I don't give a single, solitary rip about Paul Vallas' legal residence

& a bonus collection of Valentine's Day-themed tweets

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

2-14-23

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Become a paid subscriber to receive each Picayune Plus in your email inbox each Tuesday and join our civil and productive commenting community.

It doesn’t matter to me that Paul Vallas may be a secret suburbanite

I have my reasons why I’m not going to vote for former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas in the Feb. 28th mayoral election, but the possibility that his primary residence is in suburban Palos Heights about half an hour southwest of downtown isn’t one of them.

WTTW- Ch. 11’s Heather Cherone broke the story last week that Vallas, who is a strong contender for a spot in the likely April 4 top-two runoff election, seems to have been renting an apartment in the Bridgeport neighborhood for the past year simply so he can be technically eligible to run for mayor (and it’s too late for a legal challenge to his residency).

That might bother me if he were parachuting in from, say, Los Angeles and presuming to lead the city. But no matter where Vallas may actually hang his hat, it’s undeniable that he has deep local roots: He’s a former city budget director who oversaw the public schools here for six years and ran unsuccessfully for mayor four years ago. He knows how the city works as well as if not better than the other top contenders and has more major executive experience than any of them. And there’s no reason to believe Vallas is any less invested in the city’s future than his opponents.

In his case — as in the case of Rahm Emanuel prior to the 2011 mayoral election — the residency requirement strikes me as an insignificant technicality when it comes to a person who is so obviously not an outsider. Asking whether Vallas’ legal home is in the city or nearby suburb is, to me, like asking whether his nominating petitions were properly numbered and fastened: Neither is a question that a city badly in need of strong leadership has the luxury to obsess over.

If you think Vallas has the best resume and policy positions to be mayor of Chicago, then by all means vote for him.

I won’t, as I said. I disagree with his enthusiasm for privatizing public education — Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg had a good essay the other day on “the voucher scam” and here is an old, online debate I had on the topic. Plus I’m wary of his Republican adjacency — see Gregory Pratt and Alice Yin’s story in Monday’s Tribune, “Mayoral candidate Paul Vallas insists he’s a lifelong Democrat. But he’s backed by conservative donors and the FOP.”

Those things matter to me. Whether his apartment in Bridgeport is contrivance rather than a genuine residence is of no concern to me. And I doubt that it’s of any real concern to those advancing the #PalosPaul theme on social media or sharing images like this:

via @JeffreyJanusch on Twitter

They were never going to vote for him anyway.

A miscellaneous campaign 2023 notes

• The Tribune Editorial Board has endorsed affordable housing developer Laith Shaaban in the Northwest Side 33rd Ward aldermanic race in which he’s facing first-term incumbent Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez and Chicago planning department project coordinator Sami Martinez. I live in the neighboring 39th Ward and moderated a recent forum with Shaaban, Sanchez and Martinez, and thought they all acquitted themselves very well. But judging only by the response in the packed auditorium at Bateman Elementary School, Shaaban is the underdog in the race.

• Mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia’s slam at motorists — “People think that driving a car equates with freedom and it doesn’t,” he said at the Jan. 28 Safe Streets for All, Transit that Works Mayoral Forum at UIC. "It’s dumb, it’s hurting our environment, it’s hurting our children.” — was itself awfully dumb. One can back public transit improvements without insulting those who use their cars.

• The Sun-Times reported: “In launching his latest campaign, (mayoral candidate Willie) Wilson said he would donate the mayor’s $216,210 annual salary to churches and nonprofits, claiming he spends more on a weeklong cruise with his wife.” Italics mine. This prompted me to check high-end cruise prices at Royal Caribbean, where it looks like the high end is about $2,000 per night per couple, or $14,000 a week. Round it up to $20,000 with tips and transportation, and we’re still talking at least 10 weeks of cruising.

• Yes or no? For its voter’s guide, the Sun-Times asked the mayoral candidates “Do you believe Chicago Public Schools should remain a system of choice with selective enrollment, magnet and charter schools serving a significant share of students rather than neighborhood schools?” It was a very poorly thought out question, lumping magnet and selective schools in with charter schools while ducking the hot-button issue of vouchers, but Garcia’s answer was appallingly, disquietingly vague: Chicago has neighborhood schools, and it has many specialty schools as well as unique programs to offer parents and students. We must address and support the needs of everyone.” Even Wilson, the champion of vagueness, had a more declarative answer: “I support a system of choice for our parents.”

• If you want to know why I am among those who have come to consider Lori Lightfoot temperamentally ill-suited to continue being mayor, consider her touchy response at last Thursdays WFLD-Ch. 32 forum when moderator Mike Flannery asked her about high truancy rates at Chicago Public Schools. Instead of calmly acknowledging the depth of the problem and offering some strategies for addressing it, Lightfoot lit into Flannery, “You are characterizing our kids that are exceeding all odds, working hard every day — and, yes, the graduation rates are up despite the pandemic, yes, they’re getting scholarships at an amazing level — you’re describing them as if they’re dumb, lazy and not doing anything.”

• It’s interesting that Lightfoot is now training her fire on opponent Brandon Johnson, a West Side Cook County commissioner and employee of the Chicago Teachers Union. “Lightfoot’s recent internal polling shows Johnson’s poll numbers rising and she has started to take him seriously as a credible threat to make the runoff,” report Alice Yin and Gregory Pratt in the Tribune. At a campaign stop in the Austin neighborhood over the weekend Lightfoot told her audience that Johnson is a false prophet who “wants to tax you out of the city.” The Tribune story also said “the 77 Committee, an independent expenditure group created by allies to support (Lightfoot’s) reelection, recently spent $71,000 on advertising against Johnson.” The obvious conclusion is that the presence of seven Black candidates on the ballot will fragment the support Black voters and lead to the the only Hispanic candidate (Garcia) and the only white candidate (Vallas) making the top-two runoff.

Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses

Saying GFTO to my SOTU dig at Garcia

Former Gov. Pat Quinn — Regarding your criticism of U.S. Rep. Chuy Garcia for skipping the WTTW-Ch. 11 mayoral candidate forum in favor of attending the State of the Union address in Washington Feb. 7: Maybe Channel 11 shouldn’t have scheduled its debate on the same night as the State of the Union. I didn’t think that scheduling was fair to Chuy. Most voters do not approve of their Congressman being a no-show at the President’s address to the people.

Peter C. — Garcia needed to attend the State of the Union speech. It is a matter of respect to the office of the President. Had he attended the debate, I have no doubt that he would have been criticized for skipping out on the job to which he was elected.

Praveen P. —Garcia was right to attend the SOTU. Politicians need to prioritize their current job over the one they are running for. 

Charles G. — Why would WTTW schedule a mayoral forum during the State of the Union speech in the first place? A lot of politically involved people would want to watch the Biden speech so I think it’s a terrible time to have this debate.

Please. Attending a speech is not part of the job of a member of Congress, particularly when that speech will be available on YouTube and elsewhere afterwards. Attending committee hearings. Submitting and voting on legislation. Meeting with constituents and interest group representatives. Those are the job.

For whatever reason, Garcia wanted to be in the audience for the State of the Union and prioritized it over participating in a high-profile mayoral forum back home. There was no conflict between that forum and the SOTU for the other candidates or the viewers because the forum was held prior to Biden’s speech and aired afterwards.

Paul Vallas

Richard S. — It’s obvious with the amount of TV ads for Paul Vallas that he has some serious. backers. I am curious as to who is financially supporting his run.

The Tribune’s A.D. Quig had this in “Donors to political committee supporting Paul Vallas are secret, but leadership has ties to current campaign:”

A recently launched East Coast political committee has spent more than $165,000 on TV and digital ads for Paul Vallas’ mayoral bid, and while its supporters so far remain a mystery … recently disclosed campaign finance reports show the Chicago Leadership Committee paid $165,000 to Mad River Communications, a Maryland-based firm registered under the name of Vallas campaign adviser Joe Trippi. … The new committee, which was formed in December, is headed by Washington-based political consultant Christopher Cooper, records show. Cooper is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and current lobbyist for the Potomac Square Group, which has done work for, among others, controversial former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Gabbard ran for president in 2020 as a Democrat but left the party amid claims she had sympathies with Republicans.

The Tribune’s Gregory Pratt and Alice Yin added this in “Mayoral candidate Paul Vallas insists he’s a lifelong Democrat. But he’s backed by conservative donors and the FOP:”

Vallas’ largest donor is golf course developer Michael Keiser, who has given him $700,000. Keiser also previously contributed $11,200 to Trump. Vallas has taken money from John Canning, a Chicago private equity executive who has given to many politicians locally but also national Republicans, and Noel Moore, who has given to Trump and Texas Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. Vallas also took $25,000 from Ron Gidwitz, Trump’s 2016 Illinois finance chairman, who served as finance co-chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and ran as a Republican for governor in 2006 … Major donor to Republican causes Craig Duchossois … has given $10,000 to Vallas and was a major supporter of (Republican) Richard Irvin for governor.

Vallas points out that some of these donors have also supported Democrats.

Connell — As far as the allegation that Vallas is a Democrat in name only, who cares? Democrat, Republican, Spaceman. We just want someone to better address the crime problem. People resorting to name calling are desperate.

Dan. R — I'm a purist. Chicago mayoral elections are formally non-partisan (please don't laugh). Who's a Democrat or who is a Republican should not be an issue.

Heather Cherone of WTTW-Ch. 11 recently explained why Chicago’s municipal elections since 1999 have non-partisan, saying that, in the mid-1990s, “Chicago political leaders took a page from Southern states, using runoffs to try and keep Black candidates from winning” with mere plurality support, as Harold Washington did in 1983 when he won the Democratic mayoral primary over two white candidates with just 36.3% of the vote.

Digital driver’s licenses

Ronald M. — Regarding the idea of digital driver’s licenses in Illinois: I often leave the house without my wallet, and license, knowing I could recite my driver’s license number if asked. I have been pulled over without my license, and that was sufficient. Granted, it was years ago and I’m white.

I recently photographed my license to have in my phone when I’m without my DL, since I’m rarely anywhere without my phone.

I then imagined showing a picture of my license, or a digital DL, to a police officer was likely to result in the officer taking my phone from me. The idea of surrendering my phone during a traffic stop is not appealing to me, and if the alternative is allowing police to scan my phone for digital information at that time, I’ll pass.

I don't know exactly how it works in states where it seems to be working, but my guess is that there is a way to transmit the information wirelessly to a police device. It seems fairly doable for police to be able to access a database that would quickly give them an image of your DL if you simply give them your name, DOB and, if that doesn't narrow it down, your street address. No need to carry anything. Could even work across state lines.

Meanwhile, I am impressed that you know your license number. I can barely remember my license plate number.

Wendy C. — I like the idea of the convenience of having a digital copy of my drivers licence on my phone that police will accept, but there are occasions when it would be preferable to hand over a hard copy. Will we still have that option?

From what I read, the digital license is merely an option in the states where it’s permitted. I imagine that for the foreseeable future it will work like credit card apps, where you can use the phone to pay using the card or use the physical card. My worry is more around how much we’re now losing when our phones are stolen or lost, and how much more personal information and vital data we’ll be carrying around as time goes by.

Many of the news stories I read about strong-arm phone thefts mention that the thieves now demand the passcodes from their victims. The phone manufacturers and service providers need to find a way to render a stolen cellphone essentially worthless by remotely turning them into an inert slab of metal and glass.

Homelessness in Chicago

Ken D. —Your interview with Douglas Fraser was Incredibly insightful. I really hadn’t understood how much the problem of homelessness had grown in just the last year or so. Riding the Blue Line from downtown on Tuesday I shared a railcar with two women who obviously spent most of the day on the train. At one end of the car they had taken up three or four seats with plastic bags containing, presumably, all of their possessions, and we regular riders were all giving them their space as they slept. It made me deeply uncomfortable, not because I felt unsafe, but because I couldn’t believe that a city as large, powerful and well-resourced as ours couldn’t come up with a better solution. After reading your conversation with Fraser, I feel even more distress and believe that our existing political, social, financial and philanthropic infrastructure just can’t handle this.

Marc. M. — The Douglas Fraser interview is excellent. Very informative and from a very pragmatic guy. He highlighted problems that we don’t hear enough about in the media or politics. I am once again appalled, but unsurprised, by the incompetence of our government agencies, programs and leaders. Rather than properly fund and operate existing services to provide homeless shelters, they allow such facilities to molder while money and effort are wasted on new programs.

Our politics, politicians and media rarely put the spotlight on existing inefficiencies that could be readily fixed to address serious problems. All prefer shiny objects and superficial chatter, and they dismiss the policy experts who want to talk about the details.

Laurence S. — A big problem with homelessness is that it’s hard to get the public to care. After all, the homeless are all crazed drug addicts that made bad choices in life, right? They should just go out and get jobs. Besides, they don't really want shelter. They like the freedom of the streets and having no permanent base. People think that so they don’t care. And the problem of getting people to care is something Fraser didn’t talk about.

I asked Fraser to respond to Laurence S. and this is what he wrote:

I’d like to suggest that it isn’t a question of caring – lots and lots of people really do care. It’s more an understanding of how we should put that caring into tangible outcomes. The first mistaken belief we have as a society is that we can outsource caring – to agencies, to government, to churches. No. In the end, it is people and relationships that change things. The second mistake we make is the belief that caring, and acting on that caring, should be gratifying. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not. Caring for difficult people is really difficult, sometimes bruising, often frustrating and yields very few kumbaya moments. It’s hard. I think the challenge is not in the caring, but in shifting the social understanding of how that caring can become change. Here is a small example of what it takes to care:

Several years ago, I had to separate one of our supper guests, J., from the other tables because she just kept picking stupid fights. So I told she had to sit by herself at a separate table. After a protracted discussion, she did. After she sat down, one of the other women, D., got up with her supper and started moving over to her. I said “D., what are you doing??” She said, “I know, J’s crazy, she’s difficult, but she’s still lonely. She shouldn’t have to eat alone.” And D. sat with her, letting all the antagonism coming out of J.’s mouth just pass over her. That is caring. Most of us simply don’t have D.’s strength. I have no idea how to make people stronger. I do know that people who think in the way you describe are wrong about the people I work with.

Super Bowl Fixes

Liz W. Hey...here's an idea....move the Super Bowl to a Saturday from a Sunday.

Roughly a dozen readers offered this solution to the problem of Super Monday hangovers and absenteeism said to cost the economy up to $4 billion in lost productivity. CBS Sports addressed the Saturday idea during the 2018 season:

Over the past few years, fans have been begging the NFL to move its biggest game to a Saturday with everyone from Forbes to the Atlanta Journal Constitution to Men's Health to ESPN's Kenny Mayne telling the league that a Saturday Super Bowl would make way more sense. Despite those requests, don't look for the NFL to move the day of the game anytime soon.

So why won't the league play the Super Bowl on a Saturday?

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell answered that exact question this week during an interview on "The Kyle Brandt Football Experience." Basically, it comes down to one main thing and that main thing is television ratings. 

"That [idea] has been around for a long time, people have talked about that," Goodell said of moving the Super Bowl to a Saturday. "The reason we haven't done it in the past is simply just from an audience standpoint. The audiences on Sunday night are so much larger. Fans want to have the best opportunity to be able to see the game and we want to give that to them, so Sunday night is a better night."

They should experiment one year with a Saturday Super Bowl to see if viewing habits really are that locked in. But they won’t. Last week’s Picayune Sentinel unscientific click poll received 800 votes, the overwhelming majority of which were in favor of moving the kickoff up by two hours:

Corrections and complaints

Howard F. (an attorney specializing in licensing, trademarks, copyrights and contracts) — About the Super Bowl you wrote, “Stop calling it ‘the big game’ unless you are an advertiser or business owner who wants to tie a product or event to the Super Bowl but are forbidden from using the copyrighted term ‘Super Bowl.’” But “Super Bowl” is not protected by copyright, nor is it a “copyrighted term.” Because there’s no such thing. Rather, “Super Bowl” is a trademark, and the NFL gets very upset when it’s used commercially by those not paying its licensing fees.

Copyright protects the expression of ideas — what you write, film, paint, code or otherwise “fix in a tangible medium of expression.” Its purpose is to provide creators with limited monopolies in their works to foster the advancement of “science and the useful arts” (at least that’s how the U.S. Constitution puts it).

Trademarks, on the other hand, are essentially brand names, and their purpose is to help consumers identify and distinguish the goods and services of competitors from one another in the marketplace (and, of late, to protect the investments of brand owners in their brand names). Trademarks aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, but are protected by both state and federal law. Trademark infringement occurs when someone engages in conduct that’s likely to cause consumers to be confused as to the source of goods or their sponsorship or affiliation with the trademark owner.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Barb O. — The winning visual tweet last week — the sign on the door to the breastfeeding room with the punch-in code 8008 — was in poor taste and not funny except to men, who never have to put in the time, work, and, many times, pain of breastfeeding. Oh, but men want kids. Right. As if being a mom trying her best to care for an infant is in any way easy or funny. 

The joke is supposed to be on the immature person who made the sign, not at the expense of women. And here I thought “Shartlesville” was going to be the one that drew the most ire.

The debate over “actress” and other gendered terms raged on in last Tuesday’s comments section.

Ya gotta see these tweets!

I often run across tweets that rely on visual humor and so can’t be included in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template I use for that poll does not allow me to include images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently:

source unknown

Vote for your favorite. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.

Meanwhile, from the collection, here are a few Valentine’s Day tweets:

• Please pray for my husband he’s fine but I told him not to get me anything for Valentine’s Day — @VisionBored1

• Exoskeleton: how a skeleton signs a Valentine’s Day card — @rebrafsim

• Feb. 14th is for lovers. Feb. 15th is for lovers of hаlf price cаndy. — @sarahedwig

• Annual reminder not to fall for heart shaped pizza, it's less pizza. — @amandajpanda

• Happy Valentine’s Day to my wife, who often compares me to Ryan Gosling. She says: "You're nothing like Ryan Gosling" — @ItsAndyRyan

• We need a female reboot of Cupid who shoots men with arrows that make them leave women the hell alone. — @OhNoSheTwitnt

• It’s important to tell everyone you think Valentine’s Day is just a dumb, made up holiday. As opposed to all of the other holidays, found naturally occurring in the wild. — @TheAndrewNadeau

• If you’re bored on Valentine’s Day just go up to random couples in restaurants and yell “Who the hell is she?!” — @xxsomebunnyxx

• Happy Valentine’s Day to the woman who, by marrying me, kept me from making an ass of myself on Tinder, Match, Bumble and Farmers Only — @ConanOBrien

• I hate Valentine’s Day but I do enjoy infant archery. — @RickAaron 

• Shut the heck up, single people. Married people hate Valentine's Day, too —@Hormonella

• Every Valentine's Day I give my husband the gift of not giving a crap about Valentine's Day — @LizHackett 

• A survey found that, on Valentine’s Day, men spend $87.00 more than women. I.e., a survey found that, on Valentine’s Day, men spend $87.00. — @ConanOBrien

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

.