buildings. The borrowed capital will be repaid from energy savings that accrue from the retrofits. Clearly, the CIT is not the parking meter deal - the government will continue to own the asset just as would if it were financed with general obligation bonds.

Chicago needs new transit lines, light rail, bus rapid transit and a host of other infrastructure improvements to compete with other world class cities. Thousands of Chicagoans, including residents of the Fourth Ward, are eager to earn a middle class living by building these new projects.

For the reasons listed above, I voted for it on Tuesday. The Ordinance's passage is just the beginning; the Council must be vigilant in its responsibility to evaluate projects that come before it for approval.

Sincerely,

William D. Burns

Alderman, 4th Ward

City of Chicago

Dear Friends:

On Tuesday April 24 I voted for the Chicago Infrastructure Trust (CIT) Fund Ordinance. I am writing you to explain my decision.

The Ordinance has been controversial since its introduction in early March. The first version of the Ordinance failed to include vital safeguards and transparency provisions. I joined other voices in the City Council to encourage the Mayor and his staff to apply the Freedom of Information, Open Meetings, Procurement, and Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE), and the Ethics ordinances to the Chicago Infrastructure Trust. Alderman also sought participation on the CIT board.

Sixteen changes were made to the Ordinance in response to the City Council; which includes applying the above listed provisions to the CIT. The revised ordinance added an alderman, selected by the Mayor, to the CIT. Additionally, Mayor Emanuel filed an Executive Order which requires a financial advisor to review proposed CIT projects and report to the City Council. Both versions of the Ordinance required the City Council's approval of any infrastructure project that includes City assets. The Corporation Counsel in correspondence dated April 17, 2012 explained that the Ethics Ordinance would apply to the CIT and that the Inspector General (IG) would have the authority to investigate the Trust and its members. Finally, the Ordinance is explicit that the full faith and credit of the City of Chicago does not back CIT projects so that taxpayers will not be on the hook if investors fail to receive their anticipated return on investment.

(Continued in part II)