WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In her most vehement denial to date, Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters on Thursday that the so-called Epstein List is “as non-existent as President Trump’s healthcare plan.”
“The Epstein List is not even a concept of a list,” she added.
“Let’s say you had three things that don’t exist—the Epstein List, President Trump’s healthcare plan, and a unicorn—and you had to rank them from most existent to least existent,” she said. “It would go, unicorn, healthcare plan, Epstein List.”
Asked why she had earlier asserted that the Epstein List was on her desk, she responded, “What is this ‘desk’ you speak of?”
You may have a point that politicians surveying sites of natural disaster can be a distraction and a hindrance to relief efforts. They could probably be more helpful directing resources. But this is not the reason Trump is skipping these shows of support. He simply doesn't care and is too lazy and callous. Take a look at this piece from even before the Texas floods: "Trump Hasn’t Visited A Single Natural Disaster On His Watch As President" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-ignoring-disasters_n_684c8b3de4b0897e37f9f7a6
Not only can't he be bothered to seize an opportunity for easy political points in an area that has given him huge support, he slow-walks routine federal aid and renegs on promises to send it: "In the five months since [hurricane Helene], though, Trump and his administration have not delivered new aid, including billions specifically targeted for North Carolina in December’s spending bill, and has instead cut back on paying for the cleanup costs."
He has also decimated and handcuffed FEMA. I am seriously dreading the coming hurricane season.
But, I understand that he truly is a player who might have less than a 10 handicap - if he played by the rules. Harvey Penick, legendary golf instructor (as all true lovers of the game) would/do excoriate how he plays. Who the Eff drives their cart onto the green? The way he plays shows that he utterly lacks respect for the game, despite what he might say.
I've seen videos of him playing. He's pretty good, especially for his age. I doubt that he wins club tournaments fair and square against opponents who are actually trying hard (or else his club has shitty golfers only). Rick Reilly's book "Commander in Cheat" reveals all the ways he cheats to win: https://people.com/donald-trump-cheats-golf-rick-reilly-claims-8621189
When I was in 7th grade I was babysitting the neighbor kid and won twice at Candyland. She started bawling, so I had to tell her it was a mistake and I never beat her at the game again. I thought of this when reading of how others don’t win against the president. Very similar.
I agree with allowing ADUs. NIMBY's like Marty Quinn drive me nuts, and there are a lot of them in Evanston where I live. Take the concept of preserving what ab area has been in the past to its logical extent. The Chicago area used to have no people and it was swamp and prairie. A bunch of people moved here and now there a lot of problems. Everyone should move out. That will fix everything (in the area. Where they move to is out of scope)
This says that of the approximately 13,000 single family homes in Evanston, fewer than 36 ADUs have been completed since the city opened the door to their construction in 2020.
Agree that his NIMBY attitude is dumb and completely misplaced. From my experience in the 47th Ward, which was in the first pilot areas to test out the idea, the change in policy is to make things a little more streamlined for people to *legally* rent out a garden apt in a 2-flat, or build an apt on the roof of your garage. It's not like outside developers will come in an impose an ADU on your block and build one in everyone's backyard. If his constituents don't want more housing units, they won't build them and the character of his area will stay exactly the same.
Stop using Cheeto Hitler's preferred cutesy name for his concentration camp in Florida. If you have to give it a name use the more apt Alligator Auschwitz.
I think that is bullshit and is an attempt to downplay the seriousness of what is happening in our country. I know several descendents of Holocaust victims that think it is 100% accurate.
I wasn’t the one denouncing it, but I think the argument is that, until it becomes more of a death camp than a prison camp, it’s more “Alcatraz” than “Auschwitz”.
Auschwitz was a death camp where Jews were taken to be exterminated deliberately. As detestable as this detention prison in Florida is, I don't think it's apt to refer to it in the same breath as a death camp.
More people have died in immigration detention this year then anytime in our history, and we are only halfway through the year. You don't think people will die there in the hot Florida swamp? And you don't think that might be the intention?
Have more died in immigration detention than in any six month period at Auschwitz? I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips, but I’m inclined to doubt it. Also, if the descendants of Holocaust victims that you know think that it’s “100% accurate”, then that only proves that descendants of Holocaust victims can be wrong too.
It's possible that when Auschwitz first opened it didn't have that many deaths. It was originally established in 1940 as just another concentration camp and only converted to an extermination camp in 1942.
Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews and 5 million others in the first six months in power. First he attacked "the others" with words, then with jackbooted thugs, then started rounding them up, then started building concentration camps, and sent many of those people across the border into concentration camps in other countries. If you don't see any parallels then you are engaging in willful delusion.
Auschwitz is the most famous name of a concentration camp, like Alcatraz is one of the most famous names of a prison. They use that name to try to make people equate it with a place that successfully kept dangerous criminals locked up. I use the more appropriate name because it reveals more closely what it's true intention is.
Waiting to call it Alligator Auschwitz until he's killed thousands or hundreds of thousands will defeat the purpose of pointing out what its intention is. Then it will be too late.
Also, someone disagreeing with your opinion does not make them "wrong." But claiming that it does sure does show your arrogance.
“There is no water here to bathe,” Izquierdo said in Spanish to Telemundo 51 from inside the facility, adding it’s been four days since he showered. Izquierdo also alleged that “they give you food only once a day, food that even has worms in it.” Detention center lights are always on, 24/7, he said, and the mosquitoes are “the size of elephants.”
It's true that people are not gassed there by the thousands, but people will die. I think it's OK to use a hyperbole to call attention to this atrocity.
As an almost 76 year old man, I have a better chance of getting pregnant that Blago has of getting elected to Congress in my Congressional district!
As for CBS dumping Colbert because they don't want to be seen as "woke". He's usually number 1 in the late night ratings, so I don't see that happening any time soon.
I think they'll try to pressure Colbert (and Stewart) to lay off Trump first, without kicking him out. The question is, will he comply and cooperate or leave for a different platform.
It wouldn’t be without precedent: Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC yet still got cancelled for regularly inveighing against the impending Gulf War (hard to believe there was a time when a voice could be too liberal for MSNBC, but 22 years ago that was indeed the case).
If all Chicago residents are going to be allowed to build granny flats, there needs to at least be some strict and enforceable laws about short term rentals, garbage, and parking to protect adjacent neighbors and neighborhoods. The issue of water runoff also needs to be addressed as replacing a backyard of grass with a permanent structure will increase the likelihood of flooding during heavy rainstorms that are only going to get more frequent with climate change.
That was my thought too. I remember looking for a rental place many years ago and saw some carriage house apartments, I remember it looked like access to them was really cramped and obstructed. Housing and building on any scale really should be well planned and regulated.
I understand your concerns but it's misplaced in focusing on ADU's. Gentrification of neighborhoods significantly contributes to all those things, which I have personally witnessed in my neighborhood over 25 years. There is now only 1 other house in my entire block than my own with an actual backyard of grass/garden. All the others have been paved or built over due to the larger two- and three-story houses replacing bungalows and smaller homes. That has clearly exacerbated flooding on my block. Guess what -- richer people buy more crap and generate more garbage too. Those fancier, more expensive homes also generate more trash, which is blatantly obvious in every alley. So if we're concerned about such things and designing building codes around them, they need to address ALL the issues.
Very good points about flooding from the larger properties that are replacing smaller ones. The building codes regarding water runoff need to reflect what will be needed in the next 30 years, not the past 30 years.
Re 9th district primary. Dan Biss has high name recognition and is popular in Evanston except for the NIMBY constituency. However, Laura Fine is the other establishment candidate. I expect their appeal has a lot of overlap. I predict Biss will win
There are an AWFUL lot of announced candidates - depending on how many can get on the ballot, the results might be incredibly fragmented. But if Blago were to get onto the ballot (as a Dem), I would hope that the most of the lesser REAL Dem candidates would bow out and throw their support behind the most viable Dem candidate(s).
I like Biss politically and personally and will be rooting for him (I'm in the 3rd CD) but there will be a lot of candidates adjacent to him politically and I still see an opening for Blago.
I mentioned this in the comments in Tuesday’s edition, but I’ll say it again: the “Non-perishable manager” quip that claimed victory this week is fundamentally wrong. Immortality is no smiling matter. See the 1983 film “The Hunger” or the 1960 Twilight Zone episode “Long Live Walter Jameson” to understand why (technically, the Kevin McCarthy character isn’t immortal in the TZ episode, but it’s the same idea: that living forever, or even for an unnaturally long time, is a kind of damnation).
That’s kind of the bargain that Walter Jameson has in the TZ episode. He’s depressed and hates that his permanent youth has enabled him to outlive everyone that he’s ever loved or been close to, but he just can’t bring himself to pull that revolver out of the drawer and end his misery.
I agree that it would be terribly sad to lose everyone, even your children and grandchildren, to the ravages of age. Never understood the cryogenics enthusiasts who want to be defrosted in, what, 100, 200 years. Eveyone and everything you cared about would be long gone.
One example of outliving your contemporaries is the difference in how Jack Brickhouse and Harry Caray are remembered. Jack had been long retired and largely forgotten. Harry was still on the jobs. Ironically, the way to be remembered for ever is to die young.
I am also reminded of a Greek myth in which someone’s wish for immortality was granted, but who forgot to wish for eternal youth, and just kept aging and withering.
That’s more or less what happens to David Bowie’s character in “The Hunger”. He contracts this rare vampire disease that causes rapid aging so that in no time flat, he’s a withered and decrepit old man, but he’s immortal. Oh, and the disease also causes permanent insomnia, so he’s fated to just laying around in agonizing pain in a constant state of wakefulness for all eternity.
Now that I'm in my fifties I find the idea of living another thirty years or more rather daunting. Not that I want to die anytime soon, but without some way to actually reverse the aging process it does seem weird to want to keep going while knowing I'm surely on the downslope, physically and mentally.
My beautiful mother was a person who loved life and loved people. But, as she lived into her 90s she became afflicted with more and more infirmities. We were very blessed that she had a very peaceful passing which she was more than ready for. But, in reviewing some of her recent writings after her passing, I saw that she had written "Life is very hard now", and that struck me to my core as it was so incongruent with this wonderful woman who always had a zest for life. But upon reflection, it's sadly did make perfect sense.
As for me, I don't mind aging and getting older one bit! My body however, is not enjoying the journey at all...
I am sorry to hear this poignant news my friend. It is always difficult to contemplate the loss of presence of a loved one from us in this world. I will hope that her and your belief systems will allow for the great consolation of the promise of eternal life in the next world.
In the sci-fi/fantasy world there are at least two types of immortality. 1) you live forever unless you are killed in a specific manner, or 2) you cannot be killed at all.
Personally, I would like an immortality where you oscillate between ages. So say you transformed at age 25, you age until you are 55 and then age backwards, repeating the pattern.
Also, the last line is a direct reference to the beginning of Def Leppard’s hit song ‘Rock of Ages’ (1983) — the one that starts with the nonsense German line ‘Gunter Glieben Glauten Globen’.
Well, continuing to age or reversing an age back to our beginning seems like it would still result in the same conclusion - likely someone else having to wipe our butt for us at the end! 🫣
see also 'Gulliver's Travels', Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. in Luggnagg the struldbrugs are immortal, but continue aging - not pretty. wikipedia: 'They do not have the gift of eternal youth, but suffer the infirmities of old age and are considered legally dead at the age of eighty.'
regardless, i voted for the Non-Perishable Manager for VQotW.
A modest and tentative call of bullshit on ADUs: The links above consist of a lot of happy talk. The bottom line is that it seems unlikely that they will contribute significantly to lowering housing costs or relieving housing shortages. This talks about modest uptake in Evanston -- fewer than 36 ADUs over a nearly five-year span, out of about 13,000 single family homes:
"Within communities that permit ADUs, there must be property owners willing to make a financial investment and potentially serve as a landlord. They also must have property that can accommodate an additional dwelling unit that meets zoning bulk and setback requirements.
"Because of the various conditions required to construct an ADU, they are generally built at a modest rate. As of May 2021, Oak Park has issued 10 ADU building permits since it adopted its ADU ordinance in 2018. Evanston has issued 10 permits since 2019."
The slow uptake is unsurprising. They cost a lot to build, they likely rob you of a parking spot (or yard space for additional parking), they're small, they force you to be a landlord if you want the income from it, and they involve inviting a stranger to share your property.
It seems they are likely to forever be dwarfed by the far more efficient way to house lots of people in limited space, a radical concept we might be familiar with: apartment buildings. While Evanston has seen fewer than 36 ADUs built over nearly five years, it has something in the area of 23,000 apartments, nearly twice its number of single family homes. The key to affordable housing in the metro area, it seems to me, is to better incentivize and streamline the construction of modest multi-family buildings, especially near transit and business districts.
I'm not sure which way this cuts when it comes to the ordinance. On the one hand, you could argue that if hardly anyone does it, why not allow it? On the other hand, you could argue that if it won't make much difference and provide a vanishingly small social benefit, it doesn't seem worth risking potential neighborhood downsides that a majority of local residents want to avoid. I lean toward the latter view -- let the alders decide with community input, just as municipalities currently decide outside Chicago. In any case, the issue strikes me as involving a lot more performative posturing than serious policy debate.
I agree that ADU's will only be a drop in the bucket relative to allowing more apartment building construction which sometimes is blocked because some people think gentrification is bad. It seems to me that the fears of adverse effects of ADU's would only be manifest if a lot of them were built. Also the concerns about traffic and crowding would also apply to apartment buildings.
I see no reason to prohibit ADU's beyond reasonable land use regulations.
I get the point about its not being much of an issue unless there's large-scale uptake, which seems unlikely. But let me try this, just for the sake of argument, to steel-man the NIMBYs here:
Say you're a homeowner and your neighbor, in accordance with the new ordinance, is one of the few who does take it up and builds an ADU over their garage. It's tall, imposing, and ugly, let's say. It blocks light, and makes your backyard a bit of a bummer. It represents a sort of aesthetic imposition, one that affects your enjoyment of your property, in which you have invested a lot of time, money, and sentiment. (On smallish lots, suitably sized coach houses can indeed loom.) Say further that your neighbor's new tenant is not the best neighbor in some way or other. They play loud music, say, or have rowdy guests or come and go at all hours. Most tenants would probably be fine, but let's say this one isn't.
From the perspective of that homeowner, I could understand thinking about the issue in the following way: I get that there's a shortage of affordable housing, but this new law imposes in-my-face burdens that I didn't sign up for. For that matter, my owner-occupier neighbor didn't either. We both bought under the old rules. Everybody here had an expectation of single family homes. There's always the possibility of issues with neighbors even under the status quo ante of course, including those related to building additions, but I accepted those risks as I had to. Here, it's the ordinance that introduced the issues that amount to a frequent, dispiriting irritant. In many places, people welcome ADUs and many want the freedom to build them. I happen to know, however, that in my neighborhood the vast majority were opposed to it, but the edict came down from City Hall that they were going to do it citywide.
The charge of NIMBY-ism is premised on the idea that I'm unwilling to be personally inconvenienced to address an important social issue. The NIMBY says, It's not my problem; let it be someone else's. I don't want the thing here; let it be anywhere but here. But in this case, the inconveniences I'm facing, ones that make me even contemplate moving and, I worry, might reduce the value of my single largest asset I've worked hard for, doesn't even address an important social problem. In short, I'm facing these problems *for no good reason.* There are hardly any of these things in my neighborhood and unlikely to be many more. That tenant could find a similarly priced regular apartment elsewhere, and I'm cool with building more apartments nearby. For me, and socially too, therefore, this new law is all downside and no upside, all so people who don't live here can feel like they're doing something about affordable housing while doing nothing of the sort.
I'd be pretty sympathetic to concerns along those lines. What would you say to this hypothetical homeowner or someone who is worried about such concerns?
First, I will admit that it is not accurate to label anyone who opposes a single ordinance a NIMBY. People who oppose construction of on apartment building that fits in with other apartment buildings on the same street, and the construction site is a lot which has been vacant for 40 years, are NIMBY's. This actually happened in Evanston. I will try to make my point without use of pejorative labels.
Allowance of ADU's are a change in land use, and that is a different category of issue than the example I cited above.
"Shadows from new buildings, blocking views and changing the character of the neighborhood." I have heard this argument many times applied to new building projects. Typically, there is existing zoning which imposes height limits to address this concern. It has happened in some neighborhoods where old detached single-family dwellings (SFD's) have been torn down and replaced by larger SFD's, or multi-family buildings within the existing building code. If you buy a property you have that risk. So why single out ADU's? Also, it is important that land use changes in a city to accommodate economic changes. A lot of neighborhoods have built up. Imagine if lower Manhattan were not allowed to change its land use from 1900? Changes happen for a reason and our own SFD's are not exempt (like you I own a detached SFD). In the time we are in now, many people want to have more density to allow for more efficient use of public transit and walkability.
"Bad neighbors" This is a risk you have that is not related to ADU's. I think land use regulation to keep out "undesirable people" has an unsavory past. I think it is a bad idea to try to use land use regulations to address this problem. Examples are Kenilworth, where, early on, lot sizes were large, and construction requirements ensured that no one of modest means would move there. Also, there has been medling to block gentrification in some areas in Chicago. For example imposing a high fee on demolition. IMO, trying to keep low cost housing in an area by making it more expaensive to build new housing is going to backfire.
Basically, it is not reasonable to expect that your neighborhood cannot change, especially in a city.
I will add that the appropriate regulatory tool to deal with noise neighbors is noise ordinance. For some reason, and I am not able to edit my prior comment.
Good points. Just to be clear, the "I" in my comment is hypothetical, though inspired by real-world stories I have had some secondhand experience with. I do not in fact own an SFD. I live in an apartment (an affordable one!) in a hundred-year-old building in Oak Park that I like to think of as cozy.
I agreed that neighbors face various similar risks pre-ADU anyway. What if your neighbor is a jerk? What if they build a big addition that's not an ADU? (Boy do I have nightmare stories along those lines, including about one house-doubling addition, a never-quite-finished monstrosity that basically ruined the neighbor's backyard feel and, to my way of thinking, should have been prohibited.) My point was that both parties in the scenario I presented bought under then-existing rules and agreed to take on those risks. The ADU ordinance, however, indisputably poses *additional* risks, even if they are of a similar nature. It increases the odds of a problem. Whereas before I risked a jerky neighbor or a big addition, I now risk those things *plus* another jerky neighbor and another structure. It seems perfectly rational to me to say, yes, I understand that I face various risks. I just want to minimize them and not add to them; of course I do.
"It has happened in some neighborhoods where old detached single-family dwellings (SFD's) have been torn down and replaced by larger SFD's, or multi-family buildings within the existing building code."
Yes, and I'm not super wild about some of that. Given my druthers, I'd prefer to live in a world that yet more tightly controlled people tearing down small houses and building much bigger ones in their place and/or building mega-additions. It's not as though allowing those things are adding to the affordable housing stock! On the contrary, it makes neighborhoods originally designed for modest, middle-class housing increasingly unaffordable. In addition, invitations to do tear-downs result in a plethora of fat, ugly structures, in my view, inappropriately scaled to the lot. I was just driving through charming old Naperville and was struck by some of the gaudy mansions people are putting up that stretch from lot-line to lot-line. They're not cheap. Ditto the multifamily buildings I've seen on otherwise SFD blocks. The people who live in those units drive very nice cars.
I understand that of course things have to change over time, unless they don't really. I'd suggest that thriving neighborhoods of modest homes on small lots, as characterize the suburb-like areas of the city on the Southwest and Northwest Sides probably don't really need to change much, and I'm okay with letting those alders have a veto on ADUs, i.e., leaving it up to the majority community sentiment there. I get the point about a bad history of exclusionary policies. I get it a whole bunch. But just as I reject the idea that concerns about crime are just covers for racism, I reject the idea that concerns, much mocked on the left, about community feel are necessarily dishonest euphemisms for "keep those people out." I really don't feel that way, and neither do most, I suspect, who bring up such concerns at council meetings in very progressive suburbs like Oak Park and Evanston that are already rainbows of racial, ethnic, and income diversity.
The need for dramatic changes are felt most acutely in metros of increasing population that are already very built up, little room to spare. That's not us. We are, sadly, not increasing much. We have the opposite problem. Meanwhile, there's gobs of empty space all around. We're not like New York or the Bay Area in that regard. Ours is a fundamentally midwestern metro, one of sprawl, with many a hollowed-out area in the core. Drive down any street along an L line -- I just went down Lake today -- and note the areas that would comfortably accommodate substantial apartment buildings that wouldn't disturb the character of anything, only improve it. Why isn't the Eisenhower/Congress L lined with apartment buildings all the way down rather than sad, half-empty blocks matched in their dispiriting decrepitude only by the painfully slow creep of the trains over what appears to be one giant decade-old weed-strewn slow zone. I half expect to hear them creak, like Trump's tanks.
I thought all the mixed income housing that went up in the 90s near the United Center was great and imagined a world where that would continue right on west. I love the rehab of the housing projects at Diversey and the river. I love the rehab of the Rosenwald apartments in Bronzeville. Some cool looking buildings are going up in Maywood on Lake, just west of First Avenue. I would like to see more development along those lines.
I know very little about the real-world intricacies of housing development. My hunch is that most development that occurs in places like Oak Park and Evanston or yet wealthier suburbs is not affordable anyway, absent some legal requirement or subsidy. (Oak Park has seen lots of apartment buildings go up in recent years, but they're in the nature of luxury buildings. The affordable units are the many, and there are many, like mine, the ones in the old courtyard buildings.) I'm not quite sure why the market seemed to provide so much new modest housing in the past and isn't now. I'd be curious to better understand it. Perhaps building regulations have something to do with it.
In any case, I'm not quick to just accept the new conventional wisdom, among both market fundamentalists on the right and "abundance" liberals on the left, that zoning is the root of all evil. I'm simply unconvinced that we can't have it all -- suburban neighborhoods that retain the character for which they're valued and plenty more affordable housing besides. Maybe you can't have it all within the confines of a single Kenilworth, but so what? I don't get why small localities, among the some 300 (!) that comprise metro Chicago, much less any and all of the city's 50 wards are ethically obligated to make what are in the end meaningless gestures toward what is in reality a metro-wide issue demanding far greater vision and vigor than the likes of this do-nothing ADU ordinance, which merely pisses people off who don't want it.
Wow! For Angel Reese, who generally travels and commits at least one offensive foul every time her “ hands of stone “ touch the ball, to complain about officiating is really rich. She certainly loved seeing Chennedy Carter give a blind hip check to Caitlin Clark last year.
As an official, I can guarantee you that players will take what is given to them. If you’ll allow grabbing they will grab. If contact is allowed they will bump each other around. You call it, they adjust and stop. She and the rest of them are doing what they are allowed to do. If they stop, they’ll be at a severe disadvantage to other teams and players.
You’re wasting your time. I have been an official for almost fifty years. I have tried to explain that the officials will call things however the league wants them called. If the league wanted things changed it would take a simple conference call with all the officials or retraining at required offseason camps. But I might as well talk to a concrete wall. Fans are fans, not officials.
I should have added that the players union and the teams would need notice of changes so they could adjust. I’ll bet at least a dollar that players like Angel Reese will then complain that the officiating is too tight and fans and commentators will call for officials to stuff their whistles in their pockets.
Angel Reese is very correct in her complaint that officiating in the WNBA is overall terrible, and specifically, the refs are for whatever reason swallowing whistles all too often allowing games to cross the line and get out of control. The larger players are all too often resorting to thuggery on the court against the skill players - Caitlin Clark is the poster child for this as she disportunity receives an disgusting number of flagrant fouls. I'm a huge WNBA fan, and this absence of officiating is materially detracting from the otherwise stellar play of the many great players in the league.
BTW - although very accurate in her complaint, Reese also needs to clean up her own act and bad attitude. It was disgusting to see her enthusiastically cheering Chenedy Carter after she laid a very hard blindsided flagrant fall on Kennedy Clark last year when the ball was not even in play. And this tantrum and public disrespect to a Sky coach and Vice President of Operations should have resulted in Reese being sat down for one or more games.
Regarding the floods in Texas, the big question is why so many people and camps didn't heed the warnings put out by the NWS. I have little love for Trump but you can't pin this on him. One camp did pay attention to the NWS statements and safely evacuated all of their campers. As I live in an area subject to natural disasters, I have had for decades a weather radio with battery backup which can wake the dead when a warning triggers it. You can set the location and specific kinds of warnings which will cause it to come on and alert you. There's no excuse for not having one in that part of Texas.
I'm going to wait, myself, before wagging my finger at anyone here. Not that it's too soon to ask the question, but that it's too soon to learn the full answer.
I saw an interview with a guy that was awakened by the sound of the flood waters. He said that he had a flash flood warning app on his phone but somehow missed the warning.
I also wondered if building intermittent levees across the flood plain might slow a flash flood.
And of course, not building on flood plains or building on stilts.
I will be interested to see what conclusions they come to.
I get weather alerts on my phone and my smart watch. Having said that, I’m quite sure my feelings about the orange stain are known. But no, he doesn’t get the blame for the county not wanting to pay for an emergency alert system.
The big ugly orange stain has done it again! A 50% tariff in Brazil because he doesn’t like the way they are treating his buddy, the disgraced former leader? Hey, Donnie- the world is not your private fiefdom. You don’t get to take out your personal issues on either the American or Brazilian economies. This could be considered interference in Brazilian affairs. It is definitely a bull cookies reason for doing it. I would like to think my respect for the Supreme Court and the cringing chickens of the GOP cannot go any lower. So I suppose they will do nothing. Okay let’s hear our local MAGAs alibi for the orange stain by bringing up something Biden did.
I just finished "Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom" It is an excellent biography of an amazing man. At 800plus pages it is long and could have used better editing. But aside from the details of an extraordinarily accomplished life, the political discourse has significant resonance.
I just finished a podcast from my favorite Uof Chicago economist. His guest was a lefty progressive economist, Joan Williams. They discussed her new book "Outclassed". I think she has done a great job diagnosing the Dems loss of their traditional base and has good ideas for regaining the pollical initiative without abandoning the progressive agenda. Much more insightful and expansive than Abundance.
About to finish "Outclassed". There have been a few spots where I disagreed, but generally an excellent read. Whereas the "Abundance" book is good for policy, this covers psyche, status, dignity, perceived condescension, etc. It's also things that can be changed immediately, whereas much of abundance policy will take some time to implement.
I’m not a conspiracy guy, but I heard the explanation of the missing 1 minute from the Epstein video. If this is a regular thing (missing the last minute of the day) then couldn’t someone have gotten to Epstein in that minute knowing that the video was off for that time every day?
How does it compare with the minutes missing from the Watergate tape? Sorry, not making light of a suicide. He’s gone. I’ve seen so many stories and rumors of who was at his parties that we’ll never know the truth. Was Oswald alone? Is Elvis still alive? Did Hitler escape to Brazil?
I know that simply being at an Epstein party is not proof of wrong doing, any more than Roselyn Carter being pictured with John Wayne Gacy is incriminating. So I acknowledge that there is nuance.
I didn’t mean to imply that. There will be lots of conspiracy stories. People will lie to save their own asses. Was Trump there? Was Clinton there? Was Prince Harry there? We’ll probably never know for sure. If Epstein has an afterlife, he’s laughing at us right now over the ruckus he has caused. How many women will be coming forward to grab a piece of his estate?
I want to tell you a story. I sometimes help the homeless in my community. Not in an official capacity, but just because they need it. Sometimes it's a few dollars, sometimes it's food, sometimes it's driving them to the doctor's office. I'm not telling you this to earn praise. It leads up to my story. I sometimes officiate at Thornton High School in Harvey. My route home sometimes takes me to 154th , which is kind of the main drag through downtown Harvey. A little west of downtown, there is a sheltered bus stop. I started seeing this old lady, her walker and her belongings. One time, on a whim I stopped to ask her if she needed anything. I gave her a few dollars, ands bought her a sandwich and a bottle of water. I've done this several times since. Tonight I was on my way home from the Sox game which was rained out. On a whim, I went through Harvey. This was around midnight. She was there with a couple of other people. She had her sleeping bag spread out. She was sleeping there. I admit to knowing little about her. She claimed to have a daughter living in Blue Island. She did not explain to me why she couldn't stay there. I gave her a few dollars then rued not doing more. I want to a gas station, about the only place open in Harvey at that time of night and bought a bag of cookies and 4 bottles of water. the best thing the station had. When I returned there now 4 people in the bus shelter. I hope she actually got to keep what I gave her, because she was pretty much helpless although the others in the shelter seemed to be her friends. So I imagine she probably shared with them. As I left, she asked as usual if I was coming back the next day. I knew that when I didn't she often didn't get to eat. I live more than an hour south of Harvey and just don't get that way every day. Why did I tell that story? These are the kind of people that will further by affected by Trump's big ugly bill. He simply has no empathy for anyone not like him or doesn't kiss his rear. I am often in debate with someone here that claims to respect what Trump does. I will never respect Trump. What is more important as a leader than caring for your own people? I can argue with MAGAs about whether or not Trump is doing good things. But it pales with his total lack of empathy for other people. I have heard it said too many times that street people are all addicts that made bad choices in life and need to be out of sight and out of mind. That they like their freedom and turn down government assistance. That does not describe those I work with. They have been turned down for help so many times that they don't trust government and often don't even know whom to turn to. Just the other day, one of my homeless people was lamenting her inability to get a job because she had no identification or permanent address. She didn't even know about the social services office in downtown Kankakee or the Social Security office a few blocks east where she could have replaced her social security card. Now this is not all Trump's doing. These problems existed when Trump was cheating his Polish immigrant workers in New York. But he has illustrated strongly with his ex-buddy, Muskrat, that the poor and needy just don't count. I don't care if MAGAs believe he is once again going to make us a major military force or can bully other countries into trade deals. There might even be an occasion or two where I agree with something he says or does. But as far as I'm concerned, he's a crummy person and totally unfit to be a leader. Don't bring up Biden or Harris. It's irrelevant to me. The orange stain is a big boy making his own decisions and made it very plain that it's all about him. The day he is out of the White House will be the day to celebrate for me. By the way, I want to puke every time conservatives describe us a Christian nation. It was never meant to be that way. At any rate, it's simply not true- not if MAGAs believe that the only things they need to do to be Christian are to ban books and tell everyone else how to live their lives.
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In her most vehement denial to date, Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters on Thursday that the so-called Epstein List is “as non-existent as President Trump’s healthcare plan.”
“The Epstein List is not even a concept of a list,” she added.
“Let’s say you had three things that don’t exist—the Epstein List, President Trump’s healthcare plan, and a unicorn—and you had to rank them from most existent to least existent,” she said. “It would go, unicorn, healthcare plan, Epstein List.”
Asked why she had earlier asserted that the Epstein List was on her desk, she responded, “What is this ‘desk’ you speak of?”
🥱
You may have a point that politicians surveying sites of natural disaster can be a distraction and a hindrance to relief efforts. They could probably be more helpful directing resources. But this is not the reason Trump is skipping these shows of support. He simply doesn't care and is too lazy and callous. Take a look at this piece from even before the Texas floods: "Trump Hasn’t Visited A Single Natural Disaster On His Watch As President" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-ignoring-disasters_n_684c8b3de4b0897e37f9f7a6
Not only can't he be bothered to seize an opportunity for easy political points in an area that has given him huge support, he slow-walks routine federal aid and renegs on promises to send it: "In the five months since [hurricane Helene], though, Trump and his administration have not delivered new aid, including billions specifically targeted for North Carolina in December’s spending bill, and has instead cut back on paying for the cleanup costs."
He has also decimated and handcuffed FEMA. I am seriously dreading the coming hurricane season.
He no longer sees a need to suck up to his supporters...
100%
I agree. Trump didn’t stay away from Texas to avoid diverting resources. He stayed away because he’d rather play golf.
Speaking of which, while I assume he routinely cheats, does anyone know whether he is actually a good golfer? GK he practices enough.
There are numerous stories that he cheats at golf.
But, I understand that he truly is a player who might have less than a 10 handicap - if he played by the rules. Harvey Penick, legendary golf instructor (as all true lovers of the game) would/do excoriate how he plays. Who the Eff drives their cart onto the green? The way he plays shows that he utterly lacks respect for the game, despite what he might say.
I've seen videos of him playing. He's pretty good, especially for his age. I doubt that he wins club tournaments fair and square against opponents who are actually trying hard (or else his club has shitty golfers only). Rick Reilly's book "Commander in Cheat" reveals all the ways he cheats to win: https://people.com/donald-trump-cheats-golf-rick-reilly-claims-8621189
for further info on 'the trump method' of playing golf, check out also reilly's 'Who's your Caddy?' https://www.golfdigest.com/story/10-astonishing-claims-from-the-book-detailing-president-trumps-cheating-at-golf. might be duplicative in some detail with EZ's link on same subject.
When I was in 7th grade I was babysitting the neighbor kid and won twice at Candyland. She started bawling, so I had to tell her it was a mistake and I never beat her at the game again. I thought of this when reading of how others don’t win against the president. Very similar.
If you beat Trump, you never again get to golf on his course. 2nd prize ie being invited back.
Not surprising as Trump is incapable of empathy. And he prefers to score points on those who will suffer in blue states, rather than offer help.
I agree with allowing ADUs. NIMBY's like Marty Quinn drive me nuts, and there are a lot of them in Evanston where I live. Take the concept of preserving what ab area has been in the past to its logical extent. The Chicago area used to have no people and it was swamp and prairie. A bunch of people moved here and now there a lot of problems. Everyone should move out. That will fix everything (in the area. Where they move to is out of scope)
This says that of the approximately 13,000 single family homes in Evanston, fewer than 36 ADUs have been completed since the city opened the door to their construction in 2020.
https://evanstonnow.com/increasing-density-lessons-from-adus/#:~:text=An%20Evanston%20Now%20review%20of,to%20stop%20pursuing%20the%20project.
That doesn't strike me as "a lot."
There are a lot of NIMBY'S.
Oh, I see, I misread. I thought you were saying there are a lot of ADUs in Evanston.
Agree that his NIMBY attitude is dumb and completely misplaced. From my experience in the 47th Ward, which was in the first pilot areas to test out the idea, the change in policy is to make things a little more streamlined for people to *legally* rent out a garden apt in a 2-flat, or build an apt on the roof of your garage. It's not like outside developers will come in an impose an ADU on your block and build one in everyone's backyard. If his constituents don't want more housing units, they won't build them and the character of his area will stay exactly the same.
Stop using Cheeto Hitler's preferred cutesy name for his concentration camp in Florida. If you have to give it a name use the more apt Alligator Auschwitz.
That moniker was recently denounced in these pages as insensitive to Holocaust victims.
I think that is bullshit and is an attempt to downplay the seriousness of what is happening in our country. I know several descendents of Holocaust victims that think it is 100% accurate.
I wasn’t the one denouncing it, but I think the argument is that, until it becomes more of a death camp than a prison camp, it’s more “Alcatraz” than “Auschwitz”.
Auschwitz was a death camp where Jews were taken to be exterminated deliberately. As detestable as this detention prison in Florida is, I don't think it's apt to refer to it in the same breath as a death camp.
More people have died in immigration detention this year then anytime in our history, and we are only halfway through the year. You don't think people will die there in the hot Florida swamp? And you don't think that might be the intention?
Have more died in immigration detention than in any six month period at Auschwitz? I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips, but I’m inclined to doubt it. Also, if the descendants of Holocaust victims that you know think that it’s “100% accurate”, then that only proves that descendants of Holocaust victims can be wrong too.
It's possible that when Auschwitz first opened it didn't have that many deaths. It was originally established in 1940 as just another concentration camp and only converted to an extermination camp in 1942.
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/
Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews and 5 million others in the first six months in power. First he attacked "the others" with words, then with jackbooted thugs, then started rounding them up, then started building concentration camps, and sent many of those people across the border into concentration camps in other countries. If you don't see any parallels then you are engaging in willful delusion.
Auschwitz is the most famous name of a concentration camp, like Alcatraz is one of the most famous names of a prison. They use that name to try to make people equate it with a place that successfully kept dangerous criminals locked up. I use the more appropriate name because it reveals more closely what it's true intention is.
Waiting to call it Alligator Auschwitz until he's killed thousands or hundreds of thousands will defeat the purpose of pointing out what its intention is. Then it will be too late.
Also, someone disagreeing with your opinion does not make them "wrong." But claiming that it does sure does show your arrogance.
Give it time.
There are already reports of inhumane conditions at that facility:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/families-immigrant-detainees-allege-horrible-conditions-alligator-alca-rcna217743
“There is no water here to bathe,” Izquierdo said in Spanish to Telemundo 51 from inside the facility, adding it’s been four days since he showered. Izquierdo also alleged that “they give you food only once a day, food that even has worms in it.” Detention center lights are always on, 24/7, he said, and the mosquitoes are “the size of elephants.”
It's true that people are not gassed there by the thousands, but people will die. I think it's OK to use a hyperbole to call attention to this atrocity.
I live in Florida. Elephants might not be accurate, but pterodactyl’s for sure.
Why slur alligators? Just call it Trump Auschwitz.
Or Stalag Trump.
As an almost 76 year old man, I have a better chance of getting pregnant that Blago has of getting elected to Congress in my Congressional district!
As for CBS dumping Colbert because they don't want to be seen as "woke". He's usually number 1 in the late night ratings, so I don't see that happening any time soon.
I think they'll try to pressure Colbert (and Stewart) to lay off Trump first, without kicking him out. The question is, will he comply and cooperate or leave for a different platform.
Neither of them would ever comply with that!
they might ask Colbert and Stewart to lay off for two weeks until the Trumpanzee's attention span is somewhere else.
His attention span never flags when he holds a grudge against you.
It wouldn’t be without precedent: Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC yet still got cancelled for regularly inveighing against the impending Gulf War (hard to believe there was a time when a voice could be too liberal for MSNBC, but 22 years ago that was indeed the case).
You’re awfully confident considering that he got $20 million out of a company that wasn’t even talking about him.
Because there's nothing to replace with, so they'll stick with him, as the #1 show in late night.
If all Chicago residents are going to be allowed to build granny flats, there needs to at least be some strict and enforceable laws about short term rentals, garbage, and parking to protect adjacent neighbors and neighborhoods. The issue of water runoff also needs to be addressed as replacing a backyard of grass with a permanent structure will increase the likelihood of flooding during heavy rainstorms that are only going to get more frequent with climate change.
That was my thought too. I remember looking for a rental place many years ago and saw some carriage house apartments, I remember it looked like access to them was really cramped and obstructed. Housing and building on any scale really should be well planned and regulated.
Do you think the extent of regulation should be different for granny flats be different than any other residential construction?
I understand your concerns but it's misplaced in focusing on ADU's. Gentrification of neighborhoods significantly contributes to all those things, which I have personally witnessed in my neighborhood over 25 years. There is now only 1 other house in my entire block than my own with an actual backyard of grass/garden. All the others have been paved or built over due to the larger two- and three-story houses replacing bungalows and smaller homes. That has clearly exacerbated flooding on my block. Guess what -- richer people buy more crap and generate more garbage too. Those fancier, more expensive homes also generate more trash, which is blatantly obvious in every alley. So if we're concerned about such things and designing building codes around them, they need to address ALL the issues.
Very good points about flooding from the larger properties that are replacing smaller ones. The building codes regarding water runoff need to reflect what will be needed in the next 30 years, not the past 30 years.
Re 9th district primary. Dan Biss has high name recognition and is popular in Evanston except for the NIMBY constituency. However, Laura Fine is the other establishment candidate. I expect their appeal has a lot of overlap. I predict Biss will win
There are an AWFUL lot of announced candidates - depending on how many can get on the ballot, the results might be incredibly fragmented. But if Blago were to get onto the ballot (as a Dem), I would hope that the most of the lesser REAL Dem candidates would bow out and throw their support behind the most viable Dem candidate(s).
Is Blago still considered a Dem now that he kisses the ring(or is that the rear?)
I like Biss politically and personally and will be rooting for him (I'm in the 3rd CD) but there will be a lot of candidates adjacent to him politically and I still see an opening for Blago.
I mentioned this in the comments in Tuesday’s edition, but I’ll say it again: the “Non-perishable manager” quip that claimed victory this week is fundamentally wrong. Immortality is no smiling matter. See the 1983 film “The Hunger” or the 1960 Twilight Zone episode “Long Live Walter Jameson” to understand why (technically, the Kevin McCarthy character isn’t immortal in the TZ episode, but it’s the same idea: that living forever, or even for an unnaturally long time, is a kind of damnation).
I’d be prepared to experiment. Maybe immortality with a voluntary exit clause would be a viable approach.
That’s kind of the bargain that Walter Jameson has in the TZ episode. He’s depressed and hates that his permanent youth has enabled him to outlive everyone that he’s ever loved or been close to, but he just can’t bring himself to pull that revolver out of the drawer and end his misery.
I agree that it would be terribly sad to lose everyone, even your children and grandchildren, to the ravages of age. Never understood the cryogenics enthusiasts who want to be defrosted in, what, 100, 200 years. Eveyone and everything you cared about would be long gone.
One example of outliving your contemporaries is the difference in how Jack Brickhouse and Harry Caray are remembered. Jack had been long retired and largely forgotten. Harry was still on the jobs. Ironically, the way to be remembered for ever is to die young.
I am also reminded of a Greek myth in which someone’s wish for immortality was granted, but who forgot to wish for eternal youth, and just kept aging and withering.
That’s more or less what happens to David Bowie’s character in “The Hunger”. He contracts this rare vampire disease that causes rapid aging so that in no time flat, he’s a withered and decrepit old man, but he’s immortal. Oh, and the disease also causes permanent insomnia, so he’s fated to just laying around in agonizing pain in a constant state of wakefulness for all eternity.
What am I missing in all the comments here about immortality? I thought the picture was a joke, not philosophical commentary.
The joke makes it sound as if immortality is something that is desirable. But it isn’t.
Now that I'm in my fifties I find the idea of living another thirty years or more rather daunting. Not that I want to die anytime soon, but without some way to actually reverse the aging process it does seem weird to want to keep going while knowing I'm surely on the downslope, physically and mentally.
And that all of the people that you love and care about (including ones much younger than you) will get old and die.
My beautiful mother was a person who loved life and loved people. But, as she lived into her 90s she became afflicted with more and more infirmities. We were very blessed that she had a very peaceful passing which she was more than ready for. But, in reviewing some of her recent writings after her passing, I saw that she had written "Life is very hard now", and that struck me to my core as it was so incongruent with this wonderful woman who always had a zest for life. But upon reflection, it's sadly did make perfect sense.
As for me, I don't mind aging and getting older one bit! My body however, is not enjoying the journey at all...
My mother will turn 86 next month. She occasionally says, "I've lived too long." I think she is ready to go.
I am sorry to hear this poignant news my friend. It is always difficult to contemplate the loss of presence of a loved one from us in this world. I will hope that her and your belief systems will allow for the great consolation of the promise of eternal life in the next world.
Thank you, David. We spend time together in this world while we can.
reminds me of an old line - 'everyone wants to go to heaven - but not soon.'
In the sci-fi/fantasy world there are at least two types of immortality. 1) you live forever unless you are killed in a specific manner, or 2) you cannot be killed at all.
Personally, I would like an immortality where you oscillate between ages. So say you transformed at age 25, you age until you are 55 and then age backwards, repeating the pattern.
"In the end, there can be only one."
Kurgan: Father! Forgive me, I am a worm...
[starts laughing diabolically]
Kurgan: [to everyone in the church] I have something to say! It's better to burn out than to fade away!
Deep cut. Nice!
Clancy Brown channeling his inner Joe Elliott...
The Def Leopard guy?
You might be getting too deep for me.
What’s this dialogue from? I only recognize the last line as a Neil Young lyric.
It's from Highlander (1986), kind of a cult classic: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Highlander_(film)
Great soundtrack also, with a few songs by Queen at the top of their operatic powers, including "Who wants to live forever" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE
Also, the last line is a direct reference to the beginning of Def Leppard’s hit song ‘Rock of Ages’ (1983) — the one that starts with the nonsense German line ‘Gunter Glieben Glauten Globen’.
Ah yes, one of Mutt Lange’s trademarks, later to be cribbed by The Offspring on one of their dumber songs.
Well, continuing to age or reversing an age back to our beginning seems like it would still result in the same conclusion - likely someone else having to wipe our butt for us at the end! 🫣
I would certainly be OK with oscillating between 30 and 35.
You could always try it the Benjamin Button way.
see also 'Gulliver's Travels', Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. in Luggnagg the struldbrugs are immortal, but continue aging - not pretty. wikipedia: 'They do not have the gift of eternal youth, but suffer the infirmities of old age and are considered legally dead at the age of eighty.'
regardless, i voted for the Non-Perishable Manager for VQotW.
A modest and tentative call of bullshit on ADUs: The links above consist of a lot of happy talk. The bottom line is that it seems unlikely that they will contribute significantly to lowering housing costs or relieving housing shortages. This talks about modest uptake in Evanston -- fewer than 36 ADUs over a nearly five-year span, out of about 13,000 single family homes:
https://evanstonnow.com/increasing-density-lessons-from-adus/#:~:text=An%20Evanston%20Now%20review%20of,to%20stop%20pursuing%20the%20project.
CMAP notes issues here:
"Within communities that permit ADUs, there must be property owners willing to make a financial investment and potentially serve as a landlord. They also must have property that can accommodate an additional dwelling unit that meets zoning bulk and setback requirements.
"Because of the various conditions required to construct an ADU, they are generally built at a modest rate. As of May 2021, Oak Park has issued 10 ADU building permits since it adopted its ADU ordinance in 2018. Evanston has issued 10 permits since 2019."
https://cmap.illinois.gov/news-updates/what-your-community-needs-to-know-about-accessory-dwelling-units/
The slow uptake is unsurprising. They cost a lot to build, they likely rob you of a parking spot (or yard space for additional parking), they're small, they force you to be a landlord if you want the income from it, and they involve inviting a stranger to share your property.
It seems they are likely to forever be dwarfed by the far more efficient way to house lots of people in limited space, a radical concept we might be familiar with: apartment buildings. While Evanston has seen fewer than 36 ADUs built over nearly five years, it has something in the area of 23,000 apartments, nearly twice its number of single family homes. The key to affordable housing in the metro area, it seems to me, is to better incentivize and streamline the construction of modest multi-family buildings, especially near transit and business districts.
I'm not sure which way this cuts when it comes to the ordinance. On the one hand, you could argue that if hardly anyone does it, why not allow it? On the other hand, you could argue that if it won't make much difference and provide a vanishingly small social benefit, it doesn't seem worth risking potential neighborhood downsides that a majority of local residents want to avoid. I lean toward the latter view -- let the alders decide with community input, just as municipalities currently decide outside Chicago. In any case, the issue strikes me as involving a lot more performative posturing than serious policy debate.
I agree that ADU's will only be a drop in the bucket relative to allowing more apartment building construction which sometimes is blocked because some people think gentrification is bad. It seems to me that the fears of adverse effects of ADU's would only be manifest if a lot of them were built. Also the concerns about traffic and crowding would also apply to apartment buildings.
I see no reason to prohibit ADU's beyond reasonable land use regulations.
I get the point about its not being much of an issue unless there's large-scale uptake, which seems unlikely. But let me try this, just for the sake of argument, to steel-man the NIMBYs here:
Say you're a homeowner and your neighbor, in accordance with the new ordinance, is one of the few who does take it up and builds an ADU over their garage. It's tall, imposing, and ugly, let's say. It blocks light, and makes your backyard a bit of a bummer. It represents a sort of aesthetic imposition, one that affects your enjoyment of your property, in which you have invested a lot of time, money, and sentiment. (On smallish lots, suitably sized coach houses can indeed loom.) Say further that your neighbor's new tenant is not the best neighbor in some way or other. They play loud music, say, or have rowdy guests or come and go at all hours. Most tenants would probably be fine, but let's say this one isn't.
From the perspective of that homeowner, I could understand thinking about the issue in the following way: I get that there's a shortage of affordable housing, but this new law imposes in-my-face burdens that I didn't sign up for. For that matter, my owner-occupier neighbor didn't either. We both bought under the old rules. Everybody here had an expectation of single family homes. There's always the possibility of issues with neighbors even under the status quo ante of course, including those related to building additions, but I accepted those risks as I had to. Here, it's the ordinance that introduced the issues that amount to a frequent, dispiriting irritant. In many places, people welcome ADUs and many want the freedom to build them. I happen to know, however, that in my neighborhood the vast majority were opposed to it, but the edict came down from City Hall that they were going to do it citywide.
The charge of NIMBY-ism is premised on the idea that I'm unwilling to be personally inconvenienced to address an important social issue. The NIMBY says, It's not my problem; let it be someone else's. I don't want the thing here; let it be anywhere but here. But in this case, the inconveniences I'm facing, ones that make me even contemplate moving and, I worry, might reduce the value of my single largest asset I've worked hard for, doesn't even address an important social problem. In short, I'm facing these problems *for no good reason.* There are hardly any of these things in my neighborhood and unlikely to be many more. That tenant could find a similarly priced regular apartment elsewhere, and I'm cool with building more apartments nearby. For me, and socially too, therefore, this new law is all downside and no upside, all so people who don't live here can feel like they're doing something about affordable housing while doing nothing of the sort.
I'd be pretty sympathetic to concerns along those lines. What would you say to this hypothetical homeowner or someone who is worried about such concerns?
Hi Jake.
Fair questions.
First, I will admit that it is not accurate to label anyone who opposes a single ordinance a NIMBY. People who oppose construction of on apartment building that fits in with other apartment buildings on the same street, and the construction site is a lot which has been vacant for 40 years, are NIMBY's. This actually happened in Evanston. I will try to make my point without use of pejorative labels.
Allowance of ADU's are a change in land use, and that is a different category of issue than the example I cited above.
"Shadows from new buildings, blocking views and changing the character of the neighborhood." I have heard this argument many times applied to new building projects. Typically, there is existing zoning which imposes height limits to address this concern. It has happened in some neighborhoods where old detached single-family dwellings (SFD's) have been torn down and replaced by larger SFD's, or multi-family buildings within the existing building code. If you buy a property you have that risk. So why single out ADU's? Also, it is important that land use changes in a city to accommodate economic changes. A lot of neighborhoods have built up. Imagine if lower Manhattan were not allowed to change its land use from 1900? Changes happen for a reason and our own SFD's are not exempt (like you I own a detached SFD). In the time we are in now, many people want to have more density to allow for more efficient use of public transit and walkability.
"Bad neighbors" This is a risk you have that is not related to ADU's. I think land use regulation to keep out "undesirable people" has an unsavory past. I think it is a bad idea to try to use land use regulations to address this problem. Examples are Kenilworth, where, early on, lot sizes were large, and construction requirements ensured that no one of modest means would move there. Also, there has been medling to block gentrification in some areas in Chicago. For example imposing a high fee on demolition. IMO, trying to keep low cost housing in an area by making it more expaensive to build new housing is going to backfire.
Basically, it is not reasonable to expect that your neighborhood cannot change, especially in a city.
I will add that the appropriate regulatory tool to deal with noise neighbors is noise ordinance. For some reason, and I am not able to edit my prior comment.
Good points. Just to be clear, the "I" in my comment is hypothetical, though inspired by real-world stories I have had some secondhand experience with. I do not in fact own an SFD. I live in an apartment (an affordable one!) in a hundred-year-old building in Oak Park that I like to think of as cozy.
I agreed that neighbors face various similar risks pre-ADU anyway. What if your neighbor is a jerk? What if they build a big addition that's not an ADU? (Boy do I have nightmare stories along those lines, including about one house-doubling addition, a never-quite-finished monstrosity that basically ruined the neighbor's backyard feel and, to my way of thinking, should have been prohibited.) My point was that both parties in the scenario I presented bought under then-existing rules and agreed to take on those risks. The ADU ordinance, however, indisputably poses *additional* risks, even if they are of a similar nature. It increases the odds of a problem. Whereas before I risked a jerky neighbor or a big addition, I now risk those things *plus* another jerky neighbor and another structure. It seems perfectly rational to me to say, yes, I understand that I face various risks. I just want to minimize them and not add to them; of course I do.
"It has happened in some neighborhoods where old detached single-family dwellings (SFD's) have been torn down and replaced by larger SFD's, or multi-family buildings within the existing building code."
Yes, and I'm not super wild about some of that. Given my druthers, I'd prefer to live in a world that yet more tightly controlled people tearing down small houses and building much bigger ones in their place and/or building mega-additions. It's not as though allowing those things are adding to the affordable housing stock! On the contrary, it makes neighborhoods originally designed for modest, middle-class housing increasingly unaffordable. In addition, invitations to do tear-downs result in a plethora of fat, ugly structures, in my view, inappropriately scaled to the lot. I was just driving through charming old Naperville and was struck by some of the gaudy mansions people are putting up that stretch from lot-line to lot-line. They're not cheap. Ditto the multifamily buildings I've seen on otherwise SFD blocks. The people who live in those units drive very nice cars.
I understand that of course things have to change over time, unless they don't really. I'd suggest that thriving neighborhoods of modest homes on small lots, as characterize the suburb-like areas of the city on the Southwest and Northwest Sides probably don't really need to change much, and I'm okay with letting those alders have a veto on ADUs, i.e., leaving it up to the majority community sentiment there. I get the point about a bad history of exclusionary policies. I get it a whole bunch. But just as I reject the idea that concerns about crime are just covers for racism, I reject the idea that concerns, much mocked on the left, about community feel are necessarily dishonest euphemisms for "keep those people out." I really don't feel that way, and neither do most, I suspect, who bring up such concerns at council meetings in very progressive suburbs like Oak Park and Evanston that are already rainbows of racial, ethnic, and income diversity.
The need for dramatic changes are felt most acutely in metros of increasing population that are already very built up, little room to spare. That's not us. We are, sadly, not increasing much. We have the opposite problem. Meanwhile, there's gobs of empty space all around. We're not like New York or the Bay Area in that regard. Ours is a fundamentally midwestern metro, one of sprawl, with many a hollowed-out area in the core. Drive down any street along an L line -- I just went down Lake today -- and note the areas that would comfortably accommodate substantial apartment buildings that wouldn't disturb the character of anything, only improve it. Why isn't the Eisenhower/Congress L lined with apartment buildings all the way down rather than sad, half-empty blocks matched in their dispiriting decrepitude only by the painfully slow creep of the trains over what appears to be one giant decade-old weed-strewn slow zone. I half expect to hear them creak, like Trump's tanks.
I thought all the mixed income housing that went up in the 90s near the United Center was great and imagined a world where that would continue right on west. I love the rehab of the housing projects at Diversey and the river. I love the rehab of the Rosenwald apartments in Bronzeville. Some cool looking buildings are going up in Maywood on Lake, just west of First Avenue. I would like to see more development along those lines.
I know very little about the real-world intricacies of housing development. My hunch is that most development that occurs in places like Oak Park and Evanston or yet wealthier suburbs is not affordable anyway, absent some legal requirement or subsidy. (Oak Park has seen lots of apartment buildings go up in recent years, but they're in the nature of luxury buildings. The affordable units are the many, and there are many, like mine, the ones in the old courtyard buildings.) I'm not quite sure why the market seemed to provide so much new modest housing in the past and isn't now. I'd be curious to better understand it. Perhaps building regulations have something to do with it.
In any case, I'm not quick to just accept the new conventional wisdom, among both market fundamentalists on the right and "abundance" liberals on the left, that zoning is the root of all evil. I'm simply unconvinced that we can't have it all -- suburban neighborhoods that retain the character for which they're valued and plenty more affordable housing besides. Maybe you can't have it all within the confines of a single Kenilworth, but so what? I don't get why small localities, among the some 300 (!) that comprise metro Chicago, much less any and all of the city's 50 wards are ethically obligated to make what are in the end meaningless gestures toward what is in reality a metro-wide issue demanding far greater vision and vigor than the likes of this do-nothing ADU ordinance, which merely pisses people off who don't want it.
Wow! For Angel Reese, who generally travels and commits at least one offensive foul every time her “ hands of stone “ touch the ball, to complain about officiating is really rich. She certainly loved seeing Chennedy Carter give a blind hip check to Caitlin Clark last year.
As an official, I can guarantee you that players will take what is given to them. If you’ll allow grabbing they will grab. If contact is allowed they will bump each other around. You call it, they adjust and stop. She and the rest of them are doing what they are allowed to do. If they stop, they’ll be at a severe disadvantage to other teams and players.
You’re wasting your time. I have been an official for almost fifty years. I have tried to explain that the officials will call things however the league wants them called. If the league wanted things changed it would take a simple conference call with all the officials or retraining at required offseason camps. But I might as well talk to a concrete wall. Fans are fans, not officials.
Very true. But since the league commish says nothing to see here, it’s not likely to change.
I should have added that the players union and the teams would need notice of changes so they could adjust. I’ll bet at least a dollar that players like Angel Reese will then complain that the officiating is too tight and fans and commentators will call for officials to stuff their whistles in their pockets.
That's a tu quoque fallacy. Being a beneficiary of some wrongdoing doesn't invalidate calling out that same wrongdoing.
Angel Reese is very correct in her complaint that officiating in the WNBA is overall terrible, and specifically, the refs are for whatever reason swallowing whistles all too often allowing games to cross the line and get out of control. The larger players are all too often resorting to thuggery on the court against the skill players - Caitlin Clark is the poster child for this as she disportunity receives an disgusting number of flagrant fouls. I'm a huge WNBA fan, and this absence of officiating is materially detracting from the otherwise stellar play of the many great players in the league.
BTW - although very accurate in her complaint, Reese also needs to clean up her own act and bad attitude. It was disgusting to see her enthusiastically cheering Chenedy Carter after she laid a very hard blindsided flagrant fall on Kennedy Clark last year when the ball was not even in play. And this tantrum and public disrespect to a Sky coach and Vice President of Operations should have resulted in Reese being sat down for one or more games.
https://g.co/kgs/uqfdPDX
Regarding the floods in Texas, the big question is why so many people and camps didn't heed the warnings put out by the NWS. I have little love for Trump but you can't pin this on him. One camp did pay attention to the NWS statements and safely evacuated all of their campers. As I live in an area subject to natural disasters, I have had for decades a weather radio with battery backup which can wake the dead when a warning triggers it. You can set the location and specific kinds of warnings which will cause it to come on and alert you. There's no excuse for not having one in that part of Texas.
I'm going to wait, myself, before wagging my finger at anyone here. Not that it's too soon to ask the question, but that it's too soon to learn the full answer.
I saw an interview with a guy that was awakened by the sound of the flood waters. He said that he had a flash flood warning app on his phone but somehow missed the warning.
I also wondered if building intermittent levees across the flood plain might slow a flash flood.
And of course, not building on flood plains or building on stilts.
I will be interested to see what conclusions they come to.
I get weather alerts on my phone and my smart watch. Having said that, I’m quite sure my feelings about the orange stain are known. But no, he doesn’t get the blame for the county not wanting to pay for an emergency alert system.
The big ugly orange stain has done it again! A 50% tariff in Brazil because he doesn’t like the way they are treating his buddy, the disgraced former leader? Hey, Donnie- the world is not your private fiefdom. You don’t get to take out your personal issues on either the American or Brazilian economies. This could be considered interference in Brazilian affairs. It is definitely a bull cookies reason for doing it. I would like to think my respect for the Supreme Court and the cringing chickens of the GOP cannot go any lower. So I suppose they will do nothing. Okay let’s hear our local MAGAs alibi for the orange stain by bringing up something Biden did.
Two off topic things.
I just finished "Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom" It is an excellent biography of an amazing man. At 800plus pages it is long and could have used better editing. But aside from the details of an extraordinarily accomplished life, the political discourse has significant resonance.
I just finished a podcast from my favorite Uof Chicago economist. His guest was a lefty progressive economist, Joan Williams. They discussed her new book "Outclassed". I think she has done a great job diagnosing the Dems loss of their traditional base and has good ideas for regaining the pollical initiative without abandoning the progressive agenda. Much more insightful and expansive than Abundance.
https://www.capitalisnt.com/episodes/how-democrats-forgot-to-be-normal-with-joan-williams
I just bought her book.
Just sharing.
FD bio is excellent. a heart rending, but very uplifting real-life story.
About to finish "Outclassed". There have been a few spots where I disagreed, but generally an excellent read. Whereas the "Abundance" book is good for policy, this covers psyche, status, dignity, perceived condescension, etc. It's also things that can be changed immediately, whereas much of abundance policy will take some time to implement.
I’m not a conspiracy guy, but I heard the explanation of the missing 1 minute from the Epstein video. If this is a regular thing (missing the last minute of the day) then couldn’t someone have gotten to Epstein in that minute knowing that the video was off for that time every day?
How does it compare with the minutes missing from the Watergate tape? Sorry, not making light of a suicide. He’s gone. I’ve seen so many stories and rumors of who was at his parties that we’ll never know the truth. Was Oswald alone? Is Elvis still alive? Did Hitler escape to Brazil?
I know that simply being at an Epstein party is not proof of wrong doing, any more than Roselyn Carter being pictured with John Wayne Gacy is incriminating. So I acknowledge that there is nuance.
I didn’t mean to imply that. There will be lots of conspiracy stories. People will lie to save their own asses. Was Trump there? Was Clinton there? Was Prince Harry there? We’ll probably never know for sure. If Epstein has an afterlife, he’s laughing at us right now over the ruckus he has caused. How many women will be coming forward to grab a piece of his estate?
Correction: Prince Andrew, not Prince Harry, was the one involved with Epstein. Harry was just a kid back then.
I stand corrected
I want to tell you a story. I sometimes help the homeless in my community. Not in an official capacity, but just because they need it. Sometimes it's a few dollars, sometimes it's food, sometimes it's driving them to the doctor's office. I'm not telling you this to earn praise. It leads up to my story. I sometimes officiate at Thornton High School in Harvey. My route home sometimes takes me to 154th , which is kind of the main drag through downtown Harvey. A little west of downtown, there is a sheltered bus stop. I started seeing this old lady, her walker and her belongings. One time, on a whim I stopped to ask her if she needed anything. I gave her a few dollars, ands bought her a sandwich and a bottle of water. I've done this several times since. Tonight I was on my way home from the Sox game which was rained out. On a whim, I went through Harvey. This was around midnight. She was there with a couple of other people. She had her sleeping bag spread out. She was sleeping there. I admit to knowing little about her. She claimed to have a daughter living in Blue Island. She did not explain to me why she couldn't stay there. I gave her a few dollars then rued not doing more. I want to a gas station, about the only place open in Harvey at that time of night and bought a bag of cookies and 4 bottles of water. the best thing the station had. When I returned there now 4 people in the bus shelter. I hope she actually got to keep what I gave her, because she was pretty much helpless although the others in the shelter seemed to be her friends. So I imagine she probably shared with them. As I left, she asked as usual if I was coming back the next day. I knew that when I didn't she often didn't get to eat. I live more than an hour south of Harvey and just don't get that way every day. Why did I tell that story? These are the kind of people that will further by affected by Trump's big ugly bill. He simply has no empathy for anyone not like him or doesn't kiss his rear. I am often in debate with someone here that claims to respect what Trump does. I will never respect Trump. What is more important as a leader than caring for your own people? I can argue with MAGAs about whether or not Trump is doing good things. But it pales with his total lack of empathy for other people. I have heard it said too many times that street people are all addicts that made bad choices in life and need to be out of sight and out of mind. That they like their freedom and turn down government assistance. That does not describe those I work with. They have been turned down for help so many times that they don't trust government and often don't even know whom to turn to. Just the other day, one of my homeless people was lamenting her inability to get a job because she had no identification or permanent address. She didn't even know about the social services office in downtown Kankakee or the Social Security office a few blocks east where she could have replaced her social security card. Now this is not all Trump's doing. These problems existed when Trump was cheating his Polish immigrant workers in New York. But he has illustrated strongly with his ex-buddy, Muskrat, that the poor and needy just don't count. I don't care if MAGAs believe he is once again going to make us a major military force or can bully other countries into trade deals. There might even be an occasion or two where I agree with something he says or does. But as far as I'm concerned, he's a crummy person and totally unfit to be a leader. Don't bring up Biden or Harris. It's irrelevant to me. The orange stain is a big boy making his own decisions and made it very plain that it's all about him. The day he is out of the White House will be the day to celebrate for me. By the way, I want to puke every time conservatives describe us a Christian nation. It was never meant to be that way. At any rate, it's simply not true- not if MAGAs believe that the only things they need to do to be Christian are to ban books and tell everyone else how to live their lives.