Tag: Ald.+Ed+Burke+of+Chicago

Burke’s statism revisited: Industry spoke, he and Emanuel listened

Whoa.  Slow down there.  This morning’s story, “Burke: City should consider seizing ‘underwater’ homes,” on which an earlier blog posting was based, has been superseded.  Its very idea has been erased from the hearts and minds of Ald. Burke and Mayor Emanuel, and surely from those of the aldermanic finance committee which met to do the considering.

There was complete turnaround on the issue, backtracking, by Burke from serious consideration of the move, an exercise of dominant domain.  The hearing was “quite informative and [it had been] worthwhile to spend the time learning about what is happening around the country,” he said after it and after retreat by Mayor Emanuel from the fence he was sitting on in the morning story, when he was “still evaluating” the idea, as his press aide told Sun-Times reporter Fran Spielman. 

But by early afternoon, the mayor was convinced it was a bad idea:

“The idea of using eminent domain is not one I support,” the mayor said at an unrelated news conference called to showcase CTA improvements and ridership gains

What happened to make him so sure?  Maybe or probably the instant opposition, unsurpising after all, from the mortgage industry:

Timothy W. Cameron–managing director of SIFMA Asset Managers Group comprised of securities firms, banks and 30 of the nation’s largest asset managers–argued that the use of eminent domain would “do more than good” [sic] to Chicago.

“The worst harm will be felt by Chicago residents themselves, as they will find it harder or impossible to obtain credit,” Cameron said in a statement distributed to reporters prior to Tuesday’s hearing.

So Spielman’s piece was well timed to quash Ed Burke’s can-you-top-this piece of statism at the local level, alerting industry opposition from deep in the morning’s paper. 

The extended new lead online story, “Actor John Cusack addresses foreclosure epidemic at City Hall” — Cusack was there because a friend was pushing the local (eminent domain) solution — seems careful not to be in-Burke’s-face about it, which is not Spielman’s style and would do nothing for her continuing important reportage.

And that, my friends, is my new lead on my morning posting, which you can read here.

Ed Burke’s new statist adventure

Candidate for nation’s most statist pol, allowing for circumstances such as inherited societal proclivity towards (ugh!) democracy?  Presenting Ald. Ed Burke (D-Chi), whose latest — in a long and distinguishing career, if not distinguished except ironically speaking — statist brainstorm is to seize underwater houses and condos.  (this morning’s hard-copy Sun-Times, p. 50, Fran Spielman reporting: link is to on-line new lead of a.m. hard copy story). 

Off-with-their-heads Ed, Red Queenie to his colleaagues (no? should be).  Public housing here, 667,000 units masquerading as mortgages!  A statist’s moist if not all-out wet dream.  Seize the mortgages.  (We can afford it, it’s not our money anyhow.  Sound of eyebrows raising, like drawbridges or Michigan bridge at rip tide.)

“Steep discount” on loans at “fair-market value” to be determined by apparatchiks in city govt.  What could be more fair?  Serfs get new affordable mortgages from the lords of the manor, and the system works!  (System? Seat of pants system if any.)  In long, run we’re all dead, said Lord Keynes, he of the Bloomsbury crowd —sexual cut-ups all, by the way.

FHA not so sure about this mortgage seizure: something about “sound operations” and “taxpayer expense.”  Oh?  What are they? aldermanic Finance Committee members ask, turning to each other in shock and awe.  What the hell is that FHA talking about?  Then back each to his coloring book, or drawing board the expression is, shaking head at the mystifying gaucherie of that mysterious agency with its talk of “chilling effect” on market.

Mayor R. is not sure if he likes it.  Wind not blowing strong enough yet to dry his wettened forefinger held at eye level, his best determinant for seat of his pants decision-making.  But the first rule of statism is bound to win out, don’t just stand there, do something, or look like it.

(Besides, as Steve Bartin points out, “If this passes, the potential for corruption will be unlimited.”  So who needs statism as a ruling orthodoxy?)