I went out for a bike ride this evening to check out what happened in the shooting at Island Groove Cafe Sunday morning. I can tell you this, the area in my headline is a absolute, crazed nut-house.
Fights, fights and more fights. The crowd is large and they are pumped up for some serious fighting action. People were too busy fighting to even talk about the shooting. I didn't bother calling 911. The police are all over the place.
Updated: When I got home last night, I turned on the scanner to find out the area in question had expanded. Jonquil and Marshfield, Howard and Marshfield and Gale Park were all having major crowd control issues. At one point orders were given to arrest anyone who wouldn't move when asked. Does anyone know why such lawlessness exists north of Howard?
22 comments:
I don't get it joey moore told all of us that crime is down! (he continues saying this comment)
So if our very concearned aldermen, who wants to work with everyone to make RP a better place for us to live, must be telling us the truth!
So what gives with all the shooting & fighting that keep comeing up on this blog!
It couldn't be that joey is lying could it???
Joe Moore your time to resign is now!!
Why bother calling 911? There have been a group of gangbangers in front of the block building for almost an hour now. I called once, one car just drove by....twice, 25 minutes and waiting..................What gives??????????????????
Craig asked::
"Does anyone know why such lawlessness exists north of Howard?"
Answer::
"Subsidized housing" (or "Affordable" if you like that better)
I do realize it's much more complicated than that, but it's not a coincidence that crime is high in all areas where there is a large concentration of people who can't afford to pay for their own housing.
Chitownrog,
Your statement is one of the reasons I love to drop info on some folks that I lived in the projects when I was kid. "Oh, really?" they often say. I know what they are thinking is, "You don't act like someone from the projects." Well, everybody from the projects is not a criminal, and neither is everyone who is in subsidized housing. It is unfair that the people in that situation are often lumped in with the folks who are ignorant.
The North of Howard neighborhood (census tract 101) consist of approxamately 1,800 residential housing units (rental and owner occupied, i.e., condos, 2-3 flats and single family). Approximately 50% of these units are rental and of those, 95-98% are low-income/subsidized rentals. The % of families/people living at or below the 'poverty' level NoH is about 40%. What we have North of Howard is a 'horizontal' low-income housing ghetto. This super concentration of 'low-income housing' development NoH, took place during the decade of 1984-1994, a decade that saw the complete discentagration of viable businesses along Howard Street! Until this fundamental issue (concentration of poverty/low- income housing) is dealt with, the neighborhood NoH and surrounding areas, will be dealing with the resulting street activity, much of it illegal and what now seems to be nightly gun fire. In my 30+ years living NoH, these quality of life issues have never been worse!
tomboy,
I didn't say ALL people in subsidized housing are criminals. I simply said the same thing nhna said without the numbers. Any time you have large concentrations of low-income people, you have higher crime rates. It's not fair or unfair, it's just fact... I'm not a sociologist, so I can only speculate as to the reasons.
"Approximately 50% of these units are rental and of those, 95-98% are low-income/subsidized rentals."
Thanks for the interesting comments and numbers, nhna. I have doubts about the part I have quoted above however. I recently moved back up to NOH (I've lived in RP over 25 years). Before I moved, I looked at apartments all along Eastlake Terrace and Sheridan Road from Howard to the Evanston border. There are literally hundreds of units of rental housing on those two stretches NOH which are not subsidized, including my own building and the 2 other buildings owned by my landlord. I know that there are numerous subsidized buildings in the corridors on Bosworth, Greenview, Paulina, Ashland, Jonquil, and west on Juneway, but 95-98% is still a strikingly high percentage to be quoting.
Can you elaborate on where those statistics come from? Thanks.
the masses are getting restless...
Yes, and I'd like a qualification of predatory crime vs.. everything else people get picked up for....
Those numbers come from compiling data from various places (US Census, city news; chicago, center for neighborhood tech., CHA scattered site and from personal, first hand experience and knowledge as both the owner/occupant of 2two different 3-flats NoH , over the years, but also as the former Site Manager of the 12 NorthPoint (304 subsidized units)from 1980 thru 1987. Check the zoning data (property inventory by census tract in Rogers park) that the Alderman's office conducted some 3 or so years ago. By the way, breecat, what side of Sheridan Rd. did you say you live on?
Also breecat, to further clairify, the residential numbers and %'s I cite above, refer to those units in buildings from the west side of Sheridan, westward to Hermitage, from the north side of Howard Street, north to Juneway Terrace.
Mike
"Also breecat, to further clairify, the residential numbers and %'s I cite above, refer to those units in buildings from the west side of Sheridan, westward to Hermitage, from the north side of Howard Street, north to Juneway Terrace."
OK, that makes a lot more sense. Because if the blocks on the east side of Sheridan Road and Eastlake Terrace were included, the numbers would change radically.
When I was apartment hunting, I looked mostly on the east side of Sheridan, but ended up on the West side of Sheridan with a landlord who has buildings on both sides. I know of at least one other rental building on the west side of Sheridan that is not subsidized, and I know there is the awful Sargon building which is. There are several other buildings along the west side of Sheridan and along Rogers and Howard that I do not know the make-up of, but I know they appear to be well-kept and maintained. In this immediate area, I see the Sargon building as being the one bad apple that causes 90% of the problems.
I know that even one block west of me, things get much worse, and I would personally not feel safe living there. I lived at Greenview and Birchwood 20 years ago and it was a nightmare. I don't see that much has changed, for better or worse.
So if the solution isn't to kick out the poor people because there are some good folks trapped there in poverty, how do we keep an area from deteriorating into crime and drugs but still allow for those who can't afford anything expensive, and keep out the bad seeds? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like landlords (or slumlords, more like it) are too invested in keeping out the bad, and only allowing in the good people? And how does the landlord who actually cares about who lives in his building keep out the bad seeds that come along with the good people sometimes? The easiest solution, it seems, is to just get rid of the affordable housing, because slumlords will be slumlords. If they gave a shit they'd actually do something about it, and NoH or any other mixed income area would not be in the state that they're in. Strange how there's a correlation between affordable housing and crime, filth, poverty, and degradation overall.
To quote from one of Alderman Moore's re-election campaign mailers: Joe Moore worked hard to guarantee the affordability of the North Point Buildings and your home for AT LEAST ANOTHER 27 years until 2034.
This mailer was addressed to all Northpoint Building residents reminding them to vote for Joe because he cares about them so much.
Apparently he doesn't care enough to protect them from gun fire and drug dealings. Just cares enough to get their votes.
Bosworth said.....> "This mailer was addressed to all Northpoint Building residents reminding them to vote for Joe because he cares about them so much."
Do we count this as a lie?
Six decades of the wrong kind of legislation and judges...
Its so easy to say that the landlord does not give or can somehow cover costs for additional tenant screening to cull out those who are convicted. A trip to the tenth floor of the Daley Center's criminal database is all that it takes along with a certified copy of the records. Civil law has a lower burden of proof than criminal for those who forgot about O. J.'s liability.
There are also civil rights laws, at work. The issue is what is a reasonable basis to deny affordable housing within the law. Perhaps, it is not much, but decisions need to be made and a little bit of effort can bring a whole lot of peace.
These landlords are into making money based upon numbers. Unless someone monitors, exposes them, and the major media actually gets the Feds to look into it, they really don't know or want to care. It costs to much to them to conduct a reasonable investigation. It is more economical to have the police call the coroner to bring in the body bags.
Someone has to sue the bastards for negligence 'if' they breach a reasonable duty of care to tenants. Particularly in wrongful death claims and assaults that could have arguably been prevented by the exclusion of a violent ex-convict or someone who has a significant rap sheet. A preponderance of evidence is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
chitownrog,
Sorry, didn't intend to start a disagreement.
lafew, I applaud your statement and lament the fact that we are in a city where one of the first things 'da Mayor did when he got in office was to gut the Tenants Rights Ordinance instead of enhancing it with legislation similar to your suggestions. It should be criminal for a landlord to subject his tenants to unsafe living conditions whether structural, environmental or through the lack of proper screenings and follow-up on tenant background and subsequent behavior. Background checks and follow-ups on subsequent behavior should apply to every individual over the age of 16 living in the apartment. This means, if you pass the background check, move in and then let your brother the gang member move in later - you get evicted. For high crime areas like Rogers Park (not just NOH) a no tolerance rule needs to be implemented immediately, one that will actually hold the landlords responsible for not upholding it. By the way, I'm not talking just financial responsibility, i.e. stiff fines, I'm talking about actual criminal proceedings against slumlords and irresponsible landlords.
OK, maybe that is a little severe and obviously our criminal courts and jails are clogged already but, having been the victim of one of these scumbuckets, I know that fines don't always make any difference. My situation was a nightmare and the landlord didn't give a fig. I'm living in an entirely new situation now and couldn't be happier but I know far too many people who are trapped in much the same conditions I was and who are desparate. They love Rogers Park, don't want to move (and can't afford it - but money isn't the only issue, they honestly love Rogers Park) and are left coping with the daily threat of violence as well as poor living conditions. Yet they pay rent (or the government pays most of it for them) on time because they know if they don't they will be evicted. The landlords need to understand they need to keep up their end of the bargin - rent paid, safe shelter provided. Safe structure, safe environment, safe neighbors. Period.
An aside note: Is it true that fines for building code violations are routinely written off as necessary business expences and therefore legal tax deductions. If anyone out there knows the answer, I would appreciate it.
And until someone in a position of power, (joe moore, anyone) makes these issues a priority in the eyes of the higher government, nothing is going to change b/c w/o some big push, these scumbags will not start caring about their tenants. They are solely and completely in only for the money. Like most of America, they only give a shit about themselves and everyone else can go to hell.
Fargo-Your ideas are nice but they would never work. As soon as one starts being too strict they will be a target for extreme liberals as well as lawsuits. It's a free for all and will not be changing any time soon.
fargo woman - please check with HUD - they have very strict guidelines that landlords offering subsidized vouchers to are to comply with. One being that if a member of the household is arrested for weapons, drugs, or other felony it's an automatic eviction. The problem here is the managers don't abide by the rules, the alderman either doesn't know what's going on or doesn't care. His main objective is to proclaim himself a caring liberal who has saved low income housing. The point that isn't stated is 'quality of life'.
There is none of the latter when people close their blinds, and expect someone else to 'fix it'. Ha, it's like praying for a job. Well, it's OK to pray for a job, but God isn't going to mail your resume for you.
Post a Comment