Tom Bradley!
Subj: I resign from RPCC
Date: 4/2/2002 4:38:38 PM Central Standard Time
From: chicagotom@mindspring.com
Bob Winston, President RPCC
Dear Bob,
Greetings and good tidings.
Drawing from Roosevelt's inspiration, Jefferson's conviction, and the standards of ANPE, I regret but as a matter of principle, I must resign from the Rogers Park Community Council.
Though I am not a historian, who can forget these inspirational words of President Theodore Roosevelt:
"For better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows no victory nor defeat."
Almost 200 years prior to Roosevelt, the question that embroiled President Thomas Jefferson more than any other was, "who owns the press?" His response was pointed, sharp, and slammed like a hammer; "Given the choice between a free-government and a free-press, I would take the latter!" Jefferson's proclamation was a bold contrast to those who promoted censorship laws on his behalf. In particular, Jefferson despised efforts to make it illegal to criticize the government and all political leaders. Jefferson, The President of the United States at the time, heroically welcomed newspaper criticism of himself for the betterment of the United States.
The American Society of News Paper Editors (ASNE) is the common standard for editorial guideline in the United States. Enclosed for your inspection are these highest principles that should guide all newspaper editors. When taxpayer money is connected to a free-press newspaper, these standards should be met or exceeded, not compromised.
Free-Press Newspaper censorship for a particular political end is bad enough, but when it comes with tax-payer's dollars, yikes! Unfortunately, this is the case with Rogers Park 2000. Not only does Rogers Park 2000 prevent the harsh criticism of political leaders that Thomas Jefferson welcomed, it prevents all criticism.
In 1997 Sandy Goldman was forced-out as Editor and Columnist for political reasons. The appointment of a controllable editorial committee took place. Since then, Rogers Park 2000 has never published even a gentle criticism of the favorable Alderman Joe Moore. Yet, publication after publication, year after year, positive stories and announcements about Alderman Moore fill pages. A honest politically neutral newspaper would never mention a political figure by name or it would provide for a balanced reporting. In other words, taxpayers are fronting RP 2000's ongoing political advertising campaign.
It has been said to me by the Executive Director that there is fear that any criticism of the Alderman or his ideas will jeopardize the organizations whose funding he controls. Thus she must not allow any such opinions to be published in RP 2000 as specified in the Editorial Guidelines.
Many on the Board of Directors are likely to be unfamiliar with this political modus operandi. Most disappointing is that Mayor Daley's initiatives, the official housing initiatives of the City of Chicago, were found to be not worthy of a favorable opinion in RP 2000.
Remaining a supporter RPCC, its Officers, Members, and especially you, Bob, I hope my resignation will spotlight the misplaced control of RP2000 and RPCC. Despite my efforts and the efforts of community leaders in the past, the system is procrustean. Even from those who have differing opinions on the housing issue, I hope that my resignation will be understood for what it is: A Rooseveltian dare to further the convictions of Thomas Jefferson.
Sincerely, Rev. Thomas J. Bradley
ENCLOSED:
1) "Behind-Closed-Doors"
2) ASNE Guidelines
3) Approved Outline
4) Rejected Opinion Editorial
"Behind-Closed-Doors"
The following is my response to the behind-closed-doors telephone conversations that undermines me and fairness. Following you will find the ASNE guidelines, my accepted Outline, and, finally, the Opinion Editorial, rejected because of who controls RPCC funding.
Unfortunately, the scenario as repeated by word-of-mouth can start accurately and then quickly become distorted. For what it is worth, this is my side of the coin.
Question: Is it true that you took pot-shots at the Alderman and called him names and presented false facts that cannot be substantiated?
Answer: I said Alderman Moore is "a man of tremendous good nature." I also directly quoted his ideas which were printed by the Chicago Tribune. The quote was relevant to the housing issue. I included the source and date of the article. I did express my bias by calling the rent-freeze idea "extreme," which was the basis of my opinion about set-aside housing. No other superlatives, hyperbole, or characterizations were used in relationship to Alderman Moore.
Substantiation of factual information:
Chicago Tribune 12/16/01. (Go to Chicago Tribune on-line Archives for the full story: Key Word: Alderman Moore).
The Tribune Staff reporter could verify accuracy of the statement made by Alderman Moore, who agreed to the interview.
Alderman Moore was given the opportunity to deny the story's accuracy for the Tribune and RP 2000.
Question: I heard that the Housing Trust Fund and its subsidiaries initiated by Mayor Daley for the City of Chicago is a really bad idea; Does not have enough tax money; Doesn't help the poor; Is not comprehensive; Is too confusing; Is not broad-based; Will not help Rogers Park; Is too large; Is too small; Does not exist; Funding is not enough; Has too many facets; The poor are not consulted; etc…. And the Executive Director is exercising her responsibility for protecting readers from the City of Chicago's possible false and misleading information.
Answer: The above are all statements of opinion that contrast to my bias of support for Mayor Daley's initiatives and the City of Chicago's Trust Fund programs. I encouraged the Executive Director and Editorial Staff, who may have held some of the above opinions, to express their own contrary bias in RP 2000. I recommended that if they took exception to my bias or factual content that they add a super-script or post-script of objection before or after my Editorial Opinion.
The factual statements from the Opinion Editorial were substantiated from Official publications by the City of Chicago and can be re-verified for accuracy by calling the City of Chicago's Official spokesperson. Further, given the opportunity, The City's spokesperson and Official Promoter of Mayor Daley's Chicago Trust Fund would have further answered opportunity questions and objections in a planned community forum.
It should be noted that the Opinion in support of "inclusionary zoning" set-asides is positioned in RP 2000 as a "hard news" story and not clearly labeled as an Opinion Editorial.
ASNE Statement of Principles
(American Society for Newspaper Editors)
PREAMBLE. The First Amendment, protecting freedom of expression from abridgment by any law, guarantees to the people through their press a constitutional right, and thereby places on newspaper people a particular responsibility. Thus journalism demands of its practitioners not only industry and knowledge but also the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist's singular obligation. To this end the American Society of Newspaper Editors sets forth this Statement of Principles as a standard encouraging the highest ethical and professional performance.
ARTICLE I - Responsibility. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newspapermen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.
ARTICLE II - Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the press belongs to the people. It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any quarter, public or private. Journalists must be constantly alert to see that the public's business is conducted in public. They must be vigilant against all who would exploit the press for selfish purposes.
ARTICLE III - Independence. Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity.
ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.
ARTICLE V - Impartiality. To be impartial does not require the press to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression. Sound practice, however, demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion. Articles that contain opinion or personal interpretation should be clearly identified.
ARTICLE VI - Fair Play. Journalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond. Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly. Unless there is clear and pressing need to maintain confidences, sources of information should be identified.
These principles are intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the bond of trust and respect between American journalists and the American people, a bond that is essential to sustain the grant of freedom entrusted to both by the nation's founders.
OUTLINE: APPROVED BY RP2000 ON January 24, 2002
Enclosed you will find a brief out-line of my intended treatment of the subject.
Thanks! Fr. Tom Bradley St. Jerome's Parish 773/262-3170
INTRODUCTION STATEMENT:
Mayor Daley s Chicago Trust Fund for housing is the only reasonable approach to the complex problem of affordable housing in Rogers Park. The Chicago Trust Fund is the largest subsidy program in the country and has become a national model. Mayor Daley's Chicago Trust Fund contrasts to other programs, because it treats real estate owners and investors as willing partners instead of targeted enemies. Schemes like Rent-Freeze-Rules and Set-Aside-Inclusion-Mandates are punitive and end-up hurting communities. The Mayor s model is the only positive approach that helps the poor and does not penalize investment.
1) Define The Chicago Trust Fund.
2) Contrast the Chicago Trust Fund to Ald. Moore s Rent-Freeze-Rule idea. Source: Chicago Tribune 12/16/01 page 4
3) Contrast the Chicago Trust Fund to Set-Aside-Inclusion-Mandates.
4) Examples.
5) Conclusion.
RP 2000 News Paper
Opinion Editorial:
"A Community Solution To A Community Problem,"
By Fr. Tom Bradley (Entire story enclosed)
Synopsis:
Mayor Daley's Chicago Trust Fund is a nationally acclaimed solution to complex housing matters. By contrast, Alderman Moore's (49th) extreme idea of government "rent freezing" and mandated housing set-aside taxes will destroy the charm of Rogers Park.
A Community Solution to a Community Problem
Fr. Tom Bradley
Rogers Park, a culturally rich, ethnically diverse and economically desirable community, is confronting a problem that is shared by numerous communities around the nation. At issue: low-income families face a housing crisis due to the shrinking supply of "affordable" housing. While numerous ideas and programs proposed by various community activists, pressure groups, and other "social cooks" threaten to spoil the stew by pitting renter against owner, the good news is that there exists an already proven recipe for success -- Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago Trust Fund.
Mayor Daley introduced the Chicago Trust Fund to bring investors, owners, renters, and the poor together in partnerships to develop their own communities without the heavy hand of selective taxation or government intrusion. It is the ideal community solution to a community problem. In fact, Alderman Moore voted for the mayor's program in City Council. In Mayor Daley's program, the government serves as an ambassador, collaborator, and builder of communities. The Daley program for housing is ripe for Rogers Park.
The Chicago Trust Fund was introduced to bring investment money into Chicago communities. The success has gained national recognition. Mayor Daley recently expanded his program to keep rents affordable for the working poor. Already, over $65 million has been invested in nearly 150,000 units through the Trust Fund which joins everyone between investors and the poor in housing partnerships. The role of the government in this program is to provide incentives and assistance for "win-win" projects.
The Daley program is a voluntary collaboration. In every community where his program is used, new jobs have been created — a crucial advantage not afforded by alternative housing proposals. "This is a proven program that keeps our neighborhoods affordable for families at the very lowest income levels," according to Daley. The Chicago Trust Fund is a private involvement project run by the City of Chicago. Rental building, condominium, two-flat, or single family home investors who need tax incentives, low interest loans, or 100% financing are eligible for Chicago Trust Fund assistance if they are willing partners. In turn, these small business investors agree to help families live in communities like Rogers Park. Best of all, it gives the private sector the tools to do their job in a free housing market. The Daley program recognizes that real estate investors and homeowners are not community enemies. Real estate investors partnering with the government and the poor can bring diverse housing to communities.
It is already working in many areas of Chicago, such as the Prairie Park Apartments at 317 E. 55th Street. These apartments are the first new housing in the Washington Park neighborhood in nearly 50 years. The new 55 housing units are the fruit of some small investors given incentives to develop hand-in-hand with the poor. In addition to new community housing units, rental subsidies have also been provided for over 2,000 families who have asked for assistance. Further, homeless families through the Fund have transitioned from shelters to permanent housing. Beyond that, Mayor Daley has helped more than 8,000 families buy homes and another 24,000 property owners improve their homes through the Fund. Alternative housing proposals will never produce these results.
The bottom line is that everyone wins. Communities work together. The Mayor Daley Chicago Trust Fund is praised by urban researchers, economists, and academicians for its fairness and proven success in solving a wide variety of housing issues and in creating new jobs. It already works. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about other alternatives which are being proposed by housing pressure groups.
Alderman Moore, a man of tremendous good nature, despite his support of the Mayor's Trust Fund, appears to be led astray by these pressure groups on the issue of housing. "He'd like to see 20 percent of the 26,000 neighborhood housing units protected from hefty rent increases," according to a Chicago Tribune report [12/16/01]. This is called a "Rent Freeze." It is an extreme idea.
Additional extreme alternatives include the "inclusionary housing" program, which is a "Set-Aside Mandate." Both Alderman Moore's idea of "Rent Freezing" and other "Set Aside Mandates" are tax schemes that have failed so often, so disastrously and so notoriously that savvy special interest groups always give them a flashy new name.
Of course they don't use the word "tax" in describing "Rent Freezes" or "Set Aside Mandates." However, if the government takes 20 percent of any worker's wages, what word is more fitting? As the fluff flies, make no mistake: Taxing is their plan. More specifically, one proposal seeks to selectively tax owners of four flats and larger buildings by prohibiting them from receiving 20 percent of their earnings. Another wants to tax and shield Rogers Park from investors in new housing or conversions by taxing new housing units. These taxes are unfair. How many advocates of these selective taxes are going to donate 20 percent of their own wages for the "Freeze" and "Set Aside" cause? Clearly these social cooks feel comfortable in telling others to give away their salaries. More importantly, these social cooks will negatively impact Rogers Park in profound ways: by failing the poor, causing higher rents, decreasing new development, and inviting owners to skip ordinary building repairs. In short, they will make any housing crisis worse.
Honest advocates of "Rent Freezing" and "Set Aside Mandates" agree that their selective taxes are unfair at any percentage or cost, but counter that hurting just a few people is worth it for the larger community. They cling to the faulty philosophy that "the ends justify the means." Not only does selective taxing undermine community fairness, it undermines the community.
Here's how these selective taxes work. Consider a community where there are 5 existing housing units and 5 new housing units are being constructed. There are 20 families wanting the 10 units — a housing crisis exists. The "Rent-Freeze" proponents remove one old unit from the public, and the "Set-Aside" proponents remove one new unit from the public. Now there are only 8 housing units for 20 families. Certainly the investors are not better off. They have fewer units. More importantly, is the community better off? Instead of 10 units, the public only has 8 units. In New York, California, and every other locality, these "solutions" have met with the same disastrous results -- a worse housing crisis" fewer housing units. Recently Lake County voted against a housing set-aside program and the proposal was called "a nightmare."
In New York, for example, the "Rent-Freeze" and "Set-Aside" rules have been tried and failed in two ways: by creating either super-elite communities or ghetto communities. In the elite communities, the cost of renting an apartment in the open market skyrocketed and the "frozen" units became sub-rental bonanzas. When New Yorkers removed or "froze" 20 percent of the apartments and held back or "set aside" 20 percent of new housing, the demand for the other 80 percent pushed rents to artificial new heights. The lower middle-class, who could barely afford to live in these areas of New York, were forced to move when the "Rent-Freezers" and "Set-Asiders" took away the bottom of the housing market.
In other New York neighborhoods, these same two "solutions" created huge pockets of very poor people. In lamenting the effects of "Rent-Freezing" and "Set-Asides", economist Henry Hazlitt observed, "In recent years it has become common sight in these communities to see whole blocks of abandoned apartments, with windows broken or boarded up to prevent vandals. Arson becomes more frequent, and the owners are suspect." Owners attempt to recapture lost income from the selective tax by failing to do ordinary maintenance to their buildings. In time, the value of their buildings diminishes. Like falling dominoes, building after building decreases in value, and so ended these New York middle class communities.
In order to reach a successful and equitable solution to this controversial problem, we need to keep in mind one fundamental truth: the number of housing units or the price of housing units does not determine poverty. Insufficient income determines poverty. The poor lack housing opportunities because they have insufficient income. The only real long-term weapon against poverty is jobs. "Rent-Freeze" and "Set-Aside" advocates knowingly hamper, discourage, block, restrict, and limit housing investment by taxing the investors. In doing so, they hurt good jobs created by the investors. Further, the Rogers Park "Rent-Freeze" and "Set-Aside" advocates are making no provisions in their schemes for our community's special population of the elderly, people with disabilities, and immigrant families. Mayor Daley's Chicago Trust Fund has already successfully partnered with investors to collaboratively create more than 36,000 new units for these Chicagoans most in need of help.
"Rent-Freeze" advocates like Alderman Moore want 20 percent of the 26,000 neighborhood housing units protected from rent increases. In other words, only 5,200 lucky families will have the honor of being labeled "poor and dependent." The other 20,800 families will see rents squeezed higher. Fewer housing units will be available. The Mayor Daley Chicago Trust Fund helps every one of these 26,000 Rogers Park families. The Daley plan keeps every housing unit and adds even more units when communities require more housing.
If you boil it all down, it comes to this: Does Rogers Park want some risky tax legislation that will divide the community and possibly take away its charm? Or will Rogers Park embrace a proven program which will strengthen and build up community? A community problem requires a solution which involves and unites the entire community -- owners, renters, investors, government, rich and poor -- working together in partnership for the betterment of all.
For more information about the Mayor Daley Chicago Trust Fund, please call St. Jerome's Parish (773) 262-3170. A recorded message will announce meeting places, times, and dates for more information.
- E-mail us: Chicago's 49th Ward MudZappers > Ward49_MudZapper@Yahoo.COM
In 1997 Sandy Goldman was forced-out as Editor and Columnist for political reasons. The appointment of a controllable editorial committee took place. Since then, Rogers Park 2000 has never published even a gentle criticism of the favorable Alderman Joe Moore. Yet, publication after publication, year after year, positive stories and announcements about Alderman Moore fill pages. A honest politically neutral newspaper would never mention a political figure by name or it would provide for a balanced reporting. In other words, taxpayers are fronting RP 2000's ongoing political advertising campaign.
It has been said to me by the Executive Director [of RPCC] that there is fear that any criticism of the Alderman or his ideas will jeopardize the organizations whose funding he controls. Thus she must not allow any such opinions to be published in RP 2000 as specified in the Editorial Guidelines.
The Chicago Tribune Endorses WHO?!
and
Joe's Dive into NUMEROLOGY
and
Joe's THEORY OF RELATIVITY
and
WINDY CITY TIMES GETTING IT RIGHT
and
JOE TAKES A FLYING LEAP
and
WalWHO? Joe steps in it, deep.
and
Witchy City Times
and
JOE'S THE BEST FRIEND A COP NEVER HAD!
and
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS IN 49th WARD!
and
TOM BRADLEY - ONE SHORT YEAR AGO...
and
Sandy Goldman Rocks Rogers Park!
and
JOE SUPPRESSES FREE SPEECH! AGAIN!
JOE'S 2003 CHALLENGERS:
TOM BRADLEY
MICHAEL HARRINGTON
KAREN HOOVER
GRADY HUMPHREY
TOPICS ON WWW.FORUM49.ORG - 49th Ward Aldermanic Election - 2/25/2003
