Every morning – even in near zero degree weather – I walk my two dogs around my neighborhood – the jaunt is roughly 4 miles with a brief but necessary Starbucks break. While I’d like to admit the motivation is to remain healthy, the reality is the required expresso jolt is what gets me up in the morning.
A little over halfway through my walk, I pass by the sign I have posted – proudly identifying the Neighbors for Responsible Zoning’s (the Zoners) disdain for profiteering Realtors, developers et al. Evidenced now by the presence of two mediocre-ly constructed mini-mansions, the realtors and developers undoubtedly profited.
My neighborhood may be one of the most ethically and socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods in the city of Chicago. Short of bucolic, it is an established neighborhood with mature trees that canopy the cross streets lined with woodframe victorians, brick Prairie-inspired architectural gems and classic Chicago courtyard buildings. Many of the residents have lived in the area their entire lives, having watched the tide of transients transform the neighborhood. In the frenzy of the condo boom, affordable housing became in short supply. There is definitely a strong sense of community. People care about preserving the past as well as the semblance of community.
While the Zoners may not have had success in staving off the wave of new development, they have acted in the interest of preserving what they value.
This sign has really had an impact on me lately. In light of the many recent discussions regarding the impact of the current stimulus package – the implications on the housing industry – so much of the focus has been on the financial impact.
Ideology has drawn the line – we can’t interfere with the market for fear of socialism – government intervention simply prolongs the inevitable.
Admittedly, I have subscribed to that line of thinking, however, recently I struggle with the lack of balance to the enormous social costs – many yet unseen – to this financial mess. It is difficult to have sympathy for many people that have acted irresponsibly – buying homes they know they couldn’t afford, however, the impact on the community is also a factor.
In the interest of preserving our communities, why isn’t the private sector held more accountable? Why do bankruptcy judges have to cram down mortgage rates to make houses more affordable? Why can’t banks be forced to write down asset values and be forced to make their assets perform? When neighborhoods sit vacant, what happens to the community?
The lack of tax revenue has put many cities and states on the verge of bankruptcy. City services including police, fire and social services have been cut or eliminated. It is a simple reality. In Cook County, the Sheriff has made the politically unpopular decision to not enforce eviction notices for homeowners and renters faced with foreclosure.
As Americans, what is our set of moral imperatives? I am not suggesting that government be the solution to all of the problems we are faced with today, however, we do have enormous resources which can drastically impact the lives of our citizens.
What does a balanced solution look like? Should we be a Good Society?
Don Reedy says:
Thomas,
“As Americans, what is our set of moral imperatives? I am not suggesting that government be the solution to all of the problems we are faced with today, however, we do have enormous resources which can drastically impact the lives of our citizens.”
I believe that our “set of moral imperatives” must come from any place other than the government. Indeed we do have enormous resources within the government, but as we move to let government itself define the “Good Society” as you put it, we are destined to fail precipitously.
Why? Well, simply because our moral imperatives have become nothing more than moral suggestions, group think, first do no harm to any individual or group, let’s all get along “moral impositions” not “imperatives.”
Alas, where is Greg to help with Greek history? I simply know that our government, this Republic form of government, no longer is the repository of most of the “moral imperatives” to which I can relate.
We should not espouse to be a “Good Society”, since good is tepid and uncommitted to the greatest of ideals. We need excellence, purity and a commitment to the moral imperatives on which this country was founded. Our great founders built our Republic on one set of “imperatives”, and now our “Good Society” has eroded those imperatives for the benefit of the socialist leaning members of our society.
So, Thomas, I fear the “enormous resources” of our government to which you refer are not worthy of support from any free thinking, Greek believing man or woman. Look somewhere else for that which would make us great once again.
February 10, 2009 — 5:05 pm
Thomas A B Johnson says:
Thomas: Where were you and the 150 when you had the opportunity to prevent such a shameful demolition by purchasing the 1890’s house? I imagine that whoever sold the house to the developers would have readily accepted more cash from “The 150” than the limping developers.
In Texas, we call that putting your money where your mouth is.
February 10, 2009 — 6:12 pm
Joe says:
The sign is too funny! Uh, I guess it would be inappropriate to inform them they didn’t put the ® after realtors! :o)
February 10, 2009 — 6:15 pm
Tom Hall says:
@Don – great comment, thanks. Perhaps my subtle reference to the Zoners was in fact my expression that the moral imperatives come from the citizens, not government.
@Thomas – I found it interesting that you assumed I was alligned with the 150. In this particular case I am indifferent. The loss of the house wasn’t the specific issue – the issue was the fact that the 150 organized and established a moral imperative to preserve their community. Financial resources should not be the determining factor necessarily. In this specific case, the 150 were unsuccessful. You win some you lose some.
February 10, 2009 — 7:14 pm
Teri Lussier says:
>In the interest of preserving our communities,
What community are you talking about? Communities- physical communities- it seems to me, are constantly changing, evolving, morphing worlds of people who are changing, evolving and morphing. Otherwise, Thomas Hall, it’s back to the farm, or the tenement slum, or projects, or the miles of tract housing, or wherever we started that we worked so hard to move away from.
February 10, 2009 — 7:19 pm
Tom Hall says:
@Teri – thanks for weighing in! I believe community is defined not only by physical attributes but by common values and purpose.
February 10, 2009 — 7:45 pm
John Kalinowski says:
I have to agree with Teri. Sometimes tearing down an old farm house is a good thing, and a positive step toward improving a community. Otherwise we’d all still be living in those old farm houses. Are those 150 “Zoners” all living in 1890’s farm houses? Weren’t their homes built at one point in the name of progress? Not sure I understand the correlation.
February 10, 2009 — 9:08 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
Tom- The property did not belong to the 150. I do not understand why they feel they should have a say in the disposition of someone else’s property. You said you proudly posted the sign. In Houston, we have lost a tremendous number of architecturally significant buildings and I grieve their demolition. Yet I can’t for the life of me justify taking property for a perceived greater good. Doesn’t seem to bother some folks.
February 10, 2009 — 9:08 pm
Tom Hall says:
@Thomas – sorry for the confusion. I reread my post and realized the problem. I should have said I included the photo of the sign in my post. I didn’t actually post the sign. In fact, I have no affliation to the 150.
February 10, 2009 — 9:56 pm
JB in SD says:
Tom
Third paragraph: My neighborhood….. ethically …….. diverse.
I’m sure you meant ethnically but it made me read about three times just to make sure. Gave me a giggle. These days I think the whole world is an ethically diverse community.
February 10, 2009 — 10:52 pm
Tom Hall says:
@JB. That made me laugh! Unfortunately, ethically diverse is also true. 🙂
February 10, 2009 — 11:04 pm
James Boyer says:
Thomas: I find myself thinking that the so called 150 on the sign are probably short sighted. I have found myself a property owner by inheritance for a run down, non savable home, in the past. I did not live anywhere near the location, and had no desire too. The property was put up for sale, and the only interested party was a developer who wished to take the home down and put up a new colonial style home, which was the predominate style of home on the block.
Several of the neighbors went to that cities licensing and inspection and tried to prevent said builder from ever being able to get permits to build, as well as to that cities council. I even offered to sell them the property at a moderately lower price, as after all I really did not like paying the property taxes every month, but they (the neighbors) were never willing to buy. So I was stuck, a bunch of neighbors seeking to control my property but not willing to pay for it!!
I guess you figured out, it is my opinion that if you want property rights, you should pay for them, otherwise take a hike.
February 11, 2009 — 6:52 am
Geno Petro says:
Ah…the social picaresque of Chicago Zoning in the ‘hood. I received a blue ribbon on my front door last summer for cutting my own grass followed by a testy note in my mailbox a few months later asking me to shovel the snow, not only off my sidewalk (which I had) but off my front steps as well; a violation of a ‘neighborhood tenet in the by-laws’ or some such nonsense.
February 11, 2009 — 7:14 am
Grog says:
I often wondered if acted irresponsibly when I bought this home on an interest only loan. My wife and I wanted to have kids but the thought of paying a $2500 a month mortgage was terrifying. Was I naive when the mortgage broker told me that my house would only go up in value? Probably. So here we are almost 5 years later and the house of course has dropped almost 20% in value and I can get refinanced even though I have great credit. The funny thing is, the mortgage broker has never returned my calls in the past 5 years since we made the purchase. Out of site, out of mind.
February 11, 2009 — 9:56 am
Cathleen Collins says:
I always find it curious that the same people who believe one large group of individuals — developers, Realtors, solicitors and profiteers (actually these are four large groups) — can somehow come together and agree on a nefarious objective, are the same people who believe a different group of individuals — the government — can put their heads together and heroically put it all right. It’s as though they believe that folks who decide to support their families by taking tax dollars to tell other people what to do are more virtuous than people who support their families by exchanging in products or services. There are villains and saints and people in between in all walks of life. But in which sector — public or private — can the villain or the fool cause the most harm?
February 11, 2009 — 10:36 am
Thomas Hall says:
@Geno – sometimes I think pitching a tent and living in them middle of nowhere is the better solution – but I’m sure at some point the bears would begin to complain too. 😉
@Cathleen – how do we overcome the distrust and disdain for our own government?
February 11, 2009 — 12:56 pm
Greg Swann says:
> how do we overcome the distrust and disdain for our own government?
Limit government to those tasks we all agree — unanimously and without coercion or equivocation — that it ought to do. This is obvious. People hate and fear government because it behaves in criminal fashion, using force, the threat of force and theft to impose its will. The difference is that honest criminals aren’t sanctimonious about their predations.
How much government would free people actually agree to suffer voluntarily? My bet is on zero, but I’ll take any single-digit number I can get.
February 11, 2009 — 2:27 pm
Tina Fountain says:
If you were able to go back and check, I bet you’d find that when the homes owned by the “150 neighbors” were built, they were opposed by the owners of the farmhouse.
February 12, 2009 — 6:10 am
Susan says:
I have to agree with Terry and John. I also love Tina’s comment…which is probably true.
February 12, 2009 — 9:43 am
Karen Highland says:
I think that the good in us has always come from the grassroots, the folks. As government becomes more and more the answer in people’s minds, we are in danger of loosing that good. Governments are not intrinsically good, especially as they grow in power, in spite of what we are being told by the government wonks who want to perpetuate more government. The more they grow, the more they are designed to serve their own need for continuance, often at the cost of what is really good for the people. The only ‘good’ government is limited government. 8000 years of human history should be enough to prove it to us, but alas, it hasn’t.
February 14, 2009 — 1:15 pm