E-mail news updateTop headlines, by lunchtime! Latest crime reportsMost popular |
Something is rotten in Evanston Submitted by Peter Sanchez on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 2:05pm.
When the rabidly pro-skyscraper Aldermen -- Moran and Rainey -- staged a desperate parliamentary ploy that violated Robert's Rules of Order in order to delay the skyscraper project because they were going to lose a vote, they claimed it was perfectly appropriate. Those aldermen who were against the skyscraper -- Wynne, Hansen, Holmes, Tishdal, and Bernstein -- unfortunately accepted that shameful maneuver to put off a vote on the skyscraper. However, when the plan commission members who don't want a huge building downtown called for a simple vote to put limits on the height of the downtown plan (something the majority of Evanstonians want), the pro-skyscraper cabal yelled foul and left the room. According to the Daily Northwestern, here is what acting chairman Opdycke said: "If this is Well, Woods was one of only four people at the May 7 meeting who spoke in favor of the skyscraper, so "expertise" translates into support for the skyscraper. The fact that the chair of the plan commission would speak in favor of the skyscraper at a special meeting for public comments in and of itself shows how desperate the pro-skyscraper cabal has become. Of the four people who spoke in favor of the skyscraper at that meeting, one was Woods, another was a Chicago resident, and a third did a Power Point presentation with slides that had logos of the developers. It is becoming increasingly clear to residents, and perhaps to the press, that something is rotten in Evanston. Why are a few individuals so intent on protecting the skyscraper when so many people are against it? Why have they twice now resorted to extreme measures -- pulling a parliamentary ploy at the May 7 Planning and Development committee meeting and staging a walk-out at last night's Plan Commission meeting -- to keep the skyscraper project alive? Something unusual (to be mild) is happening in Evanston. Hopefully someone will get to the bottom of this. |
Active forum topics
More Evanston newsEventsUpcoming events
 Latest commentsEvanston news elsewhere
|
NIMBYitis
Mr Unverified Anonymous,
NIMBY indeed.
It seems that all the pro-Tower people somehow have the same name. Is it just one person or did they have prolific parents? And they accuse us opponents of being the "angry few".
While we are on the issue of representative government, why don't we eliminate the possibility of the "angry few" tilting the Tower process by having a referendum on the issue. That way the silent majority can come out and vote their views. Better yet, have both the Tower and the maximum height downtown on the referendum.
BTW I am not opposed to the Tower height, just that the financial aspects do not help the City near term with their Darwin Award Finances. The consultant the Council brought in (and paid), along with our illustrious Chamber head, somehow never learned about the time value of money. They would have flunked any finance course. Our astute Council never caught it either. They were either mesmerized by the "iconic" Tower or don't know nothing about finance. Take your pick.
Representative Democracy
Hi Vito,
No need to take a course. There are two models of representative democracy, the first is the trustee model and is elitist since citizens are viewed as inferior and thus unable to know what is good for them. In this model the representative is entrusted with making decisions for the community. This is the only model of democracy that the pro-skyscraper groupies seem to understand (or even know about), probably both because they want the skyscraper despite the public opposition and because they don't trust people in general (so why do they trust the developers?). The other is the delegate model which sees elected officials as representatives of the will of the people. In a small-scale democracy (such as a city) and in a highly educated community, such as Evanston, this model is much more workable and democratic. Both of these models are representative NOT participatory democracy. And, even in the trustee model there is accountability at election time. So, if the aldermen go against public sentiment, the people can always vote them out of office, giving them the last word. No matter which model you favor, the people not the elected representatives are sovereign. Most people don't know these distinctions and certainly the anonymouses, who appear to be rabidly elitist, don't know.
As for the identity of the anonymouse posters, they could be typing away in a prison cell (do they allow prisoners to use computers?), the office of a developer (most likely), or a cabin the the middle of the woods somewhere (may in the old unibomber's cabin), who the heck knows.
Peter
delegate model
Peter Sanchez wrote:
There are two models of representative democracy, the first is the trustee model and is elitist since citizens are viewed as inferior and thus unable to know what is good for them. In this model the representative is entrusted with making decisions for the community. This is the only model of democracy that the pro-skyscraper groupies seem to understand (or even know about), probably both because they want the skyscraper despite the public opposition and because they don't trust people in general (so why do they trust the developers?). The other is the delegate model which sees elected officials as representatives of the will of the people.
Even though I think that Political Science is bogus, and students would be better off studying engineering, mathematics, or biology, I will respond.
Let us consider the second model, the delegate model.
Our aldermen are entrusted with representing the will of the people. So my alderman, C. Wollin, should make an effort to find out what residents of the 1st ward want. She should ignore the noisy geriatrics on Central Street, who are not in her ward. She should also use good judgment and realize that if there are 3000 voters in her ward (a guess, I don't know the actual number) and maybe 50 noisy activists from her ward speak out against the tower - that still means that there are many who are just indifferent.
Holding a referendum won't solve this. The noisy activists will come out and vote, while the silent majority will be too indifferent. I am sure that the professor is aware that many countries have requirements that a majority - or even higher - of the registered voters have to show up at the polls in order to make a referendum valid. Perhaps Evanston should do the same.
The other issue which the professor has ignored is that our City Government, like our state and national governments, does not have 'at large' representation in the legislative body. So if all the NIMBY's in Ward 6 or the lakefront oppose building a tower, they should not impose their intolerant NIMBY agenda on the rest of us.
The accusations of 'elitism', coming from the professor, are really quite strange. After all, long time readers of this website will recall that the professor fondly remembers the good old days, circa 1993, when Evanston was 'more like Glencoe'.
I find the use of the word 'elitism' interesting because that word has also been used to describe Senator Obama. The similarities between the Hillary Clinton camp and the anti-tower camp are very interesting. They both attract older and intolerant voters by appealing to phony economic populism, fear of outsiders, charges of elitism, nasty smear campaigns, and a desire to return to some magical good old days when things were better.
representative government
Hello Vito,
You asked :
While we are on the issue of representative government, why don't we eliminate the possibility of the "angry few" tilting the Tower process by having a referendum on the issue.
I will be pleased to answer this question.
First, I don't think that you understand what is meant by 'representative government'. Let me define it for you:
"a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives"
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. 16 May. 2008. .
So, having a referendum, as you describe, is not what is commonly understood to be representative democracy. It is a direct democracy or plebiscite, as practiced in Ancient Athens or Napoleonic France.
While that may be valid in many cases, I believe that it would be a poor way to run a government. As in Athens, it often degenerates into mob rule, with inconsistent policies being adopted by shifting majorities and no accountability for any one person.
If would be a terrible way to run a city. We could have referenda to stop the tower, preserve the North side library and Civic Center, and save the stupid elm trees. All of these referenda would pass. If we then held a referendum to pay the bills by raising taxes, it would fail. { We saw this with the Civic Center referendum last year. } We could have a referendum to give pay raises to city workers - and all of the city workers would come out to vote for it!
The other problem with a citywide referendum, instead of a representative democracy by council, is that in a referendum a few highly motivated noisy activists - the ""angry few" - would come out to vote in the 6th and 7th wards and impose their intolerant NIMBY agenda on the largely indifferent or pro-tower 1st and 2nd wards. Under a representative government, the 6th and 7th wards are not able to impose their will on the other 7 wards.
Of course, if this is what you want, that is fine. But the NIMBY's should realize that maybe someday the residents of the other 7 wards will decide to hold a referendum to upzone Central Street, or move the Civic Center to the west side.
Another benefit of representative democracy is that we will have people who have studied the issues making the decision - not just whoever shows up at the Civic Center on Monday night.
If that is what you want, you can change the City Code, but for now, we have a Council to represent us. This is an elected Council, and it has the authority to pass laws in the city. [ The unelected Plan Commission, or a minority thereof, has no right to usurp the authority of Council ]
If you have any further questions about the difference between direct democracy and representative government, I suggest that you take a course in Political Science at Loyola.
Extreme measures?
The only rotten and extreme measure here is the action by the anti-development Gang of Four cabal on the Plan Commission. Even though the Commission is to have 9 members, the unelected Gang of Four tried to take advantage of a vacancy and the absence of a pro-freedom member and tried to ram their anti-freedom resolution through.
Of course, there is nothing illegal or unethical about using parliamentary tactics to advance an agenda - even an odious agenda - so I cannot fault them for that. They knew that they didn't have a majority on the Commission, so they had to resort to these tactics.
However, it was entirely legal, ethical, and proper for the 3 pro-freedom members to react as they did by walking out - thus thwarting the efforts of the Gang of Four. If the anti-growth cabal had a real majority, they would have had a quorum.
I really don't understand why Peter considers this kind of action to be 'rotten'. Apparently he thinks that 4 out of 9 votes on a commission should be sufficient to pass a resolution, when it supports his agenda.
As for the statement that limits on downtown height are "something the majority of Evanstonians want" - well, Scott is right: Most Evanston residents just don't get excited about this kind of stuff. Rather than let a noisy group of activists control everything, the council members need to consider all the facts, talk to people in their neighborhood, and do what they think is right. That is how representative government works.
I find it strange that a professor of Political "Science" is so hostile to - or perhaps just ignorant of - the concept of representative democracy. He thinks that parliamentary procedures are "shameful" and that aldermen who disagree with him are "rabid" . Apparently the aldermen are supposed to obey "the majority of Evanstonians" (as measured by the amount of lawnsigns in their yards and noise that they make at council meetings) instead of talking to their constituents in their own wards and making their own judgments. Why then do we have aldermen? Shouldn't we just let everyone show up at the Civic Center and have a vote on each issue?
And he wants us to believe that Mr. Moran is rabid? I watched the Council meetings, and that is not a word that I would use to describe Mr. Moran. Who is rabid?
I am delighted by the opposition that we are seeing to the ECRD cabal - both here, on the ECRD website, and the Tribune websites and other places. While this tower proposal will probably not go through in its present form, this is all still very encouraging.
I think that the NIMBY's have finally gone too far. When they downzoned Central St or stopped the Kendall development, most of us just didn't care . If the NIMBY's want to stop development in their own "back yards", while it is bad policy, it really doesn't make a big difference to most of us who live downtown . But when they try to mess around with downtown - OUR back yard - then they discovered that maybe downtown residents don't want bossy outsiders in big houses controlling things.
If we are going to allow residents of the north side. area to determine the course of Central St., and residents of the northeast to determine the fate of the Kendall lot, and West side residents to prevent development in their neighborhoods - then we should also let residents of downtown determine what goes on in OUR neighborhood.
Post new comment