During discussion about ending the night-time on-street parking ban, OP trustee Martha Brock “repeatedly said the village needs to find a way to reduce the number of cars residents own,” Oak Leaves reports.

“I think it’s a good idea to seek to reduce the overall demand for parking,” Brock said, adding that if the village creates more parking spaces, residents will continue to purchase more cars.

Of course!  People have been thinking the problem is not enough parking, when it’s too much!

Meanwhile, the board went ahead on its teardown moratorium, rushing the vote to honor its own moratorium on meetings during August.  It halts demolition of single-family houses on multi-family and commercial streets.  It’s a saving of the 200 such structures, for now, until new ordinances can be crafted, according to trustee Robert Milstein, who likes the idea very much.  He threw out the 200 figure in discussion, identifying it as his “opinion.”

The vote was held on Monday after study-session discussion on Thursday.  That’s legal, said the village lawyer, because OP is a “home rule” community.  The moratorium was opposed only by trustee Ray Johnson, who said he had got calls from worried realtors, to which Milstein and Brock responded that they had got them from not worried ones.

Milstein had said (several times) that it’s a matter of “courage” to vote for this (and do some other things).  Johnson said on Monday that it took courage to oppose it. 

Village President David Pope said he’s usually not for moratoria but would make an exception this time, calling it “a reasonable step” because of its limitations — which if it covers 200 houses can’t be so limited as all that.  Nor is it limited to 120 days: the trustees can shorten or extend that at will, Wednesday Journal reports.

The uncertainty of it all plus other recent board actions might make OP look anti-development, warned Johnson.  “There is also a lot of uncertainty when it comes to residents,” countered Milstein.  In other words, you got your uncertainty, I’ve got mine.  Very high level of debate here.

Ald. Joe Moore, of the far northeast side of Chicago, can put a notch in his belt: Target will NOT be building anew in Ald. Carrie Austin’s far south side ward or anywhere else in Chicago, thanks to Joe the Liberal’s pushing through the so-called living-wage ordinance that does for wages what scorching does to earth in a military campaign.  Moore can hold his head up with pride in the coffee clatches of those who know zilch about business except that “corporations” have “millions” and can spare some for his constituents.

“No matter how much money these corporations have, each individual store has to operate as a profit center. This can add upwards of $1 million a year to the cost of operating these stores,” the city’s Planning and Development Commissioner Lori Healey told Sun-Times.  (Chi Trib does NOT have this story, which is a Fran Spielman special.)

Here is a lesson for Joe Moore and friends, who may be asking what a profit center is: Corporations — companies, businesses, executives and managers who keep things running and produce wealth rather than merely distribute it as Joe does — do NOT donate money to certain neighborhoods and cities.  They do NOT discriminate among municipalities, some of which make them pay more, some of which do not. 

So forget the new mall at 119th and Marshfield: Calumet Park, a town which has no living-wage ordinance “has land right across the street they can develop,” says Austin . “Our development will just sit there for another century. I don’t need more housing. I need sales tax revenue and jobs. How do I pull my community out of the slump that it’s in? How do we get a rebirth? Sales tax revenue. That’s how.”  Nice going, Joe.

Couple incidents in the past week or so cling to the memory.  Of neither can I be sure, but both are rife with possiblity:

1. I got wolf-whistled during the recently complete gay games in OP.  Was walking around the HS stadium as athletes and others milled.  Soccer was in progress across the street, where from the sidewalk outside the big playing fields I spotted Wed Jnl editor Ken Trainor chatting with a woman whom I took to be a sort of spokesperson but might have been someone Ken was chatting up in the course of doing his story.  Back across Lake St. near the stadium, where I was looking around, I headed back and away down Lake Street away from it all.  Had just passed some soccer players as they sauntered toward the field house, where I assume they used locker rooms and showers.  Which is when I heard it and thought it was aimed at me but can’t be sure, of course.  Didn’t turn around.  A fella doesn’t, you know.

2. Week later, crossing Lake at OP Ave. 7:30 or so a.m., I waited for the light to change from green arrow, allowing five or six vehicles to go their way.  The last of them, a dark-khaki or olive-drab SUV of weathered appearance, slowed at the intersection, however, but kept turning, so as to make a U-turn and head back down OP Ave., heading south.  I glared through his windshield, barely making him out, and kept looking as he completed the turn.  Then I got across, turning to see what he was doing: he was pulling over.  I assumed he was stopping for a Caribou coffee across OP Ave. and briefly considered continuing my glare.  But I was enjoying my walking too much and so turned to go my way.  A few more steps, now curious, I turned again, and the SUV was gone.  He had stopped to give me what-for, I decided, but when I was no longer looking, he sped off.  Maybe not.  Could be wrong again.  Anyhow, it was a great walk, taking me through the park with its small hill to Grove, and thence to Chi Ave.  Returned by way of Euclid with its big houses and headed on home.

Coming out of very good conversation at George’s with old friend and liberal Dick, I think of something I might have said, namely that I don’t have positions on everything and the positions I have range from certain to perplexed.  Dick peppered me with qq about what I think about various issues.  I think I did make the point that on this or that I have no more than leanings.  Haven’t studied this one, nor that one, I said, and I think he got my point.  But it’s an important one, that we ought to look before we leap and not be too facile in adopting and defending this or that.

I did mention what I’m reading (when he asked), namely Friederich Hayek on individualism, the good and the bad kind, British and Euro.  More later on this.

He mentioned days long ago when we agreed on everything.  But those were days when I did more leaping than looking, as a young priest teacher at St. Ignatius, for instance.  But even then we probably had disagreements, and he was wrong to assume otherwise.  This is it with people: if they agree wholly, there’s something wrong.  It means they are buying too much and should put the brakes on conviction-forming.  Anyhow, too much agreement makes for boring conversation, which mine with Dick wasn’t.

Good, clear comment here on big box/living wage legislation by Chi city council:

The “big-box” wage law represents one of the major problems with Chicago politics, and it is not a new one: the domination of unions and their obvious use of politicians to transfer money from our pockets to theirs.

Mayor Daley is right to fear what such a law might do to the development of large retail stores and their accompanying employment in the city. Beyond this specific worry, we should all shudder at the idea of union-owned politicians claiming to have power over employment contracts in the marketplace. A minimum wage is interference enough, but trying to legislate high wages and benefits for their union masters is an intolerable power grab into the private sector.

Luckily, even if a Daley veto does not happen or is overridden, this law is likely to be thrown out in court, just as the Maryland Wal-Mart law was. The law violates ERISA and probably the 14th Amendment as well. So, while we should be horrified that this “Big-Box law” was even attempted, a judge will likely crush it with the vehemence it deserves.