Be a better neighbor. Sign up for EveryBlock to follow and discuss neighborhood news.

Sign up for free →

Added Sep 12 2011

This is a new thread to discuss the boulevard parking and not confuse it with the previous heading of Farmer's Market.

To those who were following previously, it's laughable to say I am against or afraid of gentrification. I am against congestion when it's not necessary and is avoidable. I do know that each of you 'newcomers' came here most likely because the LS area presented a good look. If the area had looked bad - you would have moved (bought or rented) somewhere else. I believe if you are honest with yourself - one of the reasons you moved here was the feeling of space. The open landscape. If you wanted lots of gentrification - you would have moved to Lincoln Square, Lakeview or Bucktown. But, you chose here. I'm glad you did.

Yes, the apartments are larger for less rent. That helps. And our lots tend to be wider and deeper than other areas too. That helps. AND - we have the lovely pastoral boulevards which now have a total of 40 hours of parking on Kedzie, 40 hours of parking on Humboldt and 30 hours on Logan. Yes, I would be fine with Sunday parking. 4,6 or 8 hours. But no one had an opportunity to add their opinions. Only the churches did. Why not us? Why weren't we included in the discussions the churches had with Rey and the police department? I'm upset with that. Call me old school, but I like to be involved, so do each of you, or you wouldn't be responding to this thread.

  • JT

    Paddy, as the head of this coalition, it's imperative that you take a stance. Yes. We want you to come out and say exactly what it is SOB wants. And you still haven't. If you wanted discussions, ideas and alternatives, you wouldn't have started with an anti-parking campaign first. How about starting with a community meeting or think tank? SOB is an impulsive, angry response to Rey.

    Yes. Church parking has increased in the last 5 years. That means our neighborhood is growing. We have to figure out a solution to this problem of "modernization". Re: Brian's post of Blvd history – people were probably upset by those changes happening too. They were a result of accommodating growth. The last I checked, you still haven't offered one viable solution to the situation. Replacing historic buildings on the blvd to put up parking structures or busing people are not options. We don't have many options, that is why it is so critical that we can continue to do what we have been doing for the last few decades. It is the least of many evils.

    You want safety. Historic preservation. Well, isn't part of that preservation keeping historic churches alive? Isn't part of a safe community, a community with activity, bustling businesses and attended churches?

    You not only proved yourself to be an urban planner, but now claim to know more than the "flunky CDOT" professionals who assessed the situation as safe, if not safer than before.

    Do you think we could have come to a solution and worked this out together? Look at all the different perspectives here – in this minuscule representation of the community.

    If SOB is about historical preservation, church opinions would matter. You would have an ounce of sympathy for the situation and realize, there is little we can do. Talk to our churches about a compromise? But you haven't clearly stated what it is that you want?

    If there was only an occasional ticket or two, SOB and this nonsense would have never started.

  • Buster


    I think those of us who support church parking (and the farmers market parking and boulevard street and grass use) have thought about all of the implications. And to us, the positives far outweigh any negatives. Yeah, the grass dies beneath the market traffic. Yeah, the street is cut off during market hours. Yeah...vendors park ugly trucks on the street. I don't mind all that. But I can see why SOB wants to shut it all down in favor of some dream parking lot location TBD.

    As for my "extreme interpretation," how is asking people not to park for weddings or funerals extreme? That's exactly what SOB is asking for. "NO PARKING." "BOULEVARD PARKING HAS GOT TO GO." Those are their protest cries.

    They claim to want dialogue and new ideas. Yet the protest chant is "BOULEVARD PARKING HAS GOT TO GO" and "NO PARKING". No meaning zero.

    My world is not "black and white." It's quite colorful. Sorry you won't invest the energy to try and show me your "shades of gray." Good luck to all you SOBs trying to keep the Emerald Necklace free and clear of parked cars. I look forward to your brainstorming meetings, where I'm sure you'll create very cutting-edge ideas for parking and shuttling thousands of churchgoers to and fro each day.

    I'll sure your ideas will come to fruition quickly. Perhaps as fast as the construction on the innovative parking lot that was supposed to go up on Milwaukee ave., just east of Western. Oh wait...that never happened...because parking lot costs are out of reach in the real world.

  • Buster

    I just rewatched Paddy' tv appearance from last night. What really struck me was that it was all about religion. It featured her talking about the separation of church and state. No mention of the farmers market or the arts festival...which they support...where they recruit members.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    I'm not in favor of parking on the boulevard. I'm also not a fan of some of the tactics that have been used in opposing parking. I agree whole heartedly that there aren't 130, 120, or any other number approaching 100 hours of parking being allowed. There's only 168 hours in a week and parking being permitted on multiple streets can't do anything to change that.

    I'm also not here to suggest how the problems of a few religious organizations should be solved. There are a couple of reasons for that. The first is I don't believe that problem belongs to the city, the alderman or anyone but the organization itself. Doubly so because the only organizations for which any attempt to solve the problem are the more fortunate ones that are on the boulevard. The smaller, likely less resourced, organizations are on their own with this ordinance. Secondly the fact that there has been a wink and a nod accommodation for a very long time doesn't equal any right to a formal ordinance. First of all that's back door decision making at it's finest. Rather than a formal decision making process we have a watch commander, lieutenant or sergeant telling patrol officers not to ticket 20+ years ago turning into the basis of legislation. If we codified every practice that's been followed for the last 20+ years there are a ton of really awful "Chicago way" items we'd be committing to law.

    All that said, if we're stuck with random times when parking is permitted on the boulevard shouldn't there be a much closer correlation between the amount of time churches are holding mass and parking is permitted? Parking by St. John Berchman's is permitted for 30 hours a week. St. John's has mass for a total of 10 hours a week, including five hours during the day on weekdays when parking isn't provided.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    @JT-- You hit head on the fact that this forum presents lots of different opinions and hence it would be difficult to come up with a solution. I agree, it is challenging, however I strenuously disagree with the notion that because it's a contentious issue the solution is to move the legislation through as silently as possible and before anyone notices. I don't believe that is the way you handle controversy.

  • I think a discussion about more closely tying the parking hours to church hours is reasonable. If that's what SOB wants, it should say so. I would venture to guess that youd find agreement from most of us who have been so annoyed with Paddy and Raliegh's condescending rhetoric that we've spent far too much time arguing on Every Block.

    The hyperbole about destroying the neighborhood and desecrating the emerald necklace, along with the dishonesty about the number of hours is totally counter productive in my opinion. As is the unwillingness to acknowledge that the logical conclusion of their rhetoric is clearly at odds with the FM in it's current popular form.

    The campaign in its current form is elitist, for the primary benefit of Boulevard homeowners, and dismissive of people that go to church. The campaigners may not like to think about themselves this way, but it's unambiguously true. It's dismissive of them as neighbors, community members and as people invested in our community institutions.

    I don't agree with Haveaday's ultimate conclusion, but I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It's a refreshing reprieve from the knee-jerk righteousness, entitlement and prophesies of doom that we keep hearing from SOB. I also agree with Art that too much time has been wasted talking about parking, so I am going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. If there is a meeting to discuss better aligning the parking hours with church activity, I'm in.

  • Y_2_K I aspire to be who I am.

    This thread is pretty funny, honestly. I will say that I really like the (few) open areas we do have in LS, and I'd like to see them preserved. In another neighborhood, I routinely walked 3-4 blocks from my car to my house, b/c parking was restricted, and there were too many people competing for too few spots.

    I agree that some compromise has to be worked out w churches, it's not right to simply not ever allow parking for services, but at the same time, times change, and the idea that churches should just get street parking b/c they're churches isn't a very strong argument, or at least not any stronger than Paddy's argument.

    The LS farmer's market is so ridiculously overpriced it's a joke, and its current location creates healthy congestion on Sundays. I can't say I'd lose sleep if it were forced to relocate.

  • Parking on Logan Blvd is a safety concern and it is turning our blvds into parking lots. Despite the fact Alderman Colon insists that it doesn't, it does. They look like parking lots when cars are parked on the blvd.

    I met with Alderman Colon a few weeks ago and I was sadden by my meeting. He didn't seem to care that me and my neighbors were frustrated by the fact that he passed this ordinance without any input from his constituents. He didn't mention the ordinance during the 2011 election because he knew he would lose if people caught wind of the ordinance. I do not like being deceived especially when it directly relates to my safety.

    I questioned Alderman Colon about how long has he known about creating the parking ordinance on the boulevards and he responded 8 months (which would take it back to December 2010), but the plan has been in motion for about a year (August 2010). He should have addressed this during the February 2011 campaign. He had every opportunity to address his intention at the 35th ward candidate form at the Logan Square Auditorium on February 9, 2011.
    He knowingly withheld information from his constituents to win our votes. It was during the same form that Nancy Schiavone discussed religious boulevard parking on Saturday and Sunday. She states “it has become a parking lot and it has become a safety issue.” She believed a committee needed to be formed to address these issues. Alderman Colon never once mentioned his intentions of the ordinance. His response at the form was “I think that from within our commercial corridor our parking is there and it has been underutilized.” He went on to speak of various parking lots nearby. He had every opportunity to address this to the community and he chose not to.

  • When I pointed out to the Alderman that the parking times go well beyond church hours, he said it gives it a "cushion". He INSISTED this was only for church parking and he said if I saw other people parking there I should let him know. I told him I believed he was doing this for businesses and he said no, it would be illegal for valet to park there. He is adamant that parking will not change along the boulevard, but we all already know it has changed. I asked him why he couldn’t create permit parking for the churches and he said “let’s see if this works.” I explained to him that is the very reason I am upset. The community deserved to be heard, he pulled a fast one on his constituents.

    It was during Alderman Colon's victory speech on February 22, 2011 that he said “Thank you very much for your confidence and your trust and I look forward to serving you for four more years.” I don't know how I could ever trust someone who withheld such important information that would directly impact the community.

  • BTW my family has been members of SJB church for over 30 plus years and I have never heard or seen of anyone getting parking tickets.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    @ Jaime: "he didn't mention the ordinance during the 2011 election because he knew he would lose if people caught wind of the ordinance. "

    That sounds unrealistic. I don't think this issue is that high on the Alderman's, or most voter's radar.

    However, and something to keep in mind before continuing the Sisyphean task ahead of you, is that the alderman will absolutely cater to and continue to give a nod to large numbers of church-going constituants as a ready source of votes before catering to a smaller but vocal group. There's much more of them than there are anti-parking types, and the last thing he'd want to do would be to piss off a large group of church-goers who have been enjoying their relatively harmless weekly perk for time immemorial.

    I'm curious though what's the safety issue with the parked cars?

  • JT

    @Jaime. Just curious.
    Do you live on a Boulevard?
    Are you able to walk a half mile or less to church?

  • @Art I am entitled to my opinion and he obviously withheld it for a reason. Rey didn't win by that many votes and unfortunately I cast my vote his way. I can honestly tell you that I went up and down my block talking with neighbors and everyone disagrees with the parking. Maybe it isn't a big issue for you, but it is for us. I would love to see how many people that attend the churches in the community can vote in the 35th ward. Now that you mention it, I will try to answer that question. I asked Rey that very question and he implied that they don't live here. It is well known that most accidents occur in parking lots.

    @JT I do not live on the blvd. I am able to walk, some members of my family are not able to walk. I am not denying parking is an issue. I believe there needs to be more discussion and more ideas. I don't have all the answers but I do know that I personally have almost been hit several times during times that parking is allowed on the blvd and I am not being careless. It is a real problem. I walk to boulevards several times a day.

    I am not looking for an argument or to be attacked, I am merely looking for the community to come together and respectfully talk about the issues and come up with ideas on ways to help create a safer community. It isn't asking much for the Alderman to get community input.

  • EveryBlock Becca Director of Community Management

    Hey everyone, just a reminder about our community guidelines.

    Please help us keep the conversations neighborly and friendly. Thanks for your cooperation.

  • JT

    Perhaps the safety issue is not that of parked cars, but pedestrian cross-walks not clearly marked with proper signage indicating to cars that pedestrians have the right of way. I know when I try to cross Logan, most of the paint is worn away at most of the crosswalks and the majority of drivers do not stop for pedestrians waiting to cross.

    Your disenchantment with Rey is a separate issue from SOB.

    I agree Jaime. Lets come together to discuss this and more of these issues as a community in some civil way. Rather than start an elitist, knee-jerk reaction, lack-of-direction, fact-embellishing, coalition that protests and cries "hey ho. BLVD (church) (farmers market) (valet) PARKING HAS GOT TO GO.

  • @JT "Your disenchantment with Rey is a separate issue from SOB."

    My issue with Rey is NOT a separate issue from SOB. It is my main issue and I have already voiced my concerns to him. A good friend of my family has known Rey for a long time and I have supported him throughout the years, but I am very unhappy with the fact he deceived us. He involves the community on numerous other issues and posts updates on his website, yet this ordinance was quietly passed. We can discuss all we want but Rey likes the blvd parking and isn't willing to change it. He isn't open to looking for alternative solutions. I really hope he changes his mind we can come together as a community and try and come up with better solutions.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Alright Jaime I'll bite, what's your proposed solution ?

    This brings up an interesting issue though, in that what gives one group more say over how a community space is used than another?

  • @Art I wasn't looking for you to "bite." Please read above, I don't have all of the answers but I do know that the parking is creating problems. I wish I did have the answers or the perfect solution. I believe open respectful dialogue would be the best solution for the present situation at hand. I asked Rey about shuttle buses etc for the churches and he said let's try and see how this works out. There is a need for parking but I do not believe the blvd is the place for it.

    The answer to your question is the people that live and use the community should vote on how the space is used. I do not think that people that lives in other wards should be deciding how my community/home looks or functions.

  • OK guys. As a result of this, Im certain, No Parking signs were just put up in front of my house on the service drive of Logan that state no parking 9/25, 7 am - 4 pm.

    I can only assume this means that it is to allow the Farmers Market trucks to park on the service drive, rather than the boulevard itself.

    So, I will need to get up at 7 am to move my car on Sunday morning. Where are myself and tens of others supposed to move our cars to? Pay for parking at the Emmett St. Lot for the entire day??????

    I guess we will have to park on the Boulevard. Its a good thing they just made it legal to park there.

  • . . .

    @ only - why not you move your car Saturday so you can sleep in Sunday? Just a thought.

  • Buster

    Only1...just watch, the trucks are still going to park on the boulevard. It's already a tradition...and traditions are hard to break.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    Thanks again for the attention this matter of public parking on the boulevard is creating. I agree with Jaime, had the community discussed this prior to the law being created (June 2010) we could have come to a solution that made most people happy. A good solution involves give and take from everyone, so no one would have been 100% satisfied.

    Good News - due to people like Jaimie and many others going to speak with the Alderman, he now realizes that some of the new public parking he created was 'a mistake'. He will be removing the parking on Kedzie, south of Fullerton because there is no need for the churches to park in that block. I asked him to consider another section on Logan that has never been used for church parking. He said he would think about it.

    The SOB's will be meeting this week to discuss options to the public parking - that will allow churches to park on the boulevard but they will need to be involved in protecting the safety of the community. I am not willing to share my ideas at this time because our group needs to work on it. If Rey likes our agreement, he can take it to the community for more changes and input, so people aren't blindsided by another new agreement that they didn't know about. One step at a time.

    I also spoke with Paul Levin and learned more about the FM trucks and the permits they get and the patrolling of the parking they have volunteers doing.

    If you are reading this and have concerns about the new public parking on the boulevards, share your concerns with Rey. He's listening.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    I would like to add that the proposed agreement we are working on would be a replacement for the public parking. For this to work, the churches will need to be included in working out the agreement as well.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    @Only1 - just called Paul Levin for clarification about signs on service drive near Logan. He said a new crew of City workers posted them incorrectly - he will move them later today to the boulevard. He thanks us for letting him know!

  • Y_2_K I aspire to be who I am.

    @Only1. Be lucky you don't live in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, The Gold Coast, or anywhere else that truly has parking issues. You might have to walk 3-4 blocks. Nobody said parking in LS was all peaches and cream.

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    true, but I've only really seen the issue as being dangerous. Someone will be dead because of this parking. There will be an accident involving a legally parked car (and it will be the only one on the block) and someone will be dead.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Aaron could you elaborate what you mean? How is parking on the blvd different than most city parking with travel lanes next to parallel parking?

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    it's more restricted and most of the parking we see is on Sunday's or during other church functions. it's when there's one car that just looks abandoned that this will happen. I've seen on too many occasions people going so fast they blow through the light on Cortland. So add that to a car someone isn't expecting to be parked there and that's our perfect storm. It's going to happen.

  • Buster

    Over the years, I’ve seen countless accidents on the boulevards (predominantly on Humboldt/Sacramento…near where I live). Including a number of fatalities. People keep pointing out the risk of accidents as a reason not to allow parking on the boulevards. I would be interested in any statistics anyone can produce lending credence to that argument. Parked cars and a reduction in traffic lanes are proven to have a calming effect. A Cochrane Review of studies found that there is evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of traffic calming measures in reducing traffic-related injuries and may even reduce deaths. Anecdotally, traffic slows so much on Palmer during church services, that I am often waved on at crosswalks by drivers who stop at crosswalks. When they would normally just blow through during faster, non-parking hours.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Brian is right. The fewer and more constrained travel lanes you have, the slower and safer traffic will become for everyone.

  • Mark Rector Logan Square and loving it!

    Great! Let's constrain the travel lanes with wide bike paths and planters down the middle like on Ashland!

    More cars - parked or otherwise - are not the answer to keeping the Boulevards or our city beautiful!

  • Inactive user

    Neat idea, Mark! That might present an opportunity for community gardening or native plants that don't require much/any maintenance (and would look a heck of a lot better than a row of cars and be more true to the purpose of the boulevards -- green space and community-building).

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Sarcasm fail?

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    i think so.

  • based on past posts, i think not.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    @ Brian - what you say about narrowing the traffic lane by adding parking would work on a side street that is narrow to begin with. However, the boulevards are wider. Adding a lane of parking at the curb - widens the driving lane. Thus cars will speed more. When the cars aren't parked in an area we have cars swerving around to pass each other - or to avoid left-turning cars. The talk about parked cars calms traffic - in this case isn't true. However, the point is - the boulevards will look cramped and loose their beautiful appearance with parked cars. We want an open landscape. Bicycle paths would be great. Planters would be awesome.

    Keep in mind that the City (Rey?) has the Emmett Street public parking lot for sale. If / when it sells, those metered spaces will have to be moved to replace the revenue to Chicago Parking Meters (LAZ). We are concerned that the long term plan will be to sell the lot and have metered spaces on the boulevards.

    We need to find a solution that allows the churches to park during their services while not creating a pubic lot on the boulevards.

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    how many patrons really have to drive? couldn't the Churches do their part and ask their patron to walk a bit? I know it's the 21st century and we can't be bothered to walk more than a block for anything. But maybe it's about time.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Aaron you are assuming everyone that drives to those churches are already living in the neighborhood and also within walking distance. These sorts of things are self-selecting, so we can assume from the number of cars that most of the church-goers are coming from more than a few blocks away, or have other issues (elderly, etc)

  • @Paddy, please give the doom and gloom a rest The city has no obligation to replace the revenue to LAZ at Emmett, and you know darn well that nobody is talking about putting parking meters on the boulevard. You got your meeting with the Alderman let's save the hyperbole for another topic.

    @Aaron, this is rehash of many previous posts, but in summary --lots of people walk, but not everyone lives walking distance, particularly older people and people with small children. There are also many people that have moved away from the community but come back to their home parish for services. The problem is exacerbated by the many months of lousy weather we get in this climate challenged city.

  • @srcabeza Nobody was talking about creating legal boulevard parking and it happened. Not only did it happen, but it happened without the knowledge of the community. If it happened once, it can happen again. There is no need to disrespect others on this form with your "hyperbole" talk.

  • Buster

    Paddy, I appreciate your passion for wanting the boulevards free and clear. I agree, it would look very pretty. And if there are solutions to be found in terms of church bus systems and multiple parking lot rentals somewhere that are within financial reach of each church, that would be great. I hope you are in contact with church leaders, as I know they are receptive to open dialogue.

    But, in the meantime, I have to differ with your opinion that a lane of parked cars will increase speed on the boulevards. That just doesn't jive with DOT studies or least that I've experienced. You can literally stand and watch traffic when cars are parked and see a notable reduction in speed on the boulevards.

    I drive regularly on the boulevards, during the week and on the weekends. There is a considerable reduction in speed when cars are parked along the sides. This is also evident with the new lane removal on Humboldt/Sacramento through the park (where they added the new concrete medians). The remaining lane is wide, but trust me, it creates a slowdown. While I don't enjoy sitting in traffic, I do think the reduced speed is for the better good.

    Again, I don't mean to disparage your efforts. I appreciate people wanting a more pastoral ambience in our neighborhood. But I also want to live in a place that is welcoming and accommodating to the institutions that have been here for generations...longer than any of us.

  • @Jamie, Paddy has made a dozen or more posts to the board. She and no one else has suggested the meter concern. To suggest it now as SOB's concern is consistent with past hyperbolic posts, most notably that 110-140 hours of parking had been legalized on the boulevard.

    Sure, I suppose anything is possible, an expressway, a Walmart, a drag strip, a red-light district, or an oil refinery, but reasonable people know it's not happening.

    Many continue to contend that the community was not consulted on the decision. The churches were consulted, as both institutions and membership organizations they are important community members. They are the stakeholders that were most affected by the change in parking enforcement and were consulted, as is appropriate.

    I reject the notion that SOB is the community and SJB is not, Or that any decision that Paddy hasn't weighed in on is not legitimate. I ask again why a decision about parking in front of churches that she doesn't attend, located a mile from her house requires Paddy's sign off. Who elected her as our representative? And what is the forum where she's been able to bless or reject past decisions? I've never been invited to any such meetings.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    @srcabeza, you state as fact two things I don't believe to be simple fact.

    Firstly you state that reasonable people know meters aren't happening. What about Chicago's recent history with meters tell you they're not happening? The last bastion of meter free areas in the city are residential streets. I'd say it's an easy argument to make that the traffic lanes of the boulevards aren't residential streets. Meters have been placed in many places where free parking was formerly the norm. Many of the lakefront parking lots used to be free, not any more. Many side streets in business areas used to be meter free, not any more. Why not the boulevards? I'd say the leap from no parking on the inner traffic lanes to parking is a bigger leap than meters.

    Secondly you argue that the churches are disproportionate stake holders in the parking decision. I disagree. They are members of the community, just like the residents, and all should have been consulted. It makes no sense to have a dialog on the issue in which only one side of an issue is consulted.

    I think there are a couple of common sense issues underlying this that really aren't that controversial. First, do the hours make sense? Does there need to be 14 hours of legal parking on Logan by SJB for one hour of mass? Second, should the community as a whole be engaged in a dialog before an ordinance like this is introduced and passed?

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Unfortunately for everyone common sense is a notoriously subjective point of view. :)

    I think making the churches out to be huge and disproportionate stake holders is a bit much though. What's wrong with us just letting them do their thing on Sundays? They aren't pitching tents on the boulevard every weekend having rallys and taking up the green space or anything.

    It's cars. Parking. On the street. Once a week.

    This seems to be a case of people wanting to control others vs people who want to just let things be.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    I hear what you're saying Art, but I don't agree. When a change is made in the neighborhood that affects many residents of the community it's not really about letting things be. It's about a major change and how that change impacts residents in a new way. You may, and I'd guess do, see that change is minimal. I'll tell you that's not how I see it. And that is exactly why I think there should have been a dialog before the change was made. Those like you that think the change was no big deal could indicate that or simply speak with their silence. Those like me who felt this wasn't a good idea would be able to make their case for why they think it's a bad idea.

  • While the effect may have been in-artful, my attempt was to argue that the churches have an institutional role in the community in that they have been here for 100+ years (SJB, others) and they have membership that is comprised disproportionately of community residents.

    As such, I'm disagreeing with the suggestion by many that zero community consultation has taken place. I believe the churches by definition are community members.

    I'm also arguing that consultation with the churches is at-least as important as consultation with SOB/Boulevard property owners. I do believe that church members were disproportionately affected, because it was church members that had a long-standing, never significantly disputed, privilege taken away.

    And finally, I'm saying that I don't believe that Paddy or SOB represent the community and don't believe that they should have veto power over decisions about churches that they don't attend or even live near.

    As I said to posts you and Paddy made last week, if the discussion is about better relating the parking hours to high-traffic church hours, then that is a good discussion that I look forward to being invited to join. I only re-joined the discussion when new, in my view, alarmist claims were made about the issue. Count me as a skeptic that the self-appointed "Community" will reach out to the rest of us if/when this is re-litigated with the Alderman.

  • . . .

    @ HaveADay - "Does there need to be 14 hours of legal parking on Logan by SJB for one hour of mass?"

    Please check you facts before posting. Every Sunday there are 5 masses @ 1 hour each. Sprinkle in baptisms, weddings, first holy communion ect and you can add on another 5 hours depending on the day.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    @That Guy, thanks for the fact check but I never said it was on Sunday. Saturday parking on Logan is permitted on Saturday from 7am-9pm. The only mass on Saturday is at 5pm. That is one hour of mass with 14 hours of parking. As I said.

  • Alex M. Jeff Park, web design, DJ, thinker

    Meh...this is why I won't live in areas like Lincoln Park, Logan Square, Wrigleyville, Lake View, or Wicker Park. Not unless I plan on parking my car someplace and not moving it most of the time. It's even why I won't live on a main street. It's horrible if you own a car....but ideal if you don't.

    This is life in the big city.

  • Y_2_K I aspire to be who I am.

    I'd be willing to say that the area affected by these parking changes hardly constitutes a 'neighborhood (wide)' change that affects 'many of the residents.' Logan Square is a large hunk of land. The boulevards in question are on a very small piece of it. Obviously, people are pretty passionate about their opinions, but to throw the "this effects everyone, we weren't even asked!" card on the table is a bit much.

    And, in my experience, sliding stuff through like this is EXACTLY how it gets done. The alderman clearly wanted to appease a certain group of people, which he did. If we don't like it we can vote accordingly, but I doubt that will happen.

Hello, neighbor. This thread was closed due to violations of the EveryBlock community guidelines, which intend to keep discussions informative, friendly and respectful.

11 neighbors are subscribed to this conversation.

Posted to Logan Square

This was posted to Logan Square

What's the news in your neighborhood? Search for your ZIP code:

e.g. 60615