Council and mayor must ignore latest suggestion on halving the city council
The overall impact of such of move would be damaging to Black residents
Don’t forget to answer the poll question at the end of this newsletter
The call for the City of Chicago to halve the number of city council members has become as predictable as salmon spawning. Now, the venerable, yet solely business-focused Civic Federation is joining the age old chorus calling for the council to have 25 members.
Like earlier reduction cries from former Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley, brother of Richard M. Daley, the federation positions its suggestion focusing solely on dollars. Daley’s suggestion during his campaign for mayor was more draconian-reduce council to 15 members. Of course, it sounded obvious there would be an immediate and substantial savings; but that simply isn’t the case.
One question the federation or none of the previous owners of the redcution idea answer is why Chicago should cut its number of council members in half (or less) when New York City, with 2.5 percent more residents than Chicgo does business with 51 city council members.
Proposals targeting a reduction in the number of city council members have never looked at the impact on the city’s Black and Brown communities. While no one who gets hired by the City is guaranteed a job for life, a City job has been a stepping stone to the middle class for countless people who are not white. Middle class residents tend to cluster and that brings stability to a neighborhood. The Chatham community since the early 1960s has witnessed that.
We are talking hundreds of individuals, many of whom have worked for the City of Chicago more than half their lives. If the end goal of suggesting the cuts is money-saving, it stands to reason the recommendation is to put these longtime employees out to pasture
.The average number of employees in an alderperson’s office is four and alderpersons who chair committees have eight or more. There also are the streets and sanitation superintendents who are likely to lose jobs-meaning several other middle class homeowners are suddenly struggling.
What would be the gnarliest issue is remapping the wards. It is already a highly contentious process that occurs after every U.S. Bureau of Census count. That process has been in place for decades and still has detractors. To try to redraw who is in what ward won’t be an easy or simple undertaking; if at all possible in fewer than five years.
Already we have disproportiante representation and some Civic Federation or other idea not under the auspicies of the state or Federal government will simply exacerbate the problem. There are approximately 79,000 residens in the 42nd Ward on the North Side, yet the number on the South Side in the Third Ward is 45,000.
According to Crain’s Business magazine, four wards - 5th, 7th, 16th and 17th have fewer than 47,000 residents each. These wards are not contigous so consolidation wouldn’t be an option. They stand the possibility of being extinct under a reduction plan. The suggestion, if somehow enacted, means that the majority of African-American residents would be represented by someone unfamiliar with their community, churches, community leaders, and opion leaders.
Given the segregation in the city among the predominantly Black, prdominantly Latino, and predominantly white wards; there is no way to cut the number of alderpersons and still have all of Chicago represented. The suggestion to cut makes one wonder if the folk at the Civic Federtion making such recommendtion have visited the South Side and the West Side in the last 30 or 40 years.
The Civic Federation’s idea begs the question if key people in that organization invested any time in talking with the African-American and Latino thought leaders who could provide some insights.
Hopefully, the Chicago City Council leadership will soon step up and share its flaws with the notion of halving their body.
Reduction doesn't save many $$ and the representation issue you raise is scary if a reduction was ever made. Look more closely at pensions that pay out allegedly $400.000 to "civil servants" that never made that much in the regular work life. Or the costs of extra police time watching special events which take over public land for profit. What's THAT ROI like?