The Chainlink

Tunney wants MORE cars in Lakeview...

For those of us who live in Lakeview or end up there pretty often, the amount of car traffic there can be pretty awful. This was sent to me, and it seems like it's a pretty crappy deal by an alderman that I thought would be more in favor of reducing traffic in his turf:

Alderman Tom Tunney is negotiating with the Cubs, and he wants more parking -- as much as 20 percent of Wrigley Field's capacity.*  Many of us feel Lakeview has enough cars on our streets already, and we would rather see investments in bicycling, transit, shuttles and sidewalks instead to serve residents and visitors.  Do you agree?
Please sign the petition TODAY and send this message to Alderman Tunney and the Cubs.  The Cubs have set a deadline of Monday, April 1 for an agreement around renovations, parking, and more.  They need to hear our voice.

Thanks!

Views: 3248

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on April 7, 2013 at 10:25pm

I always thought it was Niemoller.

h' 1.0 said:

First they came for the Loop,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Loop dweller.

Then they came for  River North,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a River North dweller.

Then they came for Lakeview,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Lakeview resident.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Ghandi

Permalink Reply by David P. on April 8, 2013 at 8:54am

We here on the Chainlink should always practice the buddy system for safety (especially against trolls on bridges!) Not that Adam will complain about this... (sorry Adam, I couldn't resist giving you a little bit of a hard time about that :) )

Kevin C said:

Is this parking garage the only thing standing in the way of your otherwise idyllic existence in Wrigleyville? And at the risk of running afoul of the Chainlink Community Discussion Rules, "Buddy this."

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Kevin C said:

Wrigleyville has been dead to me for at least 10 years. Why exactly should I be concerned if it becomes a little more dead?

Because some people actually live in the area (shocker, I know) and don't want more cars clogging up the neighborhood. Way to be totally selfish here, buddy.
Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on April 8, 2013 at 9:55am

I'm not your buddy, guy!

David P. said:

We here on the Chainlink should always practice the buddy system for safety (especially against trolls on bridges!) Not that Adam will complain about this... (sorry Adam, I couldn't resist giving you a little bit of a hard time about that :) )

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on April 8, 2013 at 9:58am

Levity is the wit of soul food.

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on April 8, 2013 at 10:08am

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

– Abraham Lincoln

James BlackHeron said:

Levity is the wit of soul food.

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on April 8, 2013 at 10:41am

Translation:

The Cubs bring a good deal of money into the City of Chicago.  Unlike manufacturing, the jobs and money will not be shipped down South or to China.  (and where did all of the Candy Makers go... and where again are all of those Stewart-Warner jobs....)What the Cubs want, the Cubs are ultimately going to get.  They want a parking garage.  They want the money from this that currently goes into those little lots around Wrigleyville.  Okay.   Give them the garage, but in exchange for this, let's do away with all of those small lots, and those cars that make erratic turns into those locks.   Recognize that soon all games will be "night games" and simply ban parking for non-residents during all games.  Require pre-purchased parking with scanable vouchers.   The Cubs will be happy.   They will have monopoly pricing.   The neighborhood will be happy as the total number of cars going in should not change, they will all be funneled into a single point, and with the vouchers, will move more efficiently.   The bicyclists and pedestrians will be happier because the cars pulling erratically into ad hoc parking will be reduced.  The Police will have a single point to detect over-served fans getting into cars.  In sum, a win for everyone.   But trying to fight this will simply create hostility and the Cubs will still win AND the other issues will remain unsolved.



h' 1.0 said:

Translation- we need to pick battles that are in line with what David crZ finds important?

David crZven 10.6 said:

We need to pick battles that we can win and not merely tilt at every windmill. 

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on April 8, 2013 at 10:50am

Sounds like a good solution, but will the city really ban all the ad hoc parking lots?

David crZven 10.6 said:

Translation:

The Cubs bring a good deal of money into the City of Chicago.  Unlike manufacturing, the jobs and money will not be shipped down South or to China.  (and where did all of the Candy Makers go... and where again are all of those Stewart-Warner jobs....)What the Cubs want, the Cubs are ultimately going to get.  They want a parking garage.  They want the money from this that currently goes into those little lots around Wrigleyville.  Okay.   Give them the garage, but in exchange for this, let's do away with all of those small lots, and those cars that make erratic turns into those locks.   Recognize that soon all games will be "night games" and simply ban parking for non-residents during all games.  Require pre-purchased parking with scanable vouchers.   The Cubs will be happy.   They will have monopoly pricing.   The neighborhood will be happy as the total number of cars going in should not change, they will all be funneled into a single point, and with the vouchers, will move more efficiently.   The bicyclists and pedestrians will be happier because the cars pulling erratically into ad hoc parking will be reduced.  The Police will have a single point to detect over-served fans getting into cars.  In sum, a win for everyone.   But trying to fight this will simply create hostility and the Cubs will still win AND the other issues will remain unsolved.



h' 1.0 said:

Translation- we need to pick battles that are in line with what David crZ finds important?

David crZven 10.6 said:

We need to pick battles that we can win and not merely tilt at every windmill. 

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on April 8, 2013 at 11:03am

Probably not.  But it is a solution that has a lot better chance of flying than killing the Cubs garage.    The Cubs, in fact, would likely get right behind the banning of the ad hoc lots as it would help their revenue.  The bigger problem is that the City pays Laz (I would assume) for every night game for the parking meter spaces that go unused.   The fact that they wouldn't be used during a night game is ultimately irrelevant.  Under that stupid contract, they have be be paid as if they were fully used.    And more night games.... means....   So maybe the City could also use the "ban" on ad hoc parking to agree to give laz a couple of streets (say Southport) that have meters and allow them to charge exorbitant rates during Cub night games with longer than the normal meter times in exchange for not getting the "penalty" payments.   

 


Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Sounds like a good solution, but will the city really ban all the ad hoc parking lots?

David crZven 10.6 said:

Translation:

The Cubs bring a good deal of money into the City of Chicago.  Unlike manufacturing, the jobs and money will not be shipped down South or to China.  (and where did all of the Candy Makers go... and where again are all of those Stewart-Warner jobs....)What the Cubs want, the Cubs are ultimately going to get.  They want a parking garage.  They want the money from this that currently goes into those little lots around Wrigleyville.  Okay.   Give them the garage, but in exchange for this, let's do away with all of those small lots, and those cars that make erratic turns into those locks.   Recognize that soon all games will be "night games" and simply ban parking for non-residents during all games.  Require pre-purchased parking with scanable vouchers.   The Cubs will be happy.   They will have monopoly pricing.   The neighborhood will be happy as the total number of cars going in should not change, they will all be funneled into a single point, and with the vouchers, will move more efficiently.   The bicyclists and pedestrians will be happier because the cars pulling erratically into ad hoc parking will be reduced.  The Police will have a single point to detect over-served fans getting into cars.  In sum, a win for everyone.   But trying to fight this will simply create hostility and the Cubs will still win AND the other issues will remain unsolved.



h' 1.0 said:

Translation- we need to pick battles that are in line with what David crZ finds important?

David crZven 10.6 said:

We need to pick battles that we can win and not merely tilt at every windmill. 

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on April 8, 2013 at 11:09am

Metered spots are still allowed to be used during Cubs night games. Permitted spots are the ones that are banned for night games for non-residents. (The 44th Ward also got rid of the LV-2 stickers for residents). So I'm not sure where Chicago Parking Meters (they actually own the meters, not LAZ) comes into play here.

David crZven 10.6 said:

Probably not.  But it is a solution that has a lot better chance of flying than killing the Cubs garage.    The Cubs, in fact, would likely get right behind the banning of the ad hoc lots as it would help their revenue.  The bigger problem is that the City pays Laz (I would assume) for every night game for the parking meter spaces that go unused.   The fact that they wouldn't be used during a night game is ultimately irrelevant.  Under that stupid contract, they have be be paid as if they were fully used.    And more night games.... means....   So maybe the City could also use the "ban" on ad hoc parking to agree to give laz a couple of streets (say Southport) that have meters and allow them to charge exorbitant rates during Cub night games with longer than the normal meter times in exchange for not getting the "penalty" payments.   

Permalink Reply by Lee Crandell on April 8, 2013 at 11:10am

When have the Cubs said they want a parking garage? I've been part of these conversations in the neighborhood, and I haven't seen them say they want one. It wasn't part of their original proposal. I'm curious where you heard that.

David crZven 10.6 said:

What the Cubs want, the Cubs are ultimately going to get.  They want a parking garage.  They want the money from this that currently goes into those little lots around Wrigleyville.  

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on April 8, 2013 at 11:16am

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-cubs-...

Last week, Tunney said that the Cubs have agreed to create extra parking in Wrigleyville, possibly by constructing a two-level garage that would create up to 500 extra spaces on what is now a gravel lot near Clark and Grace streets. The Cubs also have pledged to help pay for putting extra police on patrol around game times, the alderman said.


Lee Crandell said:

When have the Cubs said they want a parking garage? I've been part of these conversations in the neighborhood, and I haven't seen them say they want one. It wasn't part of their original proposal. I'm curious where you heard that.

Permalink Reply by Lee Crandell on April 8, 2013 at 11:26am

Exactly. They're not asking for it or proposing it. They're "agreeing" to it because the alderman is asking for it as a condition for approving their plan.

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-cubs-...

Last week, Tunney said that the Cubs have agreed to create extra parking in Wrigleyville, possibly by constructing a two-level garage that would create up to 500 extra spaces on what is now a gravel lot near Clark and Grace streets. The Cubs also have pledged to help pay for putting extra police on patrol around game times, the alderman said.


Lee Crandell said:

When have the Cubs said they want a parking garage? I've been part of these conversations in the neighborhood, and I haven't seen them say they want one. It wasn't part of their original proposal. I'm curious where you heard that.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service