- Nam Y. Huh/AP
- Which guy is really for Chicago? Like, all of Chicago.
I can say without much hyperbole that there’s no colleague I esteem more than Michael Miner, the Reader‘s media critic/supplier of whimsical musings/bestower of the Golden BAT award. That didn’t stop me from sharing the feelings of many commenters on a post of his a few weeks back, “Why aren’t progressives ecstatic about the race for mayor?” It recounts a dinner-table discussion among various professionals, some of whom rub elbows with the mayor, all of whom are characterized as progressives. I’ve heard the piece summed up as “thoughts on the election from the wine-and-cheese set.”
J. Giola: “You get the idea that no one quoted in the article above regularly rides city buses, or finds transit fares too high, or sends kids to public schools on the south side, or will be treated to a trip to Homan Sq., or is greatly troubled by a downtown economy mainly geared to out-of-towners (who are, btw, bilked unmercifully by hotel, rental car, and sales taxes).”
Last fall circumstances moved me from Rogers Park to godforsaken Lakeview. I spent 15 years on the far north side, and this new neighborhood still freaks me out.
What’s that got to do with the mayor’s race? Well, which Chicago do you think Mayor Emanuel is “for”? I’m sure he’d insist the ubiquitous campaign slogan “Rahm for Chicago” means all of Chicago, just as he assures us he makes his “hard choices” because he knows what’s best for the city as a whole. But those hard choices haven’t wound up benefiting the neighborhoods most in need of help. Instead, the largest development fund at the mayor’s disposal—the now infamous TIF program—disproportionately benefits the already affluent central neighborhoods.
