Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colorado Springs (pop. 400,000 or so) has found a novel way to close their budget gap, by largely eliminating all city services, except for police, fire and education. Even in those areas there are significant cutbacks, though.
Some of their ideas are impractical for Chicago, such as shutting off a third of the streetlights. Obviously well lit streets help keep a big city safe. However, some of their ideas may have merit for Chicago. For instance, the city will no longer maintain neighborhood parks. If local residents want the grass cut or garbage picked up, they are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers and trash bags. Why not do this in Chicago (obviously not for the large parks). Not only would it save the city money, but it should encourage a sense of neighborhood pride and responsibility.
Any other ideas on how the city can reduce services by handing over responsibility to neighborhood residents?
Cutting out little things like park cleanup seems like a way to greatly inconvenience the lives of many while trimming a minimal amount of money from the budget.
Any other ideas on how the city can reduce services by handing over responsibility to neighborhood residents?
You do understand that an enormous number of 'neighborhood residents' in Chicago have absolutely zero concept of civic responsibility, right?
This isn't Colorado Springs. Chicago is an huge urban metroplex with a largely post-industrial city-center that happens to be populated by a majority of people who consume and demand profoundly more than they produce and contribute. Were it not for the tax base provided by the businesses who were shanghaied here before the city 'changed', Chicago would have gone down the same path as Gary, Detroit or Buffalo... Still, the same "factors" that turned Gary into Gary, Detroit into Detroit and Buffalo into Buffalo are in play in Chicago- the idea that those "factors" would ever go out and take care of their own neighborhood services is absurd. Those neighborhoods are already wastelands WITH city services.
Something as simple as picking up the trash in your yard or not throwing your Burger King bag out the window is a totally foreign concept to these people... and you think they're going to muster-up and start weeding the very parks that have long since been abandoned to gangs and crack dealers since none of the 'neighborhood residents' ever used them in any productive or recreational capacity in the first place? Ain't gunna happen... Yeah, sure, "If only everyone just got together and did their part, the world would be a better place!" There ain't no rainbows in Roseland.
I'm aware of all that, which is exactly why I think this might be a good idea. If the people in a given neighborhood don't care that their neighborhood park is a weed strewn garbage dump, it only affects them. Why should the city spend scarce resources to maintain it? And let's not turn this into a racial issue. Yes, it is a fact that the neighborhoods in this city that look like wastelands are African American. I can see that there is skepticism about the residents of those neighborhoods making additional efforts to maintain their community. However, you do have plenty black neighborhoods where people do care about the condition of their community, and in some of the most impoverished neighborhoods there are active church based community groups that might welcome a chance to give their young members something productive to do during the summer.
you should check out Palmer Park on 111th in Roseland. It's huge and pretty beautiful (a few BK bags notwithstanding). For kicks I took a trip there early one morning for a brisk walk followed by a scan of the paper. You'd be surprised.
Wow, I'm really surprised Colo. Springs is so blind to what this is going to lead to. That just sounds like the worst idea possible, regardless of how awful it would be for Chicago.
Taking away all civic care for parks and having well kept public spaces is just going to lead to neighborhoods getting trashed out even more.
People learn and tend to replecate resonsibility and keep things clean when they see how clean places already are. Of course not everyone, but that's a natural "flow" of action and reaction. If you see trashed out parks and litter everywhere - well then it's going to be much more acceptable for you to litter and not care about your surroundings.
If a general concensus from government and officials is that litter and trash are ok, streetlights are fine if they're not working, police and fire is reduced, services are curbed, that's just going to rub off on people.
I was reading a few weeks ago about what Colo. Springs is doing, and how most experts and views are it's going to be pretty devestating to that area.
Interesting. I actually like the idea. Of course Colorado Springs is a very particular sort of place (nothing like what we're used to here, or even Denver for that matter). It could work for them.
Regardless I like that it addresses the issue head on -- if you can't afford something, you can't have it. This is reality. More individuals and municipalities need to think this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614
Wow, I'm really surprised Colo. Springs is so blind to what this is going to lead to. That just sounds like the worst idea possible, regardless of how awful it would be for Chicago.
Taking away all civic care for parks and having well kept public spaces is just going to lead to neighborhoods getting trashed out even more.
People learn and tend to replecate resonsibility and keep things clean when they see how clean places already are. Of course not everyone, but that's a natural "flow" of action and reaction. If you see trashed out parks and litter everywhere - well then it's going to be much more acceptable for you to litter and not care about your surroundings.
If a general concensus from government and officials is that litter and trash are ok, streetlights are fine if they're not working, police and fire is reduced, services are curbed, that's just going to rub off on people.
I was reading a few weeks ago about what Colo. Springs is doing, and how most experts and views are it's going to be pretty devestating to that area.
maybe if this was a little town where the majority of the residents were homeowners so had more investment in the town (as opposed to renters who are very transient and will up and leave the second an area no longer suits them), maybe if it was a town small enough where residents who weren't doing their fair share could be held accountable by their neighbors, then maybe I could see this work. but never in Chicago.
anyone remember winter? I don't know about your neighborhood, but in my area, a lot of people didn't bother shoveling their portion of the sidewalk and no one bothered to clear off the sidewalk past their building. people used old bits of furniture as. you can walk by one apartment where the front yard is spotless and the next is strewn w/ trash. people around here won't even pick up their dog's poop. there are a few home, condo owners and renters who give a damn, but also a lot them who don't give a damn. this is just on one block, I doubt these same people would be willing to come together and weed whack Humboldt Park. the frustration of lazy neighbors and things not getting done would just drive out the few renters and owners who care, leading to further ruin.
and I don't think this will just be an issue w/ poor black neighborhoods. I think people are spoiled by the fact that the city already does these things. I can't imagine the large student population in Lincoln Park getting up early Sunday morning to help clean up trash (why would they care? most will move out w/in 4 years and never look back). unless you have a real stake in the area in terms of owning property there, I don't see many people beyond green hipsters and environmentalists caring enough to put in a solid effort, especially on a volunteer basis
Last edited by eevee; 03-14-2010 at 10:42 AM..
Reason: sp
Interesting. I actually like the idea. Of course Colorado Springs is a very particular sort of place (nothing like what we're used to here, or even Denver for that matter). It could work for them.
Regardless I like that it addresses the issue head on -- if you can't afford something, you can't have it. This is reality. More individuals and municipalities need to think this way.
Municipalities do think this way but the truth is it does not take much to move something from affordable to unfordable. For instance the slowed economy hurts both the people and the city itself through lower tax revenues. This is reason for the CTA cuts and cuts in general. When the economy booms you have more revenue to play with. During the 90ies the combination of the baby boomer's not yet able to retire and a good economy lead Chicago to even have a budget surplus for a few years. Also people resent having surpluses in general which leads to either lower taxes, or refunding the surplus(remember Bush....), or not using it effectively(if the city had saved more for pensions in the past it would be in a better shape). It is human nature given the number of people filling bankruptcy while very few municipalities do.
This is a great way to lower taxes, but lower taxes might not be possible, ideal or a good idea in all situations. For instance where I live now most people can afford to pay a guy to shovel the snow and mow the lawn. Where I used to live fewer people could pay, or were willing to pay(low income renters that would move at the drop of an hat) and some of the people were less able to do so(elderly...).
In a place where either everyone can do the service themselves or afford to get it done. Then it might make sense to cut it. However I don't know about you, but the idea of cleaning a park when I need to clean my yard(or after doing so) does not appeal esp. after work. In fact I think this is the reasons why governments took on the services because it was not efficient for the people to do so.
I don't disagree with you for the most part. At least, I don't think it is clear cut, all one way or all the other -- it's obviously a subtle balance and no one can claim to know with certainty where to draw the line. One thing that you leave out though and that I always come back to -- municipalities have no strong incentive to be efficient. Thus, it is always hard to believe that there isn't a huge amount of waste between what one pays and what one gets. Thus, I tend to lean toward the side of "no more than is absolutely necessary". I agree that some things fall in that category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Municipalities do think this way but the truth is it does not take much to move something from affordable to unfordable. For instance the slowed economy hurts both the people and the city itself through lower tax revenues. This is reason for the CTA cuts and cuts in general. When the economy booms you have more revenue to play with. During the 90ies the combination of the baby boomer's not yet able to retire and a good economy lead Chicago to even have a budget surplus for a few years. Also people resent having surpluses in general which leads to either lower taxes, or refunding the surplus(remember Bush....), or not using it effectively(if the city had saved more for pensions in the past it would be in a better shape). It is human nature given the number of people filling bankruptcy while very few municipalities do.
This is a great way to lower taxes, but lower taxes might not be possible, ideal or a good idea in all situations. For instance where I live now most people can afford to pay a guy to shovel the snow and mow the lawn. Where I used to live fewer people could pay, or were willing to pay(low income renters that would move at the drop of an hat) and some of the people were less able to do so(elderly...).
In a place where either everyone can do the service themselves or afford to get it done. Then it might make sense to cut it. However I don't know about you, but the idea of cleaning a park when I need to clean my yard(or after doing so) does not appeal esp. after work. In fact I think this is the reasons why governments took on the services because it was not efficient for the people to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There ain't no rainbows in Roseland.
