"It's not new that people have been jumped in the neighborhood, I think it's a phenomenon that goes on over the years." Michael James, Heartland Cafe's owner to Channel 5 News in the summer of 2004.
Yeah, phenomenon does seem like a strange, and pretty dismissive, word to use in description of something that's really violent and disturbing. What's worse, the beatings don't even have any obvious reason other than to hurt others severely. To me it definitely seems like they're a race thing, obviously, and it's just another sign that some people are not happy that neighborhoods are changing for the better, and some people are being forced to vacate. Too bad for them, perhaps they should try not selling drugs and being involved with gangs. I was walking on Morse with my husband, and we stopped to look at the pictures of the new condo building that's being put up on the corner of Morse and Greenview and two young black guys walked by, and one of them said, that someone will burn the building down before it's even built. It was obvious they wanted us to hear what they were saying. Pleasant, huh. How, after hearing something like that, and seeing racial hate in occurrences like the goonings, are we not supposed to want gentrification. To me, "affordable housing" just signals more slum housing or condo buildings that aren't being kept up and promoting crime.
Also I wanted to see if anyone knew what was up with the plastic grocery bags that can be found hanging from fences, filled with garbage. Are these from people who are too lazy to find a garbage can to throw the bags out? Or is there some other purpose to these unsightly decorations?
1) We need to have the whole paragraph or and story and not just a sound bite quoting James. 2) He is not a politican nor does he owe the public perfect scripted statements. 3) You actually remembered what he said in 2004? And the reason would be?
the bags that I've noticed are on Farwell, east of Sheridan. What I'm guessing it's from people who come to the lake and are too lazy to throw the bags out in the usually empty garbage cans in the park. I hate litter-bugs and I hate people who are lazy slobs. Unfortunately there's a lot of those sorts of people in the world.
1) If Craig found it so can you. 2) Why should Michael James be speaking on behalf of this community on this subject to broadcast media in the first place? Is he a public official or gooning victim? No? A restaurant owner that caters to lots of students? Ah... 3) He looked it up.
This gooning "phenomenon" is not limited to Rogers Park. Swanky downtown Evanston is dealing with the same problem, with similar race and class connotations.
V&J- I am unfortunately acquainted with the attitude you speak of. All it does is make one glad to see such negative people pushed out of RP. It does nothing to build a bridge between disparate groups or promote understanding. These people will lose of course, because the market is bigger than any of us.
Also, I really don't hear alot of constructive dialogue anywhere from the groups that are afraid of being pushed out. Why are they not pleading their case to the community? That seems odd to me. In other neighborhoods like Wicker Park or Pilsen, these voices are and were heard.
What case is there for the gooners to plead? They had their chance. Sorry, too late. They're finished. Just got to catch em, arrest em, ship em out somewhere to live where the neighborhood enjoys that sort of thing. Pound or be pounded. It works for some people.
Not fair though that all low income people get grouped as one unsavory entity. I know many decent families scared to death of where they might wind up with no rentals leftin the neighborhood. And yes, good people should have an opportunity to live in decent surroundings. Is there a realistic way to save affordable housing for non criminal families?
I live in Rogers Park and have a 16-year-old I'd like to see make it to adulthood without a bullet shot through his head. Bought him a beater car just to keep him from having to walk around like a bullseye target. I'm middle class with alternatives.
I think most people realize that there are good working lower income people. I only have a problem with criminal elements- I want them out. We can keep the good people- whatever demographic they are.
In this affordable housing movement, is there a legal way to screen tenants by eliminating those with violent felonies? Is that happening anywhere? Any models to follow?
To neocynic, it's a tragedy when we have to give our teens cars just to keep them from being targets of the neighborhood's young thugs and gangers.
Why does Rogers Park have such an oversupply of really badly-run low-income buildings while nabes that border ours manage to keep their low-income properties clean and under control.
Rogers Park continues to be a dumping ground for the city's most troublesome elements, and the blight is now spreading rapidly to West Ridge. Our alderman encourages slumlords and welcomes more social services targeting the most undesirable elements in the population.
Hold on. How do we know that the young people committing these crimes are "low income"? Because they make racist/classist comments on the sidewalk that they think will get a rise out of people?
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Obviously black doesn't necessarily equal "low income", even here in Rogers Park.
But I don't think this is about the gooners staying up nights worrying that their landlord will push them out of their nice affordable rental building. I think it's a nasty variation of the usual corner turf war. They are looking for status, power within their group and an easy to demonize scapegoat to channel their aggression on to any desperate way they can grab it, even if it means bashing some old white guy's head in and emptying his life out on to the sidewalk.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the gooners are economically disadvantaged. They might just be sociopathic, dangerous predators out for gratification no matter who it hurts.
As bad as gooning is, I for one am very happy that Daley has banned private citizens from owning handguns.
I agree it's much safer to dial 911 and wait for the police to come and stop the gang from kicking in your skull than to simply pull out a handgun to help even the odds.
The more horrendous behavior we tolerate, the worse it gets. It's like classroom management. Expel those who would impede the progress of their classmates.
I can say with 99% assurance that the kids out there randomly beating on citizens have nothing- no money,no sane parental guidance,no plans for the future and, at this point in their lives, no empathy due to the abusive, violent child raising culture they've grown up in.
Their violence did not come out of a vaccuum. It is economic in the sense that their families in poverty refuse to open their eyes and insist on clinging to ignorance with almost a fierce pride.
Those of us living amongst them cannot fix the mess they've come from. And we do have the right to judge it and not cringe at being called racist or classist.
Poor kids - that I know with parents who "church raise" them or raise them with some kind of gut wisdom, give them structure, keep tabs on where they are and who they're hanging out with and actually allow their kids' close friends to visit in their homes, rather than hang in the streets- could not attack another human being for pleasure. The programming's not there.
I can say with 99% assurance that the kids out there randomly beating on citizens have nothing- no money,no sane parental guidance,no plans for the future and, at this point in their lives, no empathy due to the abusive, violent child raising culture they've grown up in.
You may be absolutely right. But I think making this the default assumption everytime this kind of violence is perpetrated by black youth is a problem. When kids of other ethnicities do this kind of stuff - and they do - this isn't the default community reaction, even though those kids may have suffered from all the poor child rearing conditions you list.
Why this discrimination for black youth? Are we being asked to interpret this gooning as politically motivated violence?
Reread my comments. Never said anything about black youth. Said (paraphrasing) "poor and ignorant" as opposed to "poor and enlightened." Again, I would say that these kids are acting out of a debased culture of poverty. Brutal and dangerous. No matter the why of it, the community cannot tolerate it.
Are the gooners making a political statement? No, just trapped in animality, preying on the defenseless. It's a hate statement.
Is the term "poor" unacceptable these days. Is "low income" more appropriate? I'm not being sarcastic, really want to know.
Worked in a health program on the southwest side and watched poor, ignorant white parents beat, berate and neglect their children. Refused to accept alternative parenting ideas, much less read anything on the subject. Results: dropouts, drug trade, addiction, domestic violence, teen pregnancy and jail time.
It's not the WORKING lower income people who are the problem and it never was.
There are many pockets in this city inhabited almost exclusively by such people that are totally crime free. More than that, these people vehemently oppose "low income" subsidized housing in their neighborhoods, because they know that they are much more vulnerable to the depredations of criminals than more affluent people.
Low-wage people generally do not live in subsidized low-income housing and mostly don't qualify for it. They don't want to live among gangbangers and welfare mommas anyway.
When social services people refer to "low income" people they are not talking about low wage workers, but are speaking of people who don't work at all, at least not at a legitimate occupation. They are talking about the kind of people who always have been and always will be problems, such as ex-cons and welfare mothers with a big brood of kids- the dregs.
A single mother with two children who makes $8.00 an hour, works a 40 hour week brings home $320.00 a week x 4= $1280 a month. For a two bedroom apartment, she can't afford more than $500 a month. This leaves her $780 a month for food, clothing,and everything else. Might be able to work it if food costs were 500 a month with 70 dollars for "extras." Oh, I forgot about utilities.
If she had children with a man decent enough to pay child support, she might have slightly more income.
At any rate, are there any two bedroom apartments going for $500 on the open market in Rogers Park? How about a one bedroom?
If not, could affordable housing buildings in Rogers Park insist that single low income women with over two children not be allowed as tenants. The reasoning behind this is if a husbandless woman with virtually no economic resources was not smart enough to stop reproducing after one or two children, then she probably can't be trusted to organize and maintain her family life in an acceptable way.
I'm scaring myself, writing this. Should I actually be saying this?
The big question is how do you support low income wage earners in a realistic way? In Rogers Park, should we care?
Dorothy, I repeat, most low income wage earners are not the problem.
The problems are the people who NEVER earned a wage because they fell out of the school system as illiterates at the age of 14 or 13 or even younger and commenced breeding, not thinking too much about that or anything else.
Low-wage earners actually produce very few problems themselves. They are victimized by having no choice but to live side-by-side with the dregs of the population who had 7 kids by the age of 21 by a succession of gangbangers and bums, who hang out about the place and create mayhem.
Most "poor" people are respectable, but you do not notice them, possibly because they are skulking in their apts in terror, behind three deadbolt locks and barred windows, terrified to spend one minute on the streets beyond what it takes to fulfill their personal tasks and get to and from work.
These people are good and harmless and lead constructive lives, but they don't have the power to battle the forces that turn their neighborhoods into styes, like an alderman who has knowingly permitted his ward to be turned into a dumping ground for the unplaceable dregs that were vacated from the projects. They don't have the money to spare to donate, they don't have the time to volunteer.
The dregs are the low-IQ, drug-using, unemployed and unemployable, who fill up the welfare rolls and prisons. We are talking here about people who are functionally illiterate, drug-addicted, incapable of birth control, and unable to grasp what they're doing in having 8 kids by 8 different daddies who they scarcely know.
I have my theories about why we no longer have the good, solid, crime-free working-class nabes we had until 1970. Socialized housing is the big culprit, IMO, in that it drives housing prices out of the reach of the working poor and forces them to live in the same subsidized housing as the dregs.
Were it not for the socialistic gimmes for every other class of people, the working poor would not need 'support' beyond unemployment and emergency medical care.
As a poor child I want to express my sincere disgust at the attitude I have been reading:
"Not smart enough to stop reproducing after one or two children"
hey, neocynic: 1)Are you aware of how your country (run by majority white rich people) feels about sex education?
2)Women don't control what happens to their husbands. some husbands die; some just divorce you.
3)That women you are talking about with the one or two children? She does have one or two kids and is having a hard time and she can't do anything to take that fact back so unless you are willing to follow that little train of thought you had up there to its only insane conclusion, which is to kill her and her like, then I suggest you let that train go by.
Our government makes it hard for people who are poor. What's so crazy is, the majority of the granola-eating, liberal-loving, Bush-hating people writing on this damn thread already know this And yet, can't seem to make the connection. Really? all that intellectual time at the coffeehouse and you didn't think you were going to feel the splashback? and now that the problem has become your problem, you are so ready to abandon your "Liberal" ideas, grab yer gun and yer confederate flag and try to move us out, because it's "our" fault? You can say that is not what you mean till you are blue in the face. Guess what? That's what you ARE saying. That tinge of shame you feel? It's not without reason and it isn't to be soothed away with "I'm not a racist but..." suffixes you tag on to make yourself feel better. Be big enough to be introspective and accept that you have fucked up thoughts. Then go change them and do something to better it.
I say all this knowing I could, in theory, be the next person to get gooned. I'm just not going to let my fears dictate what is right or wrong in the world.
Should you care? I don't know, asshole. If I saw someone stomping on you should I care?
Exactly, the point I was trying to make. I get it that the working poor trying to make it are being punished, economically as well as being terrorized by their low-life neighbors.
Would like to see a well managed affordable housing building with management strong enough to truly screen tenants, i.e. limits on children per family. If you restrict in this way, are you up against a law suit? Example: All's good. Working mother with two teenage kids living comfortably in affordable housing. That 15-year-old daughter gets pregnant and is determined to have that baby. Family is evicted for being out of compliance with number of children in unit. As I see it, this kind of strictness is the only way to break the cycle and protect the neighborhood. But, is it legal?
I'm trying to research established affordable housing models. Can anybody steer me in the right direction? Websites?
Neocynic, I'm with you but we will never have such screening as long as our housing is reliant upon govnt funding.
Bad money drives out good. Why should a landlord work hard to run a good building and be up against escalating taxes, lawsuits for discrimination, and a constant battle with social services people who are forever trying to cram their unplaceable ex-con scum in your building, when you can just cave into the zietgiest and clean up on Section 8 subsidies and fantastic tax breaks if only you will consent to your building being turned into an asylum for the people no one else wants. Jay Johnson, Rezko, and other notorious slumlords have made fortunes doing exactly this, while people who want to run a decent bldg are taxed and harrassed into flipping their buildings as condos.
If we continue as we have, with current HUD rules and programs, there will be no rentals left for low wage and moderate income people. Buildings will be either condos, or "low income" slums housing either unplaceable undesirables, or defenseless elders and handicapped who are bereft of any alternative to living side by side these scum.
Calm down Nicorette. How do you jump from my reasonable comment about careless, thoughtless child bearing to "Should I care if you get stomped by gooners?" My question "Should we care about affordable housing?" was a rhetorical question. Sorry you misunderstood.
I am not apologizing for a truth that is indisputable. Having too many children one cannot afford is a prescription for poverty. Teenage pregnancy is rampant. And somehow, after the pregnancy is apparent, it is seen as a "moral necessity" to bear children one is not prepared financially or spiritually to have. Terminating a pregnancy is not "killing." It's allowing for a better quality of life when the time is right for a child to be born. Better still, some serious birth control is in order.
To deny that fact is not facing reality. Funny how mentioning such a "sensitive" issue as this causes such an enraged reaction.
Some on this blog have said the only way to stop the violence and crime in this Rogers Park neighborhood is to close down all affordable housing. I don't agree. I am exploring how affordable housing could be created that actually helps poor people move out of economic stress. Your ranting adds nothing to the discussion.
Don't try to shut people up by accusing them of abandoning "liberal principals" as though they are skinheads ready to stomp back. Stop it with the name calling. We are watching this "train wreck" of generational poverty, and everybody, I mean everybody, is getting hurt. Any enlightening ideas to suggest?
Where did divorced mothers come into this? Let's hope they are getting child support. After all the father chosen for her children is stepping up to his responsibilities, right?
Besides, you know I'm not talking about that kind of situation, anyway. Don't give extreme examples or exceptions. You know it's all about a pattern of irresponsible decisions or nondecisions being made that keep the stress of poverty going. Please don't stay in denial.
One of your comments said something about white people preventing black people from using birth control. Could you explain that in more detail? I don't want to misunderstand your point.
Is this really a white vs. black thing? It might be helpful to you to go back and carefully read the entire thread of discussion.
Economics and reproductive rights are inextricably linked. Women with few economic options are frequently dependent upon a man for some form of economic support. Because of that, many women do not have equal power in a sexual relationship. That lack of power often results in unplanned pregnancies. Few unplanned pregnancies end in happy family environments. Frequently unplanned children contribute to economic distress. Economic distress contributes to criminal activity.
Is this a race issue? Everything is a race issue in this country. Partly racing the spectre of race is a social trump card that the white community cannot successfully answer. And the reason the white community cannot answer that card is because to do so is to acknowledge a priviledge position in American society. Once that priviledge is acknowledged, responsibility has to be taken or a white person tacitly becomes part of the system that oppresses people of color.
Gooning is a much deeper problem than idle, uneducated kids letting off steam; a much deeper problem than affordable housing; a much deeper problem than the drug trade in our neighborhood. It's proof positive that the culturally diverse nirvana of Rogers Park is filled with social hypocrites who pay lip service to liberal ideals up to the point that those ideal effect their property values.
"Economics and reproductive rights are inextricably linked."
Never were truer words written. If a woman can't control her body, she can't control much else about her life.
"[Gooning is] proof positive that the culturally diverse nirvana of Rogers Park is filled with social hypocrites who pay lip service to liberal ideals up to the point that those ideal effect their property values."
What?! I don't understand the thrust of this statement. Are you blaming the people who are upset about the goonings (largely the same demographic that seems to be the target of the attacks)? Why SHOULDN'T every reasonable citizen be outraged by this? It's not about property values, it's about the basic human right to walk down the street without being randomly attacked.
As for giving up liberal social values, I am a perfect example of someone whose bleeding heart gushed all over everything before I moved here. Now, having experienced the reality of the streets, I am a little less compassionate. As I work hard to try to make my lot in life better, thoughtless people in my neighborhood threaten me with physical violence, keep me up at all hours of the day and night with superfluous noise, dump trash on my property, sell drugs within eyesight of my home, beat each other, shoot at each other ... and the list goes on.
So yes, my experiences here have made me question my liberal ideals. I think anybody living in the midst of such extreme circumstances would have to reconsider their world view. Not to do so would be burying my head in the sand.
Your comment sounds a little like something off a prewritten political tract. It also sounds like something referring to women forced to shroud themselves in black cloth in 110 degree desert heat and submit to men who beat them to a pulp if they resist.
We are talking about Rogers Park where kids are taught reproduction, STD diseases, and birth control starting in middle school. I don't think that 15-year-old girl is financially dependent on that 16-year-old boy with whom she allowed herself to get pregnant.
That mother who refused to acknowledge her child's sexual awakening and get her some serious birth control and/or convince her to stop having sex (Try that with any teenager whose tasted these pleasures, Good Luck!) is not living in a thirld world country with no where to go for help. Help is here now, and choices are being made within families not to get it. And yes, pregnancies can be terminated. We won't go to Hell for that.
Stressed out single moms with little money and too many children are not going to be able to guide their children effectively. That's hell for that mom, her kids and the community, white, black, yellow whatever.
So, liberal lip service is questioning how to promote positive change and ask hard questions, and at the same time, protesting our kids getting hit with bricks out on the streets? It's O.K. to be against muggings, right?
[Gooning is] proof positive that the culturally diverse nirvana of Rogers Park is filled with social hypocrites who pay lip service to liberal ideals up to the point that those ideal effect their property values.
So, "we" had it coming. Care to elaborate your thesis there a bit Professor Hammy? With footnotes this time?
One more point. I rent. Don't own property, but don't accuse ordinary property owners who are not house flippers and greedy developers, just people looking for stability and peace of mind, of being evil, hard hearted bastards for asking for basic safety.
Public safety is a RIGHT that should be guaranteed every non-criminal citizen, no matter how rich or poor, whether a renter or owner, or of whatever race or ethnicity.
I tire of the mentality that says,"well, this is a neighborhood with a lot of po' people. If you don't like it, move."
After a while, where do you go? We've become a country where you have to be affluent to live in any degree of safety. Or, at least, we are nearly to that state. I can remember when almost every nabe was safe except for a few nasty pockets of really deep poverty and neglect.
"We've become a country where you have to be affluent to live in any degree of safety."
This is right on. I've been criticized for wanting to improve my neighborhood -- people say, "What, do you want it to be like north Evanston?" Well, yes, in that I want no gangs, reasonable levels of peace and quiet, respectful neighbors, and clean streets. But I guess you only deserve that if you're a millionaire.
"One of your comments said something about white people preventing black people from using birth control. Could you explain that in more detail? I don't want to misunderstand your point."
Here is what I said: "Are you aware of how your country (run by majority white rich people) feels about sex education? " Unless you are part of or voted for our recent fuck ups in government then I don't think the statement above was meant to offend you, and the fact is, IT IS run by majority white rich people. The reason for stating the obvious is to point out the fact that if you are not rich & white (sorry poor white-you are fucked along with us) they don't care about you, let alone your sex education.
Do you not know how they teach sex ed in school? One, have you been to a chicago public school, I mean, a real one? Do you know how crappy they are? Do you know how they divey up the money between schools, how some schools don't get any money (i.e. the poor schools, i.e. the minority majority schools), while the affluent ones with the higher property value get more? So knowing that, how do you think they are teaching sex ed? do you think they are doing a good job? really? Oh, and you do know that our country is run by a pro-life, pro-abstinence teaching only weirdo who probably lost his virginity way before his marriage to his sister.
"Calm down Nicorette. How do you jump from my reasonable comment about careless, thoughtless child bearing to "Should I care if you get stomped by gooners?" My question "Should we care about affordable housing?" was a rhetorical question. Sorry you misunderstood. "
If I saw you getting stomped I would help you out. But if you saw me struggling with my two kids you wouldn't, you just want me out. that's the problem.
I said just the opposite. I said build affordable housing with limits on the size of the family. Two kids fine. A single woman working at minimum wage making a lousy $1300 a month with a couple of kids is going to need help. She deserves a two bedroom apartment with plenty of floor space. Our economics in this country are screwed up when we can't make it when still working a full time job.
Others bloggers have said get rid of all affordable housing in the hood and crime problem solved. I said no justice in that.
We should be challenging a dog eat dog capitalism with no humanity. Gotta find balance. Part of the balance is making choices about family size and challenging the assumption that teenagers are gonna have babies. Doesn't have to be inevitable.
Yeah, it's best to be married to a responsible man, and I know, the Ozzie and Harriet scenario doesn't work out for huge numbers of women. We are not living fantasy lives here.
Would you not agree that a real speak out about child bearing choices, and they are choices, has got to start and continu if anything is going to change for the better?
I'm raising a son alone. He's just one teenage guy, and, at times, I feel broken by the strain of it all. And I make a decent salary. Got the options to call in a family therapist, etc.
Promoting limits on how many kids helps spare the mother, the kids, and the community the future tragedies of evictions, homelessness, jail time for kids that needed the attention way back when........?
"I said build affordable housing with limits on the size of the family."
It sounds like pre-emptive punishment for having kids that may only "potentially" be criminals.
Where do the mother's who don't fit within those limits go? Yeah, limits will rid that ONE theoretical lady with the 12 kids who doesn't care about you or her kids and is willing to leech off the system, but for most mothers it's the 1-3 kids they have that are a pain to raise on even $14.00/hour. And most of their kids are and have, for the most part, the potential to be fine; not a 666 mark in sight. It's the 20 gooning kids who are ruining it for the other hundreds of kids who are pigeon-holed with them that are going to get punished. And if I knew I was going to get punished anyway, I might just do what was expected of me. Limits are going to punish more good than bad.
"Promoting limits on how many kids helps spare the mother, the kids, and the community the future tragedies of evictions, homelessness, jail time for kids that needed the attention way back when........?"
I'm all for promoting better, honest sexual EDUCATION, and yes, that will help to limit unwanted pregnancies for the next generation of kids. But we don't get to set limits on someone else's pregnancies. It wasn't a good idea when China did it, and it's not a good idea now.
I would like to know now how to stop 20 kids from being bad. I'd like to solve that. What's there problem? How do you teach them to stop themselves from wanting to destroy a complete stranger? Where is that anger coming from?
I also have a sneaking suspicion that alot of crime is being committed by grown-ass adults.
This is a really frustrating topic as it is hitting so close to home. I'm not thinking you are a horrible person and I know you are coming from a good place, I just don't agree with your solutions and see the potential in them to be dangerous.
neocynic said... "One more point. I rent. Don't own property, but don't accuse ordinary property owners who are not house flippers and greedy developers, just people looking for stability and peace of mind, of being evil, hard hearted bastards for asking for basic safety."
Ah, the mantra of the privileged, white, upper-middle-class victim. Whether you rent or own, you're buying into the entitlement mentality which is growing ever brighter in Rogers Park.
"If I have the money I should be able to live wherever I want, whether the existing community welcomes me or not. After all, I'm good. I'm clean. I'm educated. I quiet and respectful. Oh, pay no attention to my $2,000 stroller. Yes, I understand it costs more than you make in a month, but it's the best and my little test-tube baby really deserves it."
Cliche? Absolutely. But until certain residents of Rogers Park recognize that that is how they're viewed -- rightly or wrongly -- and start do something about changing that perception, then tensions in the neighborhood are going to continue to grow. One of the major problems that seems to be overlooked is that Rogers Park is being changed not just ecomonically and deomgraphically, but culturally and not everyone thinks those changes are for the better.
I am endlessly entertained by people who buy "affordable" property and then become outraged when the neighborhood doesn't meet their pristine standards. Are you entitled to walk down the street without being attacked? I don't know. Are you entitled to rent or purchase a home anywhere you want? I don't know.
Were Native Americans entitled to defend their land against the settlers?
There is more than a whiff of entitlement that wafts through Rogers Park, and that smell gets stronger with every passing summer. There is more than a faint echo of Pilgrims and settlers in the posts here.
45 comments:
Yeah, phenomenon does seem like a strange, and pretty dismissive, word to use in description of something that's really violent and disturbing. What's worse, the beatings don't even have any obvious reason other than to hurt others severely. To me it definitely seems like they're a race thing, obviously, and it's just another sign that some people are not happy that neighborhoods are changing for the better, and some people are being forced to vacate. Too bad for them, perhaps they should try not selling drugs and being involved with gangs. I was walking on Morse with my husband, and we stopped to look at the pictures of the new condo building that's being put up on the corner of Morse and Greenview and two young black guys walked by, and one of them said, that someone will burn the building down before it's even built. It was obvious they wanted us to hear what they were saying. Pleasant, huh. How, after hearing something like that, and seeing racial hate in occurrences like the goonings, are we not supposed to want gentrification. To me, "affordable housing" just signals more slum housing or condo buildings that aren't being kept up and promoting crime.
Also I wanted to see if anyone knew what was up with the plastic grocery bags that can be found hanging from fences, filled with garbage. Are these from people who are too lazy to find a garbage can to throw the bags out? Or is there some other purpose to these unsightly decorations?
perhaps people are hanging them on fences hoping people will put trash in them, instead of throwing it on the ground?
since there appears to be around 10 garbage cans in rogers park, usually all overflowing and unable to accept any more contributions
1) We need to have the whole paragraph or and story and not just a sound bite quoting James.
2) He is not a politican nor does he owe the public perfect scripted statements.
3) You actually remembered what he said in 2004? And the reason would be?
the bags that I've noticed are on Farwell, east of Sheridan. What I'm guessing it's from people who come to the lake and are too lazy to throw the bags out in the usually empty garbage cans in the park. I hate litter-bugs and I hate people who are lazy slobs. Unfortunately there's a lot of those sorts of people in the world.
The bags are all over the place v & j. You might enjoy paying a visit to the blog of our pal who may be your soul mate on this issue:
Trash Detective
1) If Craig found it so can you.
2) Why should Michael James be speaking on behalf of this community on this subject to broadcast media in the first place? Is he a public official or gooning victim? No? A restaurant owner that caters to lots of students? Ah...
3) He looked it up.
Media sighting: 4:30 p.m. - Fox News Channel 32 seen in front of the Michael James residence at 1509 West Lunt.
Find it yet?
Okay Dort, Craig (and Brettly - thanks dude!) made point one easy for you.
See the previous post.
A clip from 2004, is that the best you have Craig??????
will you just chop off your hands?
Get a life dork.
This gooning "phenomenon" is not limited to Rogers Park. Swanky downtown Evanston is dealing with the same problem, with similar race and class connotations.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/464876,ev-polrept-071207-s1.article
Scary.
V&J- I am unfortunately acquainted with the attitude you speak of. All it does is make one glad to see such negative people pushed out of RP. It does nothing to build a bridge between disparate groups or promote understanding. These people will lose of course, because the market is bigger than any of us.
Also, I really don't hear alot of constructive dialogue anywhere from the groups that are afraid of being pushed out. Why are they not pleading their case to the community? That seems odd to me. In other neighborhoods like Wicker Park or Pilsen, these voices are and were heard.
What case is there for the gooners to plead? They had their chance. Sorry, too late. They're finished. Just got to catch em, arrest em, ship em out somewhere to live where the neighborhood enjoys that sort of thing. Pound or be pounded. It works for some people.
Not fair though that all low income people get grouped as one unsavory entity. I know many decent families scared to death of where they might wind up with no rentals leftin the neighborhood. And yes, good people should have an opportunity to live in decent surroundings. Is there a realistic way to save affordable housing for non criminal families?
I live in Rogers Park and have a 16-year-old I'd like to see make it to adulthood without a bullet shot through his head. Bought him a beater car just to keep him from having to walk around like a bullseye target. I'm middle class with alternatives.
I think most people realize that there are good working lower income people. I only have a problem with criminal elements- I want them out. We can keep the good people- whatever demographic they are.
In this affordable housing movement, is there a legal way to screen tenants by eliminating those with violent felonies? Is that happening anywhere? Any models to follow?
To neocynic, it's a tragedy when we have to give our teens cars just to keep them from being targets of the neighborhood's young thugs and gangers.
Why does Rogers Park have such an oversupply of really badly-run low-income buildings while nabes that border ours manage to keep their low-income properties clean and under control.
Rogers Park continues to be a dumping ground for the city's most troublesome elements, and the blight is now spreading rapidly to West Ridge. Our alderman encourages slumlords and welcomes more social services targeting the most undesirable elements in the population.
Hold on. How do we know that the young people committing these crimes are "low income"? Because they make racist/classist comments on the sidewalk that they think will get a rise out of people?
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Obviously black doesn't necessarily equal "low income", even here in Rogers Park.
But I don't think this is about the gooners staying up nights worrying that their landlord will push them out of their nice affordable rental building. I think it's a nasty variation of the usual corner turf war. They are looking for status, power within their group and an easy to demonize scapegoat to channel their aggression on to any desperate way they can grab it, even if it means bashing some old white guy's head in and emptying his life out on to the sidewalk.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the gooners are economically disadvantaged. They might just be sociopathic, dangerous predators out for gratification no matter who it hurts.
As bad as gooning is, I for one am very happy that Daley has banned private citizens from owning handguns.
I agree it's much safer to dial 911 and wait for the police to come and stop the gang from kicking in your skull than to simply pull out a handgun to help even the odds.
Thank you Daley. I do feel so much safer.
The more horrendous behavior we tolerate, the worse it gets. It's like classroom management. Expel those who would impede the progress of their classmates.
I can say with 99% assurance that the kids out there randomly beating on citizens have nothing- no money,no sane parental guidance,no plans for the future and, at this point in their lives, no empathy due to the abusive, violent child raising culture they've grown up in.
Their violence did not come out of a vaccuum. It is economic in the sense that their families in poverty refuse to open their eyes and insist on clinging to ignorance with almost a fierce pride.
Those of us living amongst them cannot fix the mess they've come from. And we do have the right to judge it and not cringe at being called racist or classist.
Poor kids - that I know with parents who "church raise" them or raise them with some kind of gut wisdom, give them structure, keep tabs on where they are and who they're hanging out with and actually allow their kids' close friends to visit in their homes, rather than hang in the streets- could not attack another human being for pleasure. The programming's not there.
I can say with 99% assurance that the kids out there randomly beating on citizens have nothing- no money,no sane parental guidance,no plans for the future and, at this point in their lives, no empathy due to the abusive, violent child raising culture they've grown up in.
You may be absolutely right. But I think making this the default assumption everytime this kind of violence is perpetrated by black youth is a problem. When kids of other ethnicities do this kind of stuff - and they do - this isn't the default community reaction, even though those kids may have suffered from all the poor child rearing conditions you list.
Why this discrimination for black youth? Are we being asked to interpret this gooning as politically motivated violence?
Reread my comments. Never said anything about black youth. Said (paraphrasing) "poor and ignorant" as opposed to "poor and enlightened." Again, I would say that these kids are acting out of a debased culture of poverty. Brutal and dangerous. No matter the why of it, the community cannot tolerate it.
Are the gooners making a political statement? No, just trapped in animality, preying on the defenseless. It's a hate statement.
Is the term "poor" unacceptable these days. Is "low income" more appropriate? I'm not being sarcastic, really want to know.
Worked in a health program on the southwest side and watched poor, ignorant white parents beat, berate and neglect their children. Refused to accept alternative parenting ideas, much less read anything on the subject. Results: dropouts, drug trade, addiction, domestic violence, teen pregnancy and jail time.
It's not the WORKING lower income people who are the problem and it never was.
There are many pockets in this city inhabited almost exclusively by such people that are totally crime free. More than that, these people vehemently oppose "low income" subsidized housing in their neighborhoods, because they know that they are much more vulnerable to the depredations of criminals than more affluent people.
Low-wage people generally do not live in subsidized low-income housing and mostly don't qualify for it. They don't want to live among gangbangers and welfare mommas anyway.
When social services people refer to "low income" people they are not talking about low wage workers, but are speaking of people who don't work at all, at least not at a legitimate occupation. They are talking about the kind of people who always have been and always will be problems, such as ex-cons and welfare mothers with a big brood of kids- the dregs.
So, looking at the numbers......
A single mother with two children who makes $8.00 an hour, works a 40 hour week brings home $320.00 a week x 4= $1280 a month. For a two bedroom apartment, she can't afford more than $500 a month. This leaves her $780 a month for food, clothing,and everything else. Might be able to work it if food costs were 500 a month with 70 dollars for "extras." Oh, I forgot about utilities.
If she had children with a man decent enough to pay child support, she might have slightly more income.
At any rate, are there any two bedroom apartments going for $500
on the open market in Rogers Park? How about a one bedroom?
If not, could affordable housing buildings in Rogers Park insist that single low income women with over two children not be allowed as tenants. The reasoning behind this is if a husbandless woman with virtually no economic resources was not smart enough to stop reproducing after one or two children, then she probably can't be trusted to organize and maintain her family life in an acceptable way.
I'm scaring myself, writing this. Should I actually be saying this?
The big question is how do you support low income wage earners in a realistic way? In Rogers Park, should we care?
Dorothy, I repeat, most low income wage earners are not the problem.
The problems are the people who NEVER earned a wage because they fell out of the school system as illiterates at the age of 14 or 13 or even younger and commenced breeding, not thinking too much about that or anything else.
Low-wage earners actually produce very few problems themselves. They are victimized by having no choice but to live side-by-side with the dregs of the population who had 7 kids by the age of 21 by a succession of gangbangers and bums, who hang out about the place and create mayhem.
Most "poor" people are respectable, but you do not notice them, possibly because they are skulking in their apts in terror, behind three deadbolt locks and barred windows, terrified to spend one minute on the streets beyond what it takes to fulfill their personal tasks and get to and from work.
These people are good and harmless and lead constructive lives, but they don't have the power to battle the forces that turn their neighborhoods into styes, like an alderman who has knowingly permitted his ward to be turned into a dumping ground for the unplaceable dregs that were vacated from the projects. They don't have the money to spare to donate, they don't have the time to volunteer.
The dregs are the low-IQ, drug-using, unemployed and unemployable, who fill up the welfare rolls and prisons. We are talking here about people who are functionally illiterate, drug-addicted, incapable of birth control, and unable to grasp what they're doing in having 8 kids by 8 different daddies who they scarcely know.
I have my theories about why we no longer have the good, solid, crime-free working-class nabes we had until 1970. Socialized housing is the big culprit, IMO, in that it drives housing prices out of the reach of the working poor and forces them to live in the same subsidized housing as the dregs.
Were it not for the socialistic gimmes for every other class of people, the working poor would not need 'support' beyond unemployment and emergency medical care.
As a poor child I want to express my sincere disgust at the attitude I have been reading:
"Not smart enough to stop reproducing after one or two children"
hey, neocynic:
1)Are you aware of how your country (run by majority white rich people) feels about sex education?
2)Women don't control what happens to their husbands. some husbands die; some just divorce you.
3)That women you are talking about with the one or two children? She does have one or two kids and is having a hard time and she can't do anything to take that fact back so unless you are willing to follow that little train of thought you had up there to its only insane conclusion, which is to kill her and her like, then I suggest you let that train go by.
Our government makes it hard for people who are poor. What's so crazy is, the majority of the granola-eating, liberal-loving, Bush-hating people writing on this damn thread already know this And yet, can't seem to make the connection.
Really? all that intellectual time at the coffeehouse and you didn't think you were going to feel the splashback? and now that the problem has become your problem, you are so ready to abandon your "Liberal" ideas, grab yer gun and yer confederate flag and try to move us out, because it's "our" fault?
You can say that is not what you mean till you are blue in the face. Guess what? That's what you ARE saying. That tinge of shame you feel? It's not without reason and it isn't to be soothed away with "I'm not a racist but..." suffixes you tag on to make yourself feel better. Be big enough to be introspective and accept that you have fucked up thoughts. Then go change them and do something to better it.
I say all this knowing I could, in theory, be the next person to get gooned. I'm just not going to let my fears dictate what is right or wrong in the world.
Should you care? I don't know, asshole. If I saw someone stomping on you should I care?
Exactly, the point I was trying to make. I get it that the working poor trying to make it are being punished, economically as well as being terrorized by their low-life neighbors.
Would like to see a well managed affordable housing building with management strong enough to truly screen tenants, i.e. limits on children per family. If you restrict in this way, are you up against a law suit? Example: All's good. Working mother with two teenage kids living comfortably in affordable housing. That 15-year-old daughter gets pregnant and is determined to have that baby. Family is evicted for being out of compliance with number of children in unit. As I see it, this kind of strictness is the only way to break the cycle and protect the neighborhood. But, is it legal?
I'm trying to research established affordable housing models. Can anybody steer me in the right direction? Websites?
Neocynic, I'm with you but we will never have such screening as long as our housing is reliant upon govnt funding.
Bad money drives out good. Why should a landlord work hard to run a good building and be up against escalating taxes, lawsuits for discrimination, and a constant battle with social services people who are forever trying to cram their unplaceable ex-con scum in your building, when you can just cave into the zietgiest and clean up on Section 8 subsidies and fantastic tax breaks if only you will consent to your building being turned into an asylum for the people no one else wants. Jay Johnson, Rezko, and other notorious slumlords have made fortunes doing exactly this, while people who want to run a decent bldg are taxed and harrassed into flipping their buildings as condos.
If we continue as we have, with current HUD rules and programs, there will be no rentals left for low wage and moderate income people. Buildings will be either condos, or "low income" slums housing either unplaceable undesirables, or defenseless elders and handicapped who are bereft of any alternative to living side by side these scum.
Calm down Nicorette. How do you jump from my reasonable comment about careless, thoughtless child bearing to "Should I care if you get stomped by gooners?" My question "Should we care about affordable housing?" was a rhetorical question. Sorry you misunderstood.
I am not apologizing for a truth that is indisputable. Having too many children one cannot afford is a prescription for poverty. Teenage pregnancy is rampant. And somehow, after the pregnancy is apparent, it is seen as a "moral necessity" to bear children one is not prepared financially or spiritually to have. Terminating a pregnancy is not "killing." It's allowing for a better quality of life when the time is right for a child to be born. Better still, some serious birth control is in order.
To deny that fact is not facing reality. Funny how mentioning such a "sensitive" issue as this causes such an enraged reaction.
Some on this blog have said the only way to stop the violence and crime in this Rogers Park neighborhood is to close down all affordable housing. I don't agree. I am exploring how affordable housing could be created that actually helps poor people move out of economic stress. Your ranting adds nothing to the discussion.
Don't try to shut people up by accusing them of abandoning "liberal principals" as though they are skinheads ready to stomp back. Stop it with the name calling. We are watching this "train wreck" of generational poverty, and everybody, I mean everybody, is getting hurt. Any enlightening ideas to suggest?
Where did divorced mothers come into this? Let's hope they are getting child support. After all the father chosen for her children is stepping up to his responsibilities, right?
Besides, you know I'm not talking about that kind of situation, anyway. Don't give extreme examples or exceptions. You know it's all about a pattern of irresponsible decisions or nondecisions being made that keep the stress of poverty going. Please don't stay in denial.
Nicorette,
One of your comments said something about white people preventing black people from using birth control. Could you explain that in more detail? I don't want to misunderstand your point.
Is this really a white vs. black thing? It might be helpful to you to go back and carefully read the entire thread of discussion.
Economics and reproductive rights are inextricably linked. Women with few economic options are frequently dependent upon a man for some form of economic support. Because of that, many women do not have equal power in a sexual relationship. That lack of power often results in unplanned pregnancies. Few unplanned pregnancies end in happy family environments. Frequently unplanned children contribute to economic distress. Economic distress contributes to criminal activity.
Is this a race issue? Everything is a race issue in this country. Partly racing the spectre of race is a social trump card that the white community cannot successfully answer. And the reason the white community cannot answer that card is because to do so is to acknowledge a priviledge position in American society. Once that priviledge is acknowledged, responsibility has to be taken or a white person tacitly becomes part of the system that oppresses people of color.
Gooning is a much deeper problem than idle, uneducated kids letting off steam; a much deeper problem than affordable housing; a much deeper problem than the drug trade in our neighborhood. It's proof positive that the culturally diverse nirvana of Rogers Park is filled with social hypocrites who pay lip service to liberal ideals up to the point that those ideal effect their property values.
"Economics and reproductive rights are inextricably linked."
Never were truer words written. If a woman can't control her body, she can't control much else about her life.
"[Gooning is] proof positive that the culturally diverse nirvana of Rogers Park is filled with social hypocrites who pay lip service to liberal ideals up to the point that those ideal effect their property values."
What?! I don't understand the thrust of this statement. Are you blaming the people who are upset about the goonings (largely the same demographic that seems to be the target of the attacks)? Why SHOULDN'T every reasonable citizen be outraged by this? It's not about property values, it's about the basic human right to walk down the street without being randomly attacked.
As for giving up liberal social values, I am a perfect example of someone whose bleeding heart gushed all over everything before I moved here. Now, having experienced the reality of the streets, I am a little less compassionate. As I work hard to try to make my lot in life better, thoughtless people in my neighborhood threaten me with physical violence, keep me up at all hours of the day and night with superfluous noise, dump trash on my property, sell drugs within eyesight of my home, beat each other, shoot at each other ... and the list goes on.
So yes, my experiences here have made me question my liberal ideals. I think anybody living in the midst of such extreme circumstances would have to reconsider their world view. Not to do so would be burying my head in the sand.
Hammy,
Your comment sounds a little like something off a prewritten political tract. It also sounds like something referring to women forced to shroud themselves in black cloth in 110 degree desert heat and submit to men who beat them to a pulp if they resist.
We are talking about Rogers Park where kids are taught reproduction, STD diseases, and birth control starting in middle school. I don't think that 15-year-old girl is financially dependent on that 16-year-old boy with whom she allowed herself to get pregnant.
That mother who refused to acknowledge her child's sexual awakening and get her some serious birth control and/or convince her to stop having sex (Try that with any teenager whose tasted these pleasures, Good Luck!) is not living in a thirld world country with no where to go for help. Help is here now, and choices are being made within families not to get it. And yes, pregnancies can be terminated. We won't go to Hell for that.
Stressed out single moms with little money and too many children are not going to be able to guide their children effectively. That's hell for that mom, her kids and the community, white, black, yellow whatever.
So, liberal lip service is questioning how to promote positive change and ask hard questions, and at the same time, protesting our kids getting hit with bricks out on the streets? It's O.K. to be against muggings, right?
[Gooning is] proof positive that the culturally diverse nirvana of Rogers Park is filled with social hypocrites who pay lip service to liberal ideals up to the point that those ideal effect their property values.
So, "we" had it coming. Care to elaborate your thesis there a bit Professor Hammy? With footnotes this time?
One more point. I rent. Don't own property, but don't accuse ordinary property owners who are not house flippers and greedy developers, just people looking for stability and peace of mind, of being evil, hard hearted bastards for asking for basic safety.
Public safety is a RIGHT that should be guaranteed every non-criminal citizen, no matter how rich or poor, whether a renter or owner, or of whatever race or ethnicity.
I tire of the mentality that says,"well, this is a neighborhood with a lot of po' people. If you don't like it, move."
After a while, where do you go? We've become a country where you have to be affluent to live in any degree of safety. Or, at least, we are nearly to that state. I can remember when almost every nabe was safe except for a few nasty pockets of really deep poverty and neglect.
"We've become a country where you have to be affluent to live in any degree of safety."
This is right on. I've been criticized for wanting to improve my neighborhood -- people say, "What, do you want it to be like north Evanston?" Well, yes, in that I want no gangs, reasonable levels of peace and quiet, respectful neighbors, and clean streets. But I guess you only deserve that if you're a millionaire.
Makes me work harder to become a millionaire.
How many goonings have happened in the last 5 to 10 years? Is there anyone out there that knows or knows where I can find this info?
"One of your comments said something about white people preventing black people from using birth control. Could you explain that in more detail? I don't want to misunderstand your point."
Here is what I said:
"Are you aware of how your country (run by majority white rich people) feels about sex education? "
Unless you are part of or voted for our recent fuck ups in government then I don't think the statement above was meant to offend you, and the fact is, IT IS run by majority white rich people. The reason for stating the obvious is to point out the fact that if you are not rich & white (sorry poor white-you are fucked along with us) they don't care about you, let alone your sex education.
Do you not know how they teach sex ed in school? One, have you been to a chicago public school, I mean, a real one? Do you know how crappy they are? Do you know how they divey up the money between schools, how some schools don't get any money (i.e. the poor schools, i.e. the minority majority schools), while the affluent ones with the higher property value get more? So knowing that, how do you think they are teaching sex ed? do you think they are doing a good job? really? Oh, and you do know that our country is run by a pro-life, pro-abstinence teaching only weirdo who probably lost his virginity way before his marriage to his sister.
"Calm down Nicorette. How do you jump from my reasonable comment about careless, thoughtless child bearing to "Should I care if you get stomped by gooners?" My question "Should we care about affordable housing?" was a rhetorical question. Sorry you misunderstood. "
If I saw you getting stomped I would help you out. But if you saw me struggling with my two kids you wouldn't, you just want me out. that's the problem.
Nicorette,
I said just the opposite. I said build affordable housing with limits on the size of the family. Two kids fine. A single woman working at minimum wage making a lousy $1300 a month with a couple of kids is going to need help. She deserves a two bedroom apartment with plenty of floor space. Our economics in this country are screwed up when we can't make it when still working a full time job.
Others bloggers have said get rid of all affordable housing in the hood and crime problem solved. I said no justice in that.
We should be challenging a dog eat dog capitalism with no humanity. Gotta find balance. Part of the balance is making choices about family size and challenging the assumption that teenagers are gonna have babies. Doesn't have to be inevitable.
Yeah, it's best to be married to a responsible man, and I know, the Ozzie and Harriet scenario doesn't work out for huge numbers of women. We are not living fantasy lives here.
Would you not agree that a real speak out about child bearing choices, and they are choices, has got to start and continu if anything is going to change for the better?
I'm raising a son alone. He's just one teenage guy, and, at times, I feel broken by the strain of it all. And I make a decent salary. Got the options to call in a family therapist, etc.
Promoting limits on how many kids helps spare the mother, the kids, and the community the future tragedies of evictions, homelessness, jail time for kids that needed the attention way back when........?
How is my thinking not reasonable?
"I said build affordable housing with limits on the size of the family."
It sounds like pre-emptive punishment for having kids that may only "potentially" be criminals.
Where do the mother's who don't fit within those limits go? Yeah, limits will rid that ONE theoretical lady with the 12 kids who doesn't care about you or her kids and is willing to leech off the system, but for most mothers it's the 1-3 kids they have that are a pain to raise on even $14.00/hour. And most of their kids are and have, for the most part, the potential to be fine; not a 666 mark in sight. It's the 20 gooning kids who are ruining it for the other hundreds of kids who are pigeon-holed with them that are going to get punished. And if I knew I was going to get punished anyway, I might just do what was expected of me. Limits are going to punish more good than bad.
"Promoting limits on how many kids helps spare the mother, the kids, and the community the future tragedies of evictions, homelessness, jail time for kids that needed the attention way back when........?"
I'm all for promoting better, honest sexual EDUCATION, and yes, that will help to limit unwanted pregnancies for the next generation of kids. But we don't get to set limits on someone else's pregnancies. It wasn't a good idea when China did it, and it's not a good idea now.
I would like to know now how to stop 20 kids from being bad. I'd like to solve that. What's there problem? How do you teach them to stop themselves from wanting to destroy a complete stranger? Where is that anger coming from?
I also have a sneaking suspicion that alot of crime is being committed by grown-ass adults.
This is a really frustrating topic as it is hitting so close to home. I'm not thinking you are a horrible person and I know you are coming from a good place, I just don't agree with your solutions and see the potential in them to be dangerous.
neocynic said...
"One more point. I rent. Don't own property, but don't accuse ordinary property owners who are not house flippers and greedy developers, just people looking for stability and peace of mind, of being evil, hard hearted bastards for asking for basic safety."
Ah, the mantra of the privileged, white, upper-middle-class victim. Whether you rent or own, you're buying into the entitlement mentality which is growing ever brighter in Rogers Park.
"If I have the money I should be able to live wherever I want, whether the existing community welcomes me or not. After all, I'm good. I'm clean. I'm educated. I quiet and respectful. Oh, pay no attention to my $2,000 stroller. Yes, I understand it costs more than you make in a month, but it's the best and my little test-tube baby really deserves it."
Cliche? Absolutely. But until certain residents of Rogers Park recognize that that is how they're viewed -- rightly or wrongly -- and start do something about changing that perception, then tensions in the neighborhood are going to continue to grow. One of the major problems that seems to be overlooked is that Rogers Park is being changed not just ecomonically and deomgraphically, but culturally and not everyone thinks those changes are for the better.
I am endlessly entertained by people who buy "affordable" property and then become outraged when the neighborhood doesn't meet their pristine standards. Are you entitled to walk down the street without being attacked? I don't know. Are you entitled to rent or purchase a home anywhere you want? I don't know.
Were Native Americans entitled to defend their land against the settlers?
There is more than a whiff of entitlement that wafts through Rogers Park, and that smell gets stronger with every passing summer. There is more than a faint echo of Pilgrims and settlers in the posts here.
Post a Comment