Some special interests in Chicago are pushing Ald. Brendan Reilly and Mayor Brandon Johnson to close Clark Street for outdoor dining this summer. Reilly and Johnson should reject this concession.
Those interests include the adjacent restaurants and the new-to-the-scene Strong Towns Chicago. The group touts the few who favor such a closing but ignore the thousands who drive downtown on Clark Street every day.
Clark is a southbound, three-lane, one-way arterial street. To the west, LaSalle Street is two lanes south. Closing Clark decreases the flow of traffic. The city is righty fixated on the survival of downtown, so why put a tourniquet on circulation to that vital area?
If the logic of closing Clark is valid, why not close all streets feeding downtown? They all have restaurants. What makes Clark special?
Keep in mind that granting the use of public property for private use is a concession. Those using it must pay for it, and we assume that the restaurants that would use Clark would do so, although we have no idea how much they might pay. Other concessions of recent memory have not turned out so well. Remember the parking meter concession, the parking under Millennium Park and the closings of streets surrounding Grant Park for the NSACAR races? Oh, and Meigs Field was closed and for what?
Other big cities have independent commissions to provide an element of fairness to concession decisions. Not Chicago. Concessions are decided in the dark and arbitrarily. When benefits are concentrated on private interests at public expense this way, it is a soft form of the corruption that we know so well.
Instead of the flowery language from Strong Towns, let’s get some hard cost benefit analysis from an independent party. The costs must include the congestion on alternative routes caused by this displacement. Then, with these figures in hand, let’s put this to a vote by the City Council or the voters in the next election.
I write as an individual, but neighborhood groups have already come out opposed to the closing. Don’t get fooled by this bad idea.
— Ed Bachrach, Chicago
Migrant care at city shelters
I was gratified to read in the April 5 Tribune (“Loop revitalization gets needed boost”) that Mayor Brandon Johnson is continuing his predecessor’s initiative to redevelop unused LaSalle Street office towers into mixed income housing and that he is taking the lead in pressing President Joe Biden’s administration to expedite work permits for recent migrants. These are the sorts of sensible progressive policies I thought I was voting for.
But then I read of how a 5-year-old Venezuelan girl, burning with fever, could not get to the hospital promptly because city shelter staff told her father (who can’t work) that he would have to pay for the ambulance (“Officials confirm migrant TB cases”). Surely our mayor, who exudes decency, did not and would not approve such a cruel and counterproductive policy.
I hope the Tribune will get to the bottom of this issue. Did shelter staff correctly state the policy? If not, what are the consequences? If so, does this include city Fire Department ambulances? Is it possible that the shelter operator’s contract gives the operator a financial disincentive to allow ambulance access?
All of us were once 5 years old; many of us, including our leaders, have had children of that age. No kid that age should experience such unnecessary torment.
— Andrew S. Mine, Chicago
Experiences with VA health care
My Veterans Affairs health care experiences differ from those of letter writer Sara Bargo (“Healthcare for veterans,” April 13). I have been served by facilities in Chicago and, for the last seven years, the VA facility in Milwaukee. The VA system mandates a yearly physical with your primary doctor. I schedule mine for 9 a.m. and am typically in the exam room at 8:50.
At the yearly exam, your general health care is discussed, as are your lab results, and any further treatment by a specialist is scheduled. My experience has been that I see a specialist (dermatologist, orthopedic doctor) within two weeks.
The VA does outsource certain procedures. I have had two such procedures. Each time, I was contacted the day after my VA appointment and scheduled for the outpatient service within two weeks. Once, on vacation, I had a minor concern, went to a VA clinic and was referred to a specialist who saw me that same day.
While each area or region may have different issues, my experience has been nothing less than wonderful. The staff is polite, thorough and happy to answer questions.
Last, we must remember that the VA is at the mercy of Congress for funding. If unhappy with the availability of service, your U.S. representative should be contacted.
— Bill O’Connor, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
Difference between shootings
Regarding the editorial “It’s 76 shots that are hard for today’s Chicago to talk about, but that kill a kid just the same” (April 17): It shouldn’t be too difficult to assess the stark difference between law enforcement killing a suspect in a hail of 96 bullets — as was deemed necessary by the five officers who confronted Dexter Reed — and criminals firing 76 shots into a gathering of people.
One is a shooting involving officers of the law operating under the banner of authority; the other is a criminal mass shooting. Interesting that the officers, purportedly trained in the use of firearms, shot more rounds in Reed’s case than the criminals did in their burst of violence. Progressives aren’t confused about this difference at all, and oddly enough, we expect better of trained officers than we do of criminals.
This editorial fails to recognize that it is the progressives who are begging for gun control and have been doing so for decades. This is our “outrage” response to the outrageous murder and suicide rates in our nation. Does it need to be pointed out that gun control laws would also better protect law enforcement officers? Apparently so.
I guess gun control is a very unpopular notion, whereas a tough-on-crime approach is still deemed more effective in spite of continued proof that it really isn’t. All this after-the-fact management of violent crime isn’t bringing anyone back from the dead or back on their feet after debilitating firearm injuries.
— Bethia Sheean-Wallace, Morton Grove
Injuries to White Sox players
First it was Eloy Jimenez racing to first, suddenly wincing, then limping the rest of the way. Then it was Luis Robert Jr. Then Yoan Moncada. Shouldn’t the training regimens for top White Sox hitters be aligned to support, not sabotage, their professional responsibilities, such as explosive sprints to first?
First, do no (more) harm. Lock the training and weight room doors until regimens whose results have been so destructive have been shredded and replaced.
— Joan Pederson, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.