My fundamental problem with the “Bring Chicago Home” proposal is that it is only half a proposal. Sure, it’s proposing a way to get money to address the broader community need for affordable housing and to tackle the issues of homelessness. (Affordable housing and homelessness are not the same thing. Look it up online to understand the distinction in meaning and public policy.)
I agree that we have an affordable housing problem and homelessness problem in our community. I’m of the belief that society as a whole, through government, can and should address such problems in a community. But how is the city going to use that money?
I don’t need a final solution, but is it too much to ask for the policymakers to at least offer some options of what they are considering to use the money for?
Here’s the thing. If I proposed raising my condo association’s assessments to address problems in the building, you had better bet no one would approve such an increase without me showing folks what that money is going toward. I see representative government in the same way. Representatives we elect have a responsibility not only to identify issues that need more money to address on behalf of all of us, but they also need to provide tangible answers of how they will do it and how they’ll use that money.
I’ve been listening very carefully to our local leaders for quite some time with respect to the Bring Chicago Home proposal, and I’ve not heard one legitimate response on how that money will be used.
For that reason alone, I can’t support it.
— Mary Friedlieb, Chicago
Editorial board does disservice
I must protest the recent Tribune editorial comparing “Bring Chicago Home” with the effort to reverse Chicago’s sanctuary city status (“No, the court decision against ‘Bring Chicago Home’ was not voter suppression a la Jim Crow,” Feb. 28). The reason Mayor Brandon Johnson and others resort to unfortunate rhetoric about voter suppression in this case is because the City Council, ostensibly representing Chicago voters, approved putting the Bring Chicago Home referendum on the ballot by a 32-17 vote. In contrast to the judicial rejection of this representative-backed vote, the attempt to put anti-sanctuary city language on the ballot failed in the same council by a vote of 16-31.
Thus, it is malfeasance by the Tribune Editorial Board to suggest that Johnson’s disparate preferences on these issues means he is playing politics with his statements about democracy. One effort overwhelmingly passed the council only to be rejected by a single judge (who gave no specific reasoning in her judgment), while the other was heartily rejected by that same council, the city’s key democratic body.
These initiatives cannot, and should not, be compared.
— Gus Haffner, Chicago
Chicagoans need more details
The mailer I received from the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless about the now-delayed Bring Chicago Home initiative lacks the specificity needed to make an informed decision. It does not tell me how much money is expected to be raised or who will decide how to spend it. There should be a prioritized list of projects. Managing this project as a business means telling voters how much money is expected to be raised and who specifically will decide how the money will be spent — appoint them now. (“A proposed community-led advisory board” is not definitive.)
My support is very dependent upon who will make these decisions. What — at least in concept — will be done with the money? Prioritize it as “what, where and when.” In other words, apply the funds to a list of projects; don’t just scatter the money around the city. Tackle the list in order and take it as far down as the money will support.
And how does this plan fit or overlap with the intended projects in the mayor’s new $1.25 billion neighborhood development proposal?
— Elliott Fredland, Chicago
Op-ed on food additives flawed
It’s one thing for a Tribune op-ed writer to call on the Food and Drug Administration to improve its review of food ingredients. It is another thing entirely to indicate that U.S. food manufacturers are intentionally putting toxic ingredients into the food supply. This kind of language destroys consumer trust in our food system, which is one of the safest in the world.
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias says titanium dioxide should be banned because European Union regulators said it was unsafe (“5 additives in ultraprocessed food put Illinoisans at risk,” Feb. 22). But an important question has been overlooked: How much titanium dioxide would you have to eat to reach the genotoxicity levels used by EU food safety regulators? With estimates based on the assumption that titanium dioxide is used at the maximum level permitted by the FDA —1% by weight of food — you’d have to eat 318 pizza rolls per day, every day, for three years or 246 mini-powdered donuts per day, every day, for three years.
Yet the op-ed would lead consumers to believe that there is a systematic failure on behalf of the U.S. food safety system.
All color additives must be approved by the FDA without exception. The FDA is currently reviewing red dye No. 3 and other additives with results expected this year. In the case of brominated vegetable oil, the FDA conducted its own studies and has initiated steps to remove the oil from the U.S. food supply. This is how our food safety system was designed to work, and it’s a real-time example of it working.
Highly regarded food agencies from the U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have confirmed that titanium dioxide is safe to use in food.
Those who do not have expertise in food safety should leave these science-based regulatory decisions to the experts. Usurping the FDA’s authority does nothing but create a state-by-state patchwork of inconsistent requirements that increase food costs, create confusion around food safety and erode consumer confidence.
— John Downs, President and CEO, National Confectioners Association
Launch of new Metra fares
Where was the Metra administration and board during the planning for the commuter rail agency’s new payment system? Cubic, designer of the Ventra app, is being “nice” in accepting blame, but it doesn’t fit. When a major system is being replaced, it is logical that no amount of testing can offer 100% reliability. So when available, and it certainly seems so in this case, one would run the old and new systems parallel for a final testing phase before full implementation.
It would seem that that was not done in this case, and we should ask why.
— Michael Papierniak, Oak Park
Wildlife offers weather clues
With Tom Skilling no longer providing us Chicagoans with forecasting expertise, I’ve turned to the local wildlife for clues.
The squirrels in my yard have been particularly feisty, and the volume of the morning chorus of bird songs seems to be escalating — coupled with the recent warm weather, all indicators of possibly an early spring.
But for me, the clincher was a recent mass of honking geese swirling over my South Side home that eventually formed into their typical phalanx before heading north by northwest to Canada’s summer breeding grounds. Now if they just don’t do a U-turn.
— Michael P. Walsh, Chicago
Teaching anger management
For years, I thought there should be family life education in elementary schools. Now, in light of all the shootings in our nation, I think conflict resolution and anger management should also be taught in elementary schools. Not only should they be taught, but they also should be taught early.
— Alice Marcus Solovy, Highland Park