awesome news for lincoln park (Chicago, Cicero: foreclosed, schools, gated communities)

[jdiddy]

Why are we pretending nurses can't afford Lincoln Park? I know a few of them who live there.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Why are we pretending nurses can't afford Lincoln Park? I know a few of them who live there.

B+ strawman

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by Aleking

B+ strawman

I'm just saying, its wierd you guys have become fixated on nurses being the showcase profession needing rental subsidies to make it in Lincoln Park.

They make good money.

[Chi-town Native]

All fair points. All I'd add is that neighborhoods do change, though. When Children's Memorial opened in Lincoln Park I highly doubt they could have anticipated how it would look today.

They are perhaps not the best example as it's certainly true they're moving in an even more expensive area, and as nurses do make decent coin.

But all that said - it's not like wealthy developers aren't getting subsidized out the wazoo on a regular basis (and the connected ones always have been), I'm not sure this is really some massive misuse of government funding.

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

This doesn't make sense. Children's Hospital (or whatever hospital, it doesn't matter which) CHOSE to locate themselves in Lincoln Park and now Streeterville. They CHOSE to place their facility in expensive, inaccessible locations. They made a business decision to place that hospital where it is, it was no accident. So now why is the public being asked to subsidize their inability to get low-wage people to work there? Instead of asking the public to provide cheap housing in the neighborhood, Children's Hospital should be paying their nurses and janitors a higher wage, to convince them to travel to their faciity instead of a hospital with a better location. It's not as if Children's is the only hospital in Chicagoland.


Of course the janitors and the nurses are important. Again, Children's made a business decision to locate themselves where they are. I guarantee you they thought about the impact their move would have on all their current employees, and on their ability to attract new employees. I also guarantee that Children's management decided that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. So let them live with their decision, why should the public be asked to build affordable housing so that Children's can have a "company town" near their facility?


Bingo! Until I see Section 8 holders in Glencoe and Hinsdale, until I see affordable housing being built in significant numbers in Winnetka and Barrington Hills, until that happens I know it's all a joke and no one has any real intent to make a difference. Yes, I will admit to having a NIMBY attitude, until I see EVERYONE taking a bite of the bitter apple. If I some communities getting away without it, then yes I'm going to try to join them.

[eevee]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

I'm just saying, its wierd you guys have become fixated on nurses being the showcase profession needing rental subsidies to make it in Lincoln Park.

They make good money.

Not all of them make good money. It highly depends on their specialty and experience. Similar to teachers out there-some make over $60K/yr and some don't top $35K/yr.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by eevee

Not all of them make good money. It highly depends on their specialty and experience. Similar to teachers out there-some make over $60K/yr and some don't top $35K/yr.

Right - I have a good friend who is a nurse at a small private facility in Lake View, they do work *for* a major hospital via contract, so are paid much poorer than the nurses at a Masonic or Children's. There are a lot more of these types of places than you'd ever imagine.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

I'm just saying, its wierd you guys have become fixated on nurses being the showcase profession needing rental subsidies to make it in Lincoln Park.

They make good money.

No one was fixated, it was thrown out as a profession where there are probably workers making under the percentage of the neighborhood median income...which it is...and therefore eligible for the housing.

It was simply used as context for those who think anytime of low-income housing = free ride for unemployed crack heads.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Aleking

No one was fixated, it was thrown out as a profession where there are probably workers making under the percentage of the neighborhood median income...which it is...and therefore eligible for the housing.

It was simply used as context for those who think anytime of low-income housing = free ride for unemployed crack heads.

Exactly. You have a woman with one kid making $40K. The AMI is over $76K, voila, you have a qualified renter below 60% of AMI.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by Aleking

No one was fixated, it was thrown out as a profession where there are probably workers making under the percentage of the neighborhood median income...which it is...and therefore eligible for the housing.

It was simply used as context for those who think anytime of low-income housing = free ride for unemployed crack heads.

The internet tells me Chicago area RN's average 68k a year. Of the nurses I know, sounds about right.

It's not that I think this plan will bring unemployed crackheads to Lincoln Park, although others might. Its that if this means the City has to pay the developer (or sacrifice property taxes ) to subsidize rental units, its a poor use of money. A single mom making 40k can find safe and affordable neighborhoods in Chicago, just not in Lincoln Park (unless said mom sacrifices space and/or amenities for location like the rest of us).

I'd rather the tax money be spent on improving the areas where most residents making 40k or less are living, than paying for a few (10!) schmoes to live in an a new luxury building just so an alderman can crow about 'affordable housing' (right before they complain about and prevent density of the next development, thereby constraining supply and raising prices further).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

The internet tells me Chicago area RN's average 68k a year. Of the nurses I know, sounds about right.

It's not that I think this plan will bring unemployed crackheads to Lincoln Park, although others might. Its that if this means the City has to pay the developer (or sacrifice property taxes ) to subsidize rental units, its a poor use of money. A single mom making 40k can find safe and affordable neighborhoods in Chicago, just not in Lincoln Park (unless said mom sacrifices space and/or amenities for location like the rest of us).

I'd rather the tax money be spent on improving the areas where most residents making 40k or less are living, than paying for a few (10!) schmoes to live in an a new luxury building just so an alderman can crow about 'affordable housing' (right before they complain about and prevent density of the next development, thereby constraining supply and raising prices further).

Is there tax money being spent on this project?