Mayor Brandon Johnson said that any Chicagoans who voted “no” on the Bring Chicago Home referendum “are the same people who want to see Donald Trump become president again.” That is an insult to those of us who saw this proposed change in the real estate transfer tax as nothing more than a poorly-thought-out tax increase that would allow City Hall bureaucrats to unilaterally decide how to spend our money on needed housing.
Johnson’s ill-advised attempt to conflate support for Trump with opposition to a tax increase is shameful and just another example of his inability to govern effectively.
— Kevin Garvey, Chicago
Mayor should take responsibility
There are not enough Republicans left in Chicago to staff a firehouse or work on a Chicago Police Department homicide team. Yet Mayor Brandon Johnson is laying the blame on Republicans for the defeat of his signature Bring Chicago Home tax hike.
Johnson went out of his way after the primary election to pin the blame on Chicago‘s GOP voters and in the process also blame Donald Trump for the initiative’s loss.
Johnson failed to note the real reason for his loss: Many Democrats didn’t buy into a tax hike either. It would hurt the business climate here.
The mayor should take responsibility. It was his tax measure.
— Bruce R. Hovanec, Chicago
Goodbye to Blommer Chocolate Co.
Blommer’s, thank you for the memories. It is sad to see you go.
I work in an office in the West Loop and frequently visited the small retail outlet at Blommer’s on my lunchtime walks. My objective was the purchase of milk chocolate chunks packaged in 1-pound bags. The bags had a bare minimum of information: date packaged, weight and price. No list of ingredients, no warning label about the manufacturing facility, no calories per serving. I would typically purchase 2 pounds for personal consumption and would frequently buy as many as 4 or 5 pounds for family or friends.
We had a dinner party once in which chunks of Blommer chocolate were the featured dessert. I got so spoiled by the freshness of the chocolate (it was generally packaged that day or the day before) that I wouldn’t make a purchase if the bag was dated more than two days prior.
Of course, the retail outlet closed a couple of years ago, but the longing has lingered.
Just last Saturday, my brother and I were kayaking the Chicago River, taking in that great chocolate smell from the factory, pining away for just one more plastic bag of milk chocolate chunks.
Blommer’s, you will be missed.
— Thomas E. Doyle, Batavia
Immigration law falls to Congress
Sunday’s editorial “The states dive deep into immigration. This cannot stand.” raises a basic and important point. Congress has the responsibility either to fund full enforcement of existing federal law or to change the law — for immigration and for anything else. That clearly means members of Congress should not whine, complain and blame anybody else while avoiding taking any action themselves.
It also does not empower any state authority to override, violate, enforce or reinterpret federal law.
Yes, it’s that straightforward.
— Bill Page, Morton Grove
Incoherent immigration policy
The Sunday editorial on immigration leaves me confused.
Why, on the one hand, may Democrat-led cities such as Chicago decline “to cooperate in enforcing (immigration) laws with which many of their leaders disagreed philosophically,” but a state like Texas, on the other hand, may not enforce laws against trespass and illegal entry, considering it has a national border with Mexico?
Either federal immigration laws and enforcement procedures take precedence over state laws and local “philosophies,” or they do not. A nation of laws cannot long survive if national laws are not enforced uniformly and fairly without regard to one’s agreement or disagreement with them.
In particular, an immigration system that permits some states and cities to encourage illegal immigration while prohibiting other states from discouraging illegal immigration is not a coherent immigration policy at all.
— David L. Applegate, Huntley
Social media as public squares
Social media platforms should be viewed as public squares in which individuals are allowed to express their opinions provided that the opinions do not violate the law (threatening violence, inciting violence, etc.). There should be no policing of so-called factual accuracy. Freedom of incorrect or mistaken speech is just as constitutionally protected as factually accurate speech.
Any communications by government to social media executives and personnel should be publicly disclosed and accessible to all. Annually, social media providers should be required to publish their content moderation policies. Also, amendments to content moderation policies should be made public upon effective date of such changes.
If the government disagrees with content being posted, the original content, if not criminal, should remain and the government’s response should be added to the content.
— David Clark, Libertyville
Reaction to ‘Fiddler on the Roof’
I attended a recent performance of the musical “Fiddler on the Roof” at Drury Lane Theatre. I’ve probably seen a dozen or more performances of this memorable piece of theater since its debut in 1964 and always felt very positive about the message it gives. It speaks about the modern struggle to preserve tradition in the face of our changing society. Also, its reception by audiences offered reassurance about the appreciation they held for the struggles of the Jewish community in the context of the 1905 Russian Revolution setting of the play.
But that was then, post-World War II, post-Holocaust, since the establishment of the state of Israel and the seeming acceptance of Jews into the American mainstream.
Now, especially post-Oct. 7, my reaction to this play was very different from past performances. I had this feeling of deja vu: Are we reliving the old prejudices revived on a national and global scale? In the current context of rising national antisemitism, global antisemitism and attempts to delegitimize the state of Israel, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to see another performance of “Fiddler” again without being haunted by the question: “Will history repeat itself?”
I want to thank the producers of this performance publicly for having the courage to stage it in these times, especially when we’re seeing other Jewish performances shut down by protests, such as a recent Matisyahu concert in Chicago. I’ve sent the theater a letter to that effect.
I hope the theater’s courage, and that of the people who chose to attend, is a sign that the forces of religious tolerance in our society still have support in many quarters.
— Michael Horowitz, Skokie
View of Medicare Advantage plans
Barbara Friedman’s letter (“Medicare at risk from Trump,” March 23) suggests that “Medicare Advantage plans regularly deny coverage for essential treatments and services, forcing patients to forgo the care they need.”
I don’t see how that is possible when Medicare Advantage plans are required at a minimum to cover what Original Medicare covers. Maybe I’m missing something?
I know many retirees who are very happy with their Medicare Advantage plans and many who are happy with Original Medicare plus a supplemental policy.
— Sharon Joseph, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.