daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 20th, 2007, 04:27 PM   #361
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

XO

The resolution for downzoning has been pulled. There may be other legal battles ahead for the project, but likely the biggest hurdle remains sales.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 20th, 2007, 07:21 PM   #362
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^It was all Fioretti just pandering to the PDNA crowd anyway. There was no way they were going to win and he knew it, but now hes going to say "Well, guys I tried". Just him trying to solidify the NIMBY vote for next election, its still a little scary actually.

The sales I heard went very well for the first tower, and the second towers sales may have been struggling a bit due to the air of uncertainty caused by the potential downzoning. This news may solidify this project, and regain interest from buyers. Its is a good looking project afterall.

BTW, I also agree that Migra/ErmDiego should be allowed on the forum. Even though most of us disagree with what he's saying, at least we will understand the nimby point of view a little better. Just having a different point of view is no reason to ban someone (unless he was being flat out disrespectful). Plus, I also find his statements to be pretty amusing as well. But, obviously the mods make the call on that one.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 07:24 PM   #363
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
The resolution for downzoning has been pulled. There may be other legal battles ahead for the project, but likely the biggest hurdle remains sales.

Your right, sales will obviously be their number one priority, but I'm curious as to what basis you think other legal battles lie ahead?
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 07:56 PM   #364
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Pandering?

Not sure you can brush it off as pandering. he made an effort, apparently could not get enough Alderman to vote in favor of his resolution and so pulled it. How is that pandering?

Pandering is what Haithcock did, took money from the developers, wrote a letter in support of the project and helped it get it's zoning and then tell various audiences she would stop the project before planning department approval and then afterwards say she would hold Giles permits, all with no intention of taking any such action.

I would call it representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 08:09 PM   #365
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Not sure you can brush it off as pandering. he made an effort, apparently could not get enough Alderman to vote in favor of his resolution and so pulled it. How is that pandering?

Pandering is what Haithcock did, took money from the developers, wrote a letter in support of the project and helped it get it's zoning and then tell various audiences she would stop the project before planning department approval and then afterwards say she would hold Giles permits, all with no intention of taking any such action.

I would call it representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges.
What Fioretti did was obviously pandering, and obviously more along the lines of pandering than anything Haithcock did. Not to say Haithcock was any better - she simply was in bed with the developers and accepted a lot of bribes.

You can call what Fioretti did "representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges". Most of us on here know better and would call it "Fioretti pandered by making campaign pledges he knew were not realistic but which would win him votes as he could say he "tried"". Face it, you got duped.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 09:39 PM   #366
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 887

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i_tab04_layout

Alderman backs off fight on South Loop high rise
By Susan Diesenhouse | Tribune staff reporter
12:18 PM CST, November 20, 2007


First-term Alderman Robert Fioretti has backed-off his effort to block the development of a $240 million condominium high rise in the South Loop.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 11:32 PM   #367
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

Little Bobbie Fioretti just got a big time wake up call. Welcome to the City Dat Works. So I wonder who made the call to back off and what he ended up getting for it. You know darn well this had a price.
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2007, 11:37 PM   #368
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 887

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagotom View Post
Little Bobbie Fioretti just got a big time wake up call. Welcome to the City Dat Works. So I wonder who made the call to back off and what he ended up getting for it. You know darn well this had a price.
I don't think he had the votes to get the zoning changed.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 01:04 AM   #369
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
BTW, I also agree that Migra/ErmDiego should be allowed on the forum. Even though most of us disagree with what he's saying, at least we will understand the nimby point of view a little better. Just having a different point of view is no reason to ban someone (unless he was being flat out disrespectful). Plus, I also find his statements to be pretty amusing as well. But, obviously the mods make the call on that one.
^ There's amusing, and then there's adolescent name-calling, sometimes with sexual undertones. The former, regardless of a person's opinion, is acceptable; the latter isn't. I applaud the mods on their decision
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 01:06 AM   #370
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
but I'm curious as to what basis you think other legal battles lie ahead?
^ There doesn't have to be any "basis". If you can pull it out of your rear end and wave it in the air, Fioretti will likely use it as another illegal excuse to stall the project
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 01:18 AM   #371
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
What Fioretti did was obviously pandering, and obviously more along the lines of pandering than anything Haithcock did. Not to say Haithcock was any better - she simply was in bed with the developers and accepted a lot of bribes.

You can call what Fioretti did "representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges". Most of us on here know better and would call it "Fioretti pandered by making campaign pledges he knew were not realistic but which would win him votes as he could say he "tried"". Face it, you got duped.

Not sure where your disconnect is. Haithcock spouted promises in her campaign to stop XO by refusing to issue Giles building permits when she knew she would never live up to that promise. I guess maybe you are right she didn't pander she lied.

Fioretti told supporters he would try and stop XO but it would be an uphill struggle with a less than fair chance of success. His ordinance needed the support of his council mates and that support wasn't there at this point. No one was "duped." I fully understand the all for density viewpoint of this board that for many here results in character attacks belittling any that might oppose density for density's sake.

The high general quality of discussion and information here is diminished by this as well as the "little Bobbie" cracks, etc. I don't recall seeing any attacks on Haithcock's character or her intelligence or her fitness to be an alderman when clearly she lacked ability for the position and did next to nothing except take bribes from developers to do their bidding. It is boggling to me that just because any developer could buy the cooperation of Haithcock she is apparently preferred here over an Alderman who is making sure there are public forums, discussion and community input on proposed developments.

Personally, XO was not my battle cry nor did it have anything to do with supporting Fioretti, but clearly you assume it was. You also assume his supporters all now believe they were duped. Wrong again. The engaged folks are wise to the ways of Chicago and knew the opportunity from the resolution to downzone was limited and chancy.

Last edited by Prairie Avenue; November 21st, 2007 at 01:20 AM. Reason: grammar
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 01:49 AM   #372
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Not sure where your disconnect is. Haithcock spouted promises in her campaign to stop XO by refusing to issue Giles building permits when she knew she would never live up to that promise. I guess maybe you are right she didn't pander she lied.

Fioretti told supporters he would try and stop XO but it would be an uphill struggle with a less than fair chance of success. His ordinance needed the support of his council mates and that support wasn't there at this point. No one was "duped." I fully understand the all for density viewpoint of this board that for many here results in character attacks belittling any that might oppose density for density's sake.

The high general quality of discussion and information here is diminished by this as well as the "little Bobbie" cracks, etc. I don't recall seeing any attacks on Haithcock's character or her intelligence or her fitness to be an alderman when clearly she lacked ability for the position and did next to nothing except take bribes from developers to do their bidding. It is boggling to me that just because any developer could buy the cooperation of Haithcock she is apparently preferred here over an Alderman who is making sure there are public forums, discussion and community input on proposed developments.

Personally, XO was not my battle cry nor did it have anything to do with supporting Fioretti, but clearly you assume it was. You also assume his supporters all now believe they were duped. Wrong again. The engaged folks are wise to the ways of Chicago and knew the opportunity from the resolution to downzone was limited and chancy.

Here's the thing though - unless you have specific credible evidence that Haithcock accepted bribes from a developer, how is accepting campaign donations from developers who are active in your ward any different than, say, accepting campaign donations from unions that are active in your ward, or business groups that are active in your ward, or issue advocacy groups that are active in your ward, or residential associations that are active in your ward, or any number of other "constituencies" (read: special interest groups) that are active in your ward? The simple and correct answer is that it's not.

In addition to needing support from his council mates, he also needed support from the law, which he didn't have (otherwise he would have risked millions of taxpayer dollars in a lawsuit - taxpayers, by the way, are not a special interest group by definition - rather, they are indeed the public-at-large itself). It's this wild arrogance (shades of Blago, anyone?) and abuse of his legal powers that are most alarming (what foolhardy move will he try next? - I sense he's the type who will make a career out of attempting to creatively interpret laws). Haithcock was clearly a dud as alderman, but Fioretti is shaping up to potentially be something much more dangerous....

Also, it's safe to say the majority of us here don't advocate for density for density's sake. We advocate for density because it makes for sound public policy, from economic, social and enviornmental vantage points.
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7

Last edited by InTheLoopSam; November 21st, 2007 at 02:17 AM.
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 01:51 AM   #373
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 887

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Not sure where your disconnect is. Haithcock spouted promises in her campaign to stop XO by refusing to issue Giles building permits when she knew she would never live up to that promise. I guess maybe you are right she didn't pander she lied.

Fioretti told supporters he would try and stop XO but it would be an uphill struggle with a less than fair chance of success. His ordinance needed the support of his council mates and that support wasn't there at this point. No one was "duped." I fully understand the all for density viewpoint of this board that for many here results in character attacks belittling any that might oppose density for density's sake.

The high general quality of discussion and information here is diminished by this as well as the "little Bobbie" cracks, etc. I don't recall seeing any attacks on Haithcock's character or her intelligence or her fitness to be an alderman when clearly she lacked ability for the position and did next to nothing except take bribes from developers to do their bidding. It is boggling to me that just because any developer could buy the cooperation of Haithcock she is apparently preferred here over an Alderman who is making sure there are public forums, discussion and community input on proposed developments.

Personally, XO was not my battle cry nor did it have anything to do with supporting Fioretti, but clearly you assume it was. You also assume his supporters all now believe they were duped. Wrong again. The engaged folks are wise to the ways of Chicago and knew the opportunity from the resolution to downzone was limited and chancy.
The problem is that there was no reason why there should have been an attempt to downzone the property in the first place after it was already approved.

Maybe the former alderman took "contributions" from developers, but how is that any different than taking contributions from lawyers who represent developers?
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 01:59 AM   #374
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
The problem is that there was no reason why there should have been an attempt to downzone the property in the first place after it was already approved.

Maybe the former alderman took "contributions" from developers, but how is that any different than taking contributions from lawyers who represent developers?
Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward. Second, the contributions should be used for the proper purposes, not to fund family member ghost payrolls.

Finally, the largest attorney contributors to this alderman have not been lawyers who represent developers. The very largest is a personal injury attorney.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 02:08 AM   #375
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 887

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward. Second, the contributions should be used for the proper purposes, not to fund family member ghost payrolls.
I agree on this part, but a project shouldn't be "denied" of "downzoned" just because the neighbors all of a sudden don't want it. They don't seem to have a problem living in their new towntownhouses or condo towers. Things shouldn't be denied because of neighborhood selfishness, ignorance and stupidity.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 02:11 AM   #376
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
Your right, sales will obviously be their number one priority, but I'm curious as to what basis you think other legal battles lie ahead?
I'm not saying Prairie Avenue is one of them, but I believe several of the PDNA types contend there was actually something illegal about the approval of X/O. There's obviously no substance to it, and I think that most of them realize any lawsuit would quickly get tossed...
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 02:13 AM   #377
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
I agree on this part, but a project shouldn't be "denied" of "downzoned" just because the neighbors all of a sudden don't want it. They don't seem to have a problem living in their new towntownhouses or condo towers. Things shouldn't be denied because of neighborhood selfishness, ignorance and stupidity.
It is like whack a mole here, every time the argument is taken out a new one comes up. Look Victor, there is no need to clutter here with a re-hash, but there was a valid rationale to seek to reverse the upzoning under Haithcock.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 02:15 AM   #378
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward. Second, the contributions should be used for the proper purposes, not to fund family member ghost payrolls.

Finally, the largest attorney contributors to this alderman have not been lawyers who represent developers. The very largest is a personal injury attorney.

A quid pro quo system would obviously be wrong. Again, do you have specific evidence that quid pro quo was in-place. Clearly you suspect it was, but do you have specific evidence?
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 02:20 AM   #379
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
It is like whack a mole here, every time the argument is taken out a new one comes up. Look Victor, there is no need to clutter here with a re-hash, but there was a valid rationale to seek to reverse the upzoning under Haithcock.

Wouldn't you agree that a valid rationale for seeking a reversal would need at the very least a legal basis?
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2007, 02:47 AM   #380
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
Just having a different point of view is no reason to ban someone
Of course not. If that were the case, Mr. Downtown would have been banned a long time ago for some of his contrarian views. ErmDiego was banned not for his opinions but the way in which he expressed them. He also re-registered two additional accounts, which is per se a bannable offense.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu