One positive thing that came from the pandemic was the expansion of outdoor dining. As restaurants lined the street with tables and patrons flocked to socialize safely, we were able to turn our car-congested roads into mini public squares. These programs were incredibly popular and continue to be even now that the pandemic has (mostly) subsided.
Despite this, the city has signaled that the outdoor dining program will not be renewed in River North for this summer. While Ald. Brendan Reilly and city officials continue to point fingers at each other on social media and obfuscate who is really responsible for this decision, Chicagoans’ frustration grows.
At Strong Towns Chicago, we launched a petition to reclaim this stretch of Clark Street for pedestrians. In under 24 hours, it garnered 1,000-plus signatures. Despite some loud noise from select neighborhood groups, Chicagoans overwhelmingly support outdoor dining. We see the vibrancy it brings to River North, the additional revenue it provides to local business and the sustainability it promotes by making us less reliant on cars.
Chicago has a reputation for being one of the best food cities in the world. But we will maintain this reputation only if we create the conditions that allow restaurants to flourish. Foodies vacation in European cities, in part, because these pedestrian-friendly cities allow you to walk from restaurant to restaurant without crossing a dangerous intersection. Let’s extend these conditions to Chicago and ensure outdoor dining isn’t just a relic of the pandemic.
Let’s prioritize reclaiming our public spaces for people, not vehicles.
— Aaron F. Feldman, Strong Towns, Chicago
Keep the ban on video gambling
Chicago should not lift its ban on video gaming machines. Until the state and city started promoting gambling with the lottery and now casinos, most people avoided gambling. I have boycotted the lottery from the beginning as a tax on the poor.
We don’t need more gambling addicts. Aren’t there enough ways for desperate people to waste their few dollars already?
— Muriel Balla, Chicago
CPS plan for the next pandemic?
I’m writing on April Fool’s Day, but I’m not kidding when I refer to “the next pandemic.” It’s out there, even if we don’t know what it will be or when it will strike.
So what is Chicago Public Schools doing right now to prepare for it?
We have ample evidence of how damaging prolonged school closings were to children’s academic, social and emotional states. Online learning was a stopgap measure at best.
We can’t let our children down again.
— Hannah Metzger, Chicago
Mayor wrong about opposition
Has it crossed Mayor Brandon Johnson’s mind that many of those who voted against his Bring Chicago Home initiative care just as much as he does about social issues but simply believe his solutions either won’t work or will, in the long run, work to actually hurt the city and those he seeks to help?
Based on his comments that anyone who opposed the referendum or him is somehow bad, we know his answer. But remember, he’s the supposedly open-minded, tolerant, progressive one, right? Please.
— William Choslovsky, Chicago
Grossly underestimating voters
I read Isabelle Dienstag’s op-ed lamenting the loss of Bring Chicago Home and other progressive tax plans that would fund the programs that progressives deem to be important (“Why progressives keep losing the battle to tax the rich,” April 2).
In searching for her answer as to why these tax proposals keep getting voted down by the public, Dienstag doesn’t realize her answer is right there in her own words she put to paper: “People might not love the idea of voting in favor of a tax — even one that benefits them — but they really don’t like siding with people who’ve hustled them, and close to 53% of voters were hustled.” (Meaning that the real estate lobby hustled voters.)
So Dienstag thinks voters aren’t smart enough to listen to both sides and then make an informed decision.
She and other progressives know what’s best for us; we can’t figure it out.
If she really wants to figure out why progressives keep losing the “tax the rich” battle, she should start with her own dismissive attitude toward voters whom she doesn’t think very highly of. Then maybe progressives’ fortunes will change.
— Tony LaMantia, Chicago
Origins of ‘liberal media’ slam
Kathleen Janessa (“Why allow media stars a say?” March 29) ends her complaint about how NBC News makes personnel decisions with: “The liberal media feel their opinions are gospel and woe to those who disagree. What a shame!”
The history of the term “liberal media” is interesting. I heard a report last year about how Southern segregationists in the 1960s did not like coverage of the civil rights movement by the news media outside their region. I remember seeing such coverage in Life magazine. This report gave me a hunch to check.
For years, Google has been scanning publications that are held in libraries. It provides an online tool called the Ngram Viewer with which one can inquire about how often a word or group of words has appeared, over time, in print.
I went to the Ngram Viewer and entered “liberal media.” What I learned was that the term appeared in print in the mid-1960s, almost coinciding with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is not a large leap to conclude that the segregationists understood that they were losing power and at least partially blamed the news media for it.
Did they accuse the news media of lying? Not with any credibility, they didn’t. Their complaint was that the truth was making them look bad, so they did not want that truth to be known.
So it is now. Complaints about liberal media are almost never accompanied by specific examples of untruths that can be examined. “Liberal media” is a rubber-stamp slogan that is wielded in protest of the dissemination of information that undermines the narrative of its wielder. This attempt to discredit a source has the aroma of what some call “cancel culture.”
Truth is neither liberal nor conservative, but Fox News is the only organization with “News” in its name that I am aware of that has been ordered to pay about three-quarters of a billion dollars (in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit) for being economical with the truth.
— Curt Fredrikson, Mokena, Illinois
Don’t publicize balloon releases
Shame on the Tribune for the front-page coverage (“‘An assault on the very fabric of our community,’” March 16) of yet another balloon release. The Tribune missed the perfect teaching moment by not providing facts about how devastating balloons are to the environment and all wildlife. They should be illegal.
As other letter writers have written in the past, how ironic that by this act of “honoring” a murdered loved one, animals die when the balloons, with attached ribbons, end up in our forest preserves, rivers, lakes and oceans and wrap around wings and wind up in stomachs.
There are gentler ways to pay tribute, such as releasing flower petals or soap bubbles, planting a wildflower garden or tree, or volunteering for a worthy cause that would be worthy of coverage.
If the Tribune and other news media would stop publicizing them, our environment, the animals and I would be eternally grateful.
— Christine Adams, Joliet
Balloon releases cause harm
Balloon releases at ceremonies for grieving families should be reconsidered.
Balloons contribute to our plastic pollution problem. Although balloons take only moments to release, they could take hundreds of years to degrade. Over time, these balloon pieces get smaller and smaller and eventually turn into microplastics. Balloons also harm marine life because they’re often ingested by animals.
Hopefully, families can find a more environmentally friendly way to show their sadness.
— Tom Ruggero, Crystal Lake
Submit a letter to the editor, of no more than 400 words, by emailing letters@chicagotribune.com. To review our criteria, click here.