Sunday, June 17, 2012
Dining Al’fumo
This is about sidewalk cafés.
Specifically, it is about the fact that the city gives away chunks of the public way for chump change.
These aren’t some trash filled lot or a mothballed school building, these are our sidewalks, paid for and maintained by our motor fuel taxes and city sticker fees.
I first looked into this when the restaurants on Division Street, on the border between Wicker Park and the East Village, wanted to remove the tree pits in the sidewalks in order to expand their café seating.
Let me set this up a bit. In Chicago, the size of a sidewalk café is pretty much limited by the width of the sidewalk. You have to keep a 6 ft path for pedestrians and dodge around the street furniture, but anything else that’s paved is fair game.
Division Street has really big sidewalks. From Milwaukee to Humboldt Park, Division was intended to become one of Chicago’s tree lined boulevards. They laid it out with a large (100 ft) right of way. The boulevard thing fell through. As a result, the sidewalks on division are 25 feet wide.
So, these restaurants, who are probably paying $24000 a year for a single 1200 sqft storefront, can lease a 19 ft wide(300 to 475 sqft) stretch of sidewalk for $600 for the entire 9 month season. This area is ¼ to 1/3 of their entire interior floor area and they felt that they weren’t getting their money’s worth because the trees took up too much space.
It gets even worse.
That $600 is actually the minimum charge for a café. Goddess and Grocer up on Damen, where the sidewalks are much narrower, pays the same $600 for their 58 sq ft café. That is about the size of the tree pits on Division.
It gets even worse.
The base rate the city uses for most* of the city’s sidewalks is $1.10 per sq foot. The price to lease the sidewalk for 9 months is $600 or $1.10 per square foot net, whichever is larger.
Tocco Pizza e Arte on Milwaukee Ave has a sidewalk café on Mautene Court. Mautene Court was a tiny stub of a street that was vacated back in the 1980’s for a public open space. Unencumbered by an actual roadbed, the city leases ¼ of the space to Tocco. 1280 sq ft, larger than most actual restaurants and bars in the area and for this lease the city receives the princely sum of $1408 per season.
This is ridiculous. With retail leases running $15-$25 psf triple net, why are we leasing our sidewalks for a $1.10.
In retrospect the parking meter deal makes a lot more sense. Daley leased the parking space for $2.60 psf a year. He must have thought he made out like a bandit. Now LAZ sublets it back to us for $46.00 psf.
Other cities have sidewalk cafes. What do they charge?
San Francisco $5-6 psf plus $112
Miami $20 psf
Boston is mum on what their sq ft rate is, but they say the average café run $500-$1200 per month
New York is about $26 psf. That isn’t for midtown Manhattan, that is the rate for coffee shops in Canarsie. That is also just for the consent fees. Licensing and permitting costs are more than our minimum charge.
Heck, Seattle charges more than we do.
Why are we on this race to the bottom? I don’t see any of Boston’s beaneries flocking to Chicago because of our liberal sidewalk café policy.
I am not a greedy man, and to me, some of these cities sound a little expensive. My personal belief is that commerce should not be a zero sum game. Everybody has to make a little money or the whole thing falls apart and no one makes anything. So, lets find out how much these seats are worth.
In 2010 the National Restaurant Association published the results of a survey of restaurant operators. The report is a wealth of information.
In full service restaurants with an average check of $15-$25 per person each seat brought in:
$10866 total sales (food and beverage)
$7437 gross profit
and $346 net profit before taxes.
Ok, that net profit doesn’t seem like much, but it also reflects $495 in restaurant occupancy costs (lease, taxes, fire insurance). The occupancy cost for the sidewalk seat is $16.50 ($1.10 x 15 sqft).
Median restaurant seat profit plus occupancy cost equals $841 a year.
The sidewalk seats are only used for nine months and the weather probably puts the kibosh on a third of those.
Pro rated for season and weather, every sidewalk seat is worth $420.50 free and clear.
The city charges $16.50.
Put into perspective, Tocco’s use of Mautene Ct. puts $32232 in his pocket and the city’s gets $1408.
That is way too cheap.
Here is my idea.
First, eliminate the $600 minimum charge. This is extremely regressive and charges the most to the ones who get the least.
Second, we create two separate classes of restaurant each with its own base rate.
The first class is for small local businesses that do not have a liquor license.
Their base rate should be $6 psf (about $90 per seat). At this rate the small coffee shops and hotdog stands that have got a little 100 sqft café will still be paying about the same as they are now.
The Second class is for restaurant chains and any restaurant with a liquor license.
Their base rate should be $10 psf (about $150 per seat). They have higher profit margins and can afford to pay a higher rate.
These two rates should cover most of the city, but they should be doubled in the loop and halved in the enterprise zones.
City hall has been leaving a lot of money on the table and this should bring in millions from the 1000+ cafes and still encourage small businesses. The restaurants will all cry poor, but they will still be making more money each month from each their sidewalk seats than they do from the ones indoors.
As usual, I offer these suggestions for the good of my city, but if they want to reward me, they could wave my property taxes for the next 50 years. I estimate that would equal about 10% of one year’s increased revenue.
Paul K. Dickman
* The city’s rates go up incrementally in the central business district. I have found rates of $1.50, $2.30 to peak of $4.50 for Michigan Ave. facing the park
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Axles of Evil
The City of Chicago has waged a long war against the “Axles of Evil”, also known as the pickup truck. Who knows what their beef is. I am sure that it must be part of Daniel Burnham’s plan to keep the hillbillies at bay.
Their main tool is this parking ordinance,
9-64-170 Parking restrictions – Special types of vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful to park any truck, tractor, semi-trailer, trailer, recreational vehicle more than 22 feet in length, self contained motor home, bus, taxicab or livery vehicle on any residential street for a longer period than is necessary for the reasonably expeditious loading or unloading of such vehicle, except that a driver of bus may park the bus in a designated bus stand as authorized elsewhere in the traffic code.
Parking is allowed in certain wards, as long as the owner obtains a sticker from the city.
Back in 2000, I was flush with money and decided to buy myself a new vehicle. At the time a small pickup made sense so I wound up with a brand new Ranger.
Like most folks, I found out about the residential parking restrictions on pickups via an orange envelope on my windshield.
Luckily, I was in a ward that allowed it, so I applied for my sticker.
Back then it was a complicated process. You filled out a form, gave it to the alderman with a $30 check and waited. They would check to see if you had any outstanding tickets, and then it went down to the city council where they would vote to give you special dispensation.
On the third year of this, my alderman called and said my application was denied because of outstanding tickets. When I checked it, I had several tickets for residential truck parking, despite the fact that I had the sticker in my windshield.
I went down to the Addison office to straighten it out. The hearing went well, but while leaving the office, I got t-boned by an undercover officer with the US dept of Transportation. He was leaving the McDonalds with his lunch and crossed a lane of traffic to hit me. That is an entire story in itself.
The experience was so bad that I said “never again”.
I read the ordinance and realized that if I was an RV of less than 22 feet in length, I would not need the sticker.
As soon as I got my truck back from the shop, I bought a used camper shell on ebay and had it registered as an RV.
That was good for seven years.
Then something changed and I started getting tickets. Back when the cops wrote the tickets, they knew better, but now tickets are being issued by wandering revenuers who pass them out willy nilly.
I contested the first one by mail and I was found guilty. I contested the next two in person and pleaded my case successfully. On the strength of those determinations, I have successfully contested the next seven by mail.
That’s my story, and why this is important to me. However, in reviewing the municipal code I noticed something that is the reason I am writing.
The city has its own definition for recreational vehicles
The Illinois Vehicle code says;
(625 ILCS 5/1‑169) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1‑169) Sec. 1‑169. Recreational vehicle. Every camping trailer, motor home, mini motor home, travel trailer, truck camper or van camper used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned by a commercial business. (Source: P.A. 84‑986.)
The Municipal code defines recreational vehicles as;
9-4-010 Definitions.
“Recreational vehicle” means every camping trailer, motor home, mini-motor home, travel trailer, truck or van camper used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business.
It is almost the same, word for word, as the state’s definition, with one important change. Where the State says “truck camper” the city just says “truck”.
In fact, it says “every truck”. Nowhere does the municipal code define truck, or mention the type of plates. So what it says is that every truck used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business is by city definition a recreational vehicle.
Try to follow my Perry Mason logic here.
The city has created its own definition.
So, for all things municipal, that definition reigns supreme.
They have chosen a definition less restrictive than the state’s.
So, although RV plates are proof that the vehicle is an RV, the state’s definition is a subset of the city’s.
How big is the city’s set?
Every truck used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business.
Recreational purposes are never defined, so the enjoyment of driving should qualify.
That means every noncommercial pickup, box, garbage or fire truck qualifies as a “recreational vehicle” in the eyes of the City of Chicago.
This brings us to pickup trucks.
The city’s ban, with respect to RVs, only applies to RVs longer than 22 ft.
As far as I can ascertain, nearly all stock pickup trucks are shorter than this. To get one longer than this, you have to move up to Ford F450 and Dodge Ram 4500 series and above. These behemoths are actually chassis cab vehicles with a pickup bed screwed on. They are closer to a dump truck with a broken lift than they are to a pickup. Even these are shorter than 22 ft until you get to various long bed/crew cab combinations.
So, there it is.
Every noncommercial truck is by definition an RV.
Virtually every pickup truck is less than 22 ft long.
Therefore it is perfectly legal to park virtually every noncommercial pickup truck anywhere it is legal to park a passenger car.
No special stickers, no special wards, no special plates, no special dispensation from the city council.
This will need to be tested by the Dept of Administrative Hearings. Someone will need to stand up and test it. I have my RV plates and my exemption and don’t have the energy for another fight. I urge someone, everyone to contest these tickets in person.
If for no other reason than that it will cost the city more to hear each case, than they could possibly get from the $25 ticket.
Paul K. Dickman
Their main tool is this parking ordinance,
9-64-170 Parking restrictions – Special types of vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful to park any truck, tractor, semi-trailer, trailer, recreational vehicle more than 22 feet in length, self contained motor home, bus, taxicab or livery vehicle on any residential street for a longer period than is necessary for the reasonably expeditious loading or unloading of such vehicle, except that a driver of bus may park the bus in a designated bus stand as authorized elsewhere in the traffic code.
Parking is allowed in certain wards, as long as the owner obtains a sticker from the city.
Back in 2000, I was flush with money and decided to buy myself a new vehicle. At the time a small pickup made sense so I wound up with a brand new Ranger.
Like most folks, I found out about the residential parking restrictions on pickups via an orange envelope on my windshield.
Luckily, I was in a ward that allowed it, so I applied for my sticker.
Back then it was a complicated process. You filled out a form, gave it to the alderman with a $30 check and waited. They would check to see if you had any outstanding tickets, and then it went down to the city council where they would vote to give you special dispensation.
On the third year of this, my alderman called and said my application was denied because of outstanding tickets. When I checked it, I had several tickets for residential truck parking, despite the fact that I had the sticker in my windshield.
I went down to the Addison office to straighten it out. The hearing went well, but while leaving the office, I got t-boned by an undercover officer with the US dept of Transportation. He was leaving the McDonalds with his lunch and crossed a lane of traffic to hit me. That is an entire story in itself.
The experience was so bad that I said “never again”.
I read the ordinance and realized that if I was an RV of less than 22 feet in length, I would not need the sticker.
As soon as I got my truck back from the shop, I bought a used camper shell on ebay and had it registered as an RV.
That was good for seven years.
Then something changed and I started getting tickets. Back when the cops wrote the tickets, they knew better, but now tickets are being issued by wandering revenuers who pass them out willy nilly.
I contested the first one by mail and I was found guilty. I contested the next two in person and pleaded my case successfully. On the strength of those determinations, I have successfully contested the next seven by mail.
That’s my story, and why this is important to me. However, in reviewing the municipal code I noticed something that is the reason I am writing.
The city has its own definition for recreational vehicles
The Illinois Vehicle code says;
(625 ILCS 5/1‑169) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1‑169) Sec. 1‑169. Recreational vehicle. Every camping trailer, motor home, mini motor home, travel trailer, truck camper or van camper used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned by a commercial business. (Source: P.A. 84‑986.)
The Municipal code defines recreational vehicles as;
9-4-010 Definitions.
“Recreational vehicle” means every camping trailer, motor home, mini-motor home, travel trailer, truck or van camper used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business.
It is almost the same, word for word, as the state’s definition, with one important change. Where the State says “truck camper” the city just says “truck”.
In fact, it says “every truck”. Nowhere does the municipal code define truck, or mention the type of plates. So what it says is that every truck used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business is by city definition a recreational vehicle.
Try to follow my Perry Mason logic here.
The city has created its own definition.
So, for all things municipal, that definition reigns supreme.
They have chosen a definition less restrictive than the state’s.
So, although RV plates are proof that the vehicle is an RV, the state’s definition is a subset of the city’s.
How big is the city’s set?
Every truck used primarily for recreational purposes and not used commercially nor owned and used by a commercial business.
Recreational purposes are never defined, so the enjoyment of driving should qualify.
That means every noncommercial pickup, box, garbage or fire truck qualifies as a “recreational vehicle” in the eyes of the City of Chicago.
This brings us to pickup trucks.
The city’s ban, with respect to RVs, only applies to RVs longer than 22 ft.
As far as I can ascertain, nearly all stock pickup trucks are shorter than this. To get one longer than this, you have to move up to Ford F450 and Dodge Ram 4500 series and above. These behemoths are actually chassis cab vehicles with a pickup bed screwed on. They are closer to a dump truck with a broken lift than they are to a pickup. Even these are shorter than 22 ft until you get to various long bed/crew cab combinations.
So, there it is.
Every noncommercial truck is by definition an RV.
Virtually every pickup truck is less than 22 ft long.
Therefore it is perfectly legal to park virtually every noncommercial pickup truck anywhere it is legal to park a passenger car.
No special stickers, no special wards, no special plates, no special dispensation from the city council.
This will need to be tested by the Dept of Administrative Hearings. Someone will need to stand up and test it. I have my RV plates and my exemption and don’t have the energy for another fight. I urge someone, everyone to contest these tickets in person.
If for no other reason than that it will cost the city more to hear each case, than they could possibly get from the $25 ticket.
Paul K. Dickman
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Crossing the Street
One blogger wrote, “If you’ve ever ventured out into one of Chicago’s famous six-corner intersections, you know the streets don’t always feel safe.”
Blair Kamin called Belmont, Lincoln and Ashland “one of the ugliest and most anti-pedestrian intersections in all of Chicago”
Someone taking exception with plans for the Lincoln Park Hospital site wrote, “Six corner streets are very dangerous under the best of conditions”
A photographer wrote, “To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”*
I have lived near the Milwaukee, North and Damen intersection since the mid 80’s, and I never noticed how dangerous it was. I have walked across the intersection at least once a day for the last 25 years, and I have never felt any more imperilled than when crossing any other intersection.
Have I been lucky?
I started looking into it and a few years ago CDOT commissioned a study about pedestrian safety and here are the results.
The study was prepared for the city of Chicago by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June 2007.
Worst intersections for pedestrians:
Number of pedestrian collisions: Location
13: M L King & 79th
11: ASHLAND & 79TH
10: CALIFORNIA & NORTH
9: CICERO & MADISON
8: Pulaski & Irving Park
8: KEDZIE & NORTH
8: HALSTED & 95TH
8: MICHIGAN & MONROE
7: CLARK & WASHINGTON
7: DEARBORN & RANDOLPH
6: CENTRAL & BELMONT
6: PULASKI & LAKE
6: PULASKI & ROOSEVELT
6: CALIFORNIA & 63RD
6: WESTERN & ADDISON
6: WESTERN & 63RD
6: WESTERN & 71ST
6: Paulina & 79th
6: ASHLAND & 69TH
6: Wacker & Madison
6: CLARK & DIVISION
6: DEARBORN & WASHINGTON
6: WABASH & JACKSON
6: STATE & 79TH
5: AUSTIN & BELMONT
5: AUSTIN & CHICAGO
5: LARAMIE & CHICAGO
5: PULASKI & 26TH
5: KIMBALL & BELMONT
5: Kimball & 16th
5: CALIFORNIA & 55TH
5: CALIFORNIA & 71ST
5: WESTERN & DEVON
5: WESTERN & NORTH
5: SOUTHPORT & ADDISON
5: SHEFFIELD & WEBSTER
5: Halsted & Clark
5: HALSTED & 69TH
5: WELLS & MONROE
5: CLARK & MADISON
5: DEARBORN & MADISON
5: Dearborn & Jackson
5: STATE & MONROE
5: STATE & ADAMS
5: MICHIGAN & CHICAGO
5: MICHIGAN & DELAWARE
5: COTTAGE GROVE & 81ST
5: JEFFERY & 79TH
You will notice that not a single one of these dangerous intersections is a six corner intersection.
Only one came close, Halsted & Clark. It is a five corner intersection. If you have been there, you know that it is not really an intersection at all, but an unholy maelstrom of surface parking and curb cuts.
Even then, it was at the bottom of the list.
Clearly, they aren’t any more dangerous than a four corner intersection.
So why are they getting such a bad rap?
Because we have confused the concept of not being “pedestrian friendly” with being dangerous.
We have to cross more streets than we would on a four corner. To perform the simple task of traveling on the same street in the same direction, we have to cross twice as many streets and traffic in twice as many directions.
We have to travel farther and check the traffic twice as often and percieve this as dangerous.
In reality it is much more dangerous crossing at a corner with a gas station or a parking lot on it.
Paul K. Dickman
The full study can be read at:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/collateral/resources/ChicagoPedestrian_final.pdf
*I owe this guy an apology for taking his statement out of context.
“To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”
The rest of the paragraph is this:
“But to us locals, six-ways are where we want to be.”
It is part of the introduction to an enjoyable photo essay on six corner intersections and can be found here:
http://www.gabrielbiller.com/sixways/index.html
Blair Kamin called Belmont, Lincoln and Ashland “one of the ugliest and most anti-pedestrian intersections in all of Chicago”
Someone taking exception with plans for the Lincoln Park Hospital site wrote, “Six corner streets are very dangerous under the best of conditions”
A photographer wrote, “To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”*
I have lived near the Milwaukee, North and Damen intersection since the mid 80’s, and I never noticed how dangerous it was. I have walked across the intersection at least once a day for the last 25 years, and I have never felt any more imperilled than when crossing any other intersection.
Have I been lucky?
I started looking into it and a few years ago CDOT commissioned a study about pedestrian safety and here are the results.
The study was prepared for the city of Chicago by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June 2007.
Worst intersections for pedestrians:
Number of pedestrian collisions: Location
13: M L King & 79th
11: ASHLAND & 79TH
10: CALIFORNIA & NORTH
9: CICERO & MADISON
8: Pulaski & Irving Park
8: KEDZIE & NORTH
8: HALSTED & 95TH
8: MICHIGAN & MONROE
7: CLARK & WASHINGTON
7: DEARBORN & RANDOLPH
6: CENTRAL & BELMONT
6: PULASKI & LAKE
6: PULASKI & ROOSEVELT
6: CALIFORNIA & 63RD
6: WESTERN & ADDISON
6: WESTERN & 63RD
6: WESTERN & 71ST
6: Paulina & 79th
6: ASHLAND & 69TH
6: Wacker & Madison
6: CLARK & DIVISION
6: DEARBORN & WASHINGTON
6: WABASH & JACKSON
6: STATE & 79TH
5: AUSTIN & BELMONT
5: AUSTIN & CHICAGO
5: LARAMIE & CHICAGO
5: PULASKI & 26TH
5: KIMBALL & BELMONT
5: Kimball & 16th
5: CALIFORNIA & 55TH
5: CALIFORNIA & 71ST
5: WESTERN & DEVON
5: WESTERN & NORTH
5: SOUTHPORT & ADDISON
5: SHEFFIELD & WEBSTER
5: Halsted & Clark
5: HALSTED & 69TH
5: WELLS & MONROE
5: CLARK & MADISON
5: DEARBORN & MADISON
5: Dearborn & Jackson
5: STATE & MONROE
5: STATE & ADAMS
5: MICHIGAN & CHICAGO
5: MICHIGAN & DELAWARE
5: COTTAGE GROVE & 81ST
5: JEFFERY & 79TH
You will notice that not a single one of these dangerous intersections is a six corner intersection.
Only one came close, Halsted & Clark. It is a five corner intersection. If you have been there, you know that it is not really an intersection at all, but an unholy maelstrom of surface parking and curb cuts.
Even then, it was at the bottom of the list.
Clearly, they aren’t any more dangerous than a four corner intersection.
So why are they getting such a bad rap?
Because we have confused the concept of not being “pedestrian friendly” with being dangerous.
We have to cross more streets than we would on a four corner. To perform the simple task of traveling on the same street in the same direction, we have to cross twice as many streets and traffic in twice as many directions.
We have to travel farther and check the traffic twice as often and percieve this as dangerous.
In reality it is much more dangerous crossing at a corner with a gas station or a parking lot on it.
Paul K. Dickman
The full study can be read at:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/collateral/resources/ChicagoPedestrian_final.pdf
*I owe this guy an apology for taking his statement out of context.
“To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”
The rest of the paragraph is this:
“But to us locals, six-ways are where we want to be.”
It is part of the introduction to an enjoyable photo essay on six corner intersections and can be found here:
http://www.gabrielbiller.com/sixways/index.html
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Death of a Thousand Cuts
When a building or a district gets landmarked, it is not about restricting development or creating some historic theme park. It is simply the recognition that pieces of our culture, the stories of our common heritage were carved in our buildings. This is something that belongs to all of us and needs our protection. That heritage is no less significant for a workers cottage than it is for a mansion or skyscraper.
For the most part Chicago’s landmark ordinance, realizing that a building needs some flexibility to thrive, limits itself to a building’s exteriors. It puts most of its energy into the portions of a building that is visible from the street.
The ordinance can’t make you restore your building or put back elements that were lost before it was landmarked. Instead, it directs the Landmarks Commission and their staff (who oversee the ordinance) to identify those portions of a building that are still original or significant and gives them the power to protect them.
Sure they protect them from demolition, but that is rare. The grueling day to day work of these people is not protecting them from the wrecking ball, it is saving our heritage from the death of a thousand cuts.
Every new owner, every new tenant, every new manager looks up at the front of their building and says, “This would be better with….”.
The cuts all seem small: It needs a bigger cornice, I want French doors or a picture window.
The reasons all seem good: It’ll look more historic, no one is ever going to use that door again, I can’t sell a condo without a balcony and the latest buzzwords “adaptive reuse”.
But historic preservation is not about what your building could be. It is about saving what remains of what remains of what they once were.
Each little cut takes a piece of that away.
Enough cuts, and there is nothing left.
Paul K. Dickman
For the most part Chicago’s landmark ordinance, realizing that a building needs some flexibility to thrive, limits itself to a building’s exteriors. It puts most of its energy into the portions of a building that is visible from the street.
The ordinance can’t make you restore your building or put back elements that were lost before it was landmarked. Instead, it directs the Landmarks Commission and their staff (who oversee the ordinance) to identify those portions of a building that are still original or significant and gives them the power to protect them.
Sure they protect them from demolition, but that is rare. The grueling day to day work of these people is not protecting them from the wrecking ball, it is saving our heritage from the death of a thousand cuts.
Every new owner, every new tenant, every new manager looks up at the front of their building and says, “This would be better with….”.
The cuts all seem small: It needs a bigger cornice, I want French doors or a picture window.
The reasons all seem good: It’ll look more historic, no one is ever going to use that door again, I can’t sell a condo without a balcony and the latest buzzwords “adaptive reuse”.
But historic preservation is not about what your building could be. It is about saving what remains of what remains of what they once were.
Each little cut takes a piece of that away.
Enough cuts, and there is nothing left.
Paul K. Dickman
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Bibliography for A Cautionary Tale of Crime, Corruption and Construction
I have recieved a few requests for the bibliography from "Crime, Corruption and Construction"
Frankly, it left me flabbergasted. I didn't think anybody read this stuff.
I had left it off because it was three pages long.
Here it is.
Paul K. Dickman
Newspaper Articles
Sandy Smith, “ACCARDO ASKS MOB TO PARTY” Chicago Daily Tribune 4/20/1961 pg. 1
Sandy Smith, “ACCARDO GIVES WEDDING BLAST” Chicago Daily Tribune 4/28/1961 pg. 1
“BUILDER ARGUES AGAINST DEMANDS” Addison Register 5/11/1961 pg.1
“Rent All 204 Apartments of New Complex in Addison.” Chicago Daily Tribune 2/2/1963 pg.W_A3
“$6.5 MILLION APARTMENT PROJECT TO BE DISCUSSED.” Palatine Enterprise 2/21/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “APARTMENT PROJECT STIRS BATTLE CRY.” Palatine Enterprise 3/7/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “Newspaper Ad Raises Ire Of Apartment Opponents.” Palatine Enterprise 3/21/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “Reject Apartment Complex.” Palatine Enterprise 3/28/1963 pg.1
“100 SUBURBS, TOWNSHIPS TO BALLOT TODAY.” Chicago Tribune 4/16/1963 pg.24
“VOTING MIXED IN SUBURBAN OFFICE RACES.” Chicago Tribune 4/17/1963 pg.4
Thomas Powers, “JUDGE TO HEAR GIANCANA TELL WOES WITH FBI” Chicago Tribune 7/13/1963 pg. A1
“CITY DETECTIVE IS POLICE CHIEF IN NORTHLAKE.” Chicago Tribune 7/29/1963 pg.8
Thomas Powers, “Giancana Slipping? 9 'Nominees' Line Up” Chicago Tribune 8/18/1963 pg.A8
Jean Weston, “6 School Districts Fight ‘Dream City’ Trailer Court” I1/9/1964 pg.1
Jean Weston, “'Dream City' Developer Has Obstacles to Hurdle.” I1/16/1964 pg.1
“Disclose Tax Bureau Probe in Northlake.” Chicago Tribune 3/12/1964 pg. E1
“U. S. SUBPENAS IN NORTHLAKE QUIZ REPORTED.” Chicago Tribune 3/13/1964 pg.4
Thomas Powers, “TOP COP QUITS IN NORTHLAKE FIRING PROTEST.” Chicago Tribune 3/14/1964 pg.8
“EX-FBI AGENT TO HEAR CASES IN NORTHLAKE.” Chicago Tribune 3/18/1964 pg. B1
“NORTHLAKE HOPES FOR NEW IMAGE.” Chicago Tribune 8/2/1964 pg. W1
Robert Wiedrich, “Link Giancana to Extortions.” Chicago Tribune 6/17/1965 pg.17
Robert Wiedrich, “5 IN NORTHLAKE INDICTED” Chicago Tribune 8/4/1965 pg.1
Fred Farrar, “Northlake Has Corrupt Image, But Residents Are Hopeful.” Chicago Tribune 8/9/1965 pg.B14
“4 DENY GUILT IN EXTORTIONS AT NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 8/11/1965 pg.B8
“Hope for Ailing Project” Chicago Tribune 10/16/1965 pg.A5
William Jones, “Term Housing Shells Hazards” Chicago Tribune 1/6/1966 pg.IND1
“Bribery Trial Told of $16,000 Payment” Chicago Tribune 3/2/1966 pg.B3
“$20,000 BRIBE DEMAND TOLD BY WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 3/3/1966 pg.3
“Northlake Extortion Details Told in Court” Chicago Tribune 3/4/1966 pg.1
John O'Brien, “MAYOR FREED IN NORTHLAKE BRIBERY TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 3/5/1966 pg.3
“DEFENSE ENDS IN NORTHLAKE BRIBERY TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 3/8/1966 pg.A8
John O'Brien, “Convict 3 in Extort Plot” Chicago Tribune 3/10/1966 pg.1
“Savings and Loan Pays for Pumping” Chicago Tribune 3/27/1966 pg.IND_A4
Robert Wiedrich, “Secret Midnight Meetings of Top Mobsters Revealed” Chicago Tribune 10/1/1966 pg.B11
Robert Wiedrich, “Mob Underling Rises in Power” Chicago Tribune 11/2/1966 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “GRAND JURY PROBES MOB SHAKEDOWNS” Chicago Tribune 12/5/1966 pg.1
“Drops S. & L. Project Deadline” Chicago Tribune 12/11/1966 pg.S9
“Lawn Officials Pledge King Arthur Progress” Chicago Tribune 2/16/1967 pg.IND1
Robert Wiedrich, “INDICT 2 HOODLUM CHIEFS” Chicago Tribune 2/17/1967 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “TELL OF PLAN BY AMABILE TO FLEE CITY” Chicago Tribune 2/19/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “Innocent, Say Battaglia, 4 Pals” Chicago Tribune 2/24/1967 pg.10
“Tells of Crime Link to Building Firm” Chicago Tribune 4/20/1967 pg.D3
“Witness Testifies How Hood Tried to Cheat Sam Battaglia” Chicago Tribune 4/21/1967 pg.19
Robert Enstad, “WITNESS GIVES INSIDE LOOK AT MOB BUSINESS” Chicago Tribune 4/22/1967 pg.19
Robert Enstad, “MOB MUSCLE DESCRIBED BY ITS FRONT MAN” Chicago Tribune 4/25/1967 pg.A6
Robert Enstad, “NAME CHANGE OF BATTAGLIA WITNESS HIT” Chicago Tribune 4/26/1967 pg.17
Robert Enstad, “Builder Tells Jury How Battaglia Stepped In, Ran His Firm” Chicago Tribune 4/27/1967 pg.4
Robert Enstad, “Ends Story in Battaglia Trial” Chicago Tribune 4/28/1967 pg.12
Robert Enstad, “Defense of Battaglia Opened” Chicago Tribune 4/29/1967 pg.F6
“FORCED TO AID HOODLUM IN DEAL: WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 5/2/1967 pg.B8
“COURT DENIES ACQUITTAL FOR BATTAGLIA, 2” Chicago Tribune 5/3/1967 pg.B10
Robert Enstad, “BUILDER LIED ON LAND COST COURT IS TOLD” Chicago Tribune 5/4/1967 pg.G11
Robert Enstad, “U. S. WITNESS WILL TESTIFY FOR BATTAGLIA” Chicago Tribune 5/5/1967 pg.D21
Robert Enstad, “2 SIDES REST IN BATTAGLIA HEARING HERE” Chicago Tribune 5/6/1967 pg.E11
Robert Enstad, “DELIBERATIONS BEGIN IN TRIAL OF BATTAGLIA” Chicago Tribune 5/9/1967 pg.12
Robert Enstad, “GANG CHIEF GUILTY JAILED” Chicago Tribune 5/10/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “BATTAGLIA IS SENTENCED TO 15-YEAR TERM” Chicago Tribune 5/30/1967 pg.1
“Firm Bids for Lansing Project” Chicago Tribune 7/30/1967 pg.IND6
Robert Enstad, “TRIAL IS SET TOMORROW FOR SUBURB MAYOR” Chicago Tribune 9/10/1967 pg.24
Robert Enstad, “WITNESS BARES DETAILS OF 'FIX' IN NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 9/15/1967 pg.A11
Robert Enstad, “Witness Tells of Neri 'Deal' for Payoffs” Chicago Tribune 9/20/1967 pg.A1
“DENIES MOVE FOR MISTRIAL IN NERI CASE” Chicago Tribune 9/21/1967 pg.A6
“LAWYER TELLS OF NERI DEAL FOR PERMITS” Chicago Tribune 9/23/1967 pg.W_A27
“NERI BRIBERY JURY HEARS ONE U. S. WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 9/26/1967 pg.7
“JURORS GIVEN TOWN RECORDS IN NERI TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 9/27/1967 pg.C13
Robert Enstad, “Neri Jury Hears of $70,000 'Work Permit'” Chicago Tribune 9/28/1967 pg.16
Robert Enstad, “RILEY TELLS 3 PAYMENTS FOR BUILDING O.K.” Chicago Tribune 9/29/1967 pg.25
“AID TO BUILDER TELLS OF BRIBE IN NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 10/11/1967 pg.C9
“Witness Gives His Version of $1400 Payoff” Chicago Tribune 10/13/1967 pg.1
“JURY HEARS PALERMO ALIBI” Chicago Tribune 10/17/1967 pg.4
“Taking Payoff in Northlake Denied by Neri” Chicago Tribune 10/18/1967 pg.B22
“Neri Tells of Low Salary, High Life” Chicago Tribune 10/19/1967 pg.D2
“ALD. SHABABY DENIES PART IN EXTORTION” Chicago Tribune 10/20/1967 pg.17
“Defense Rests in Neri Case; Two Balk at Testifying” Chicago Tribune 10/24/1967 pg.C1
“Witness Tells of Hood's Threat to Northlake Mayor” Chicago Tribune 10/25/1967 pg.A8
Robert Enstad, “Mayor Neri 4 Others Guilty of Extortion” Chicago Tribune 10/28/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “Neri Sentenced to 12 Years” Chicago Tribune 11/14/1967 pg.1
Pat Hensel, “JURY SUBPOENAS VILLAGE RECORDS” Addison Register 1/24/1968 pg.1
Rudolph Unger, “NERI ALLOWED TO POST BOND; NOT PALERMO” Chicago Tribune 4/5/1969 pg.N_A6
“Henry Neri Indicted in 1963 Tax Evasion” Chicago Tribune 4/15/1969 pg.A2
Alvin Nagelberg, “FSLIC Is Pushing Hard for 4 S. & L. Liquidations” Chicago Tribune 4/27/1969 pg.B11
Rudolph Unger, “Kerner Accused by Skolnick of Accepting Stock in Bank” Chicago Tribune 12/3/1969 pg.1
“Judicial Impropriety? .Kerner Silent On Charge.” Southeast Missourian 12/3/1969 pg.7
Rudolph Unger, “Stock Deal Is Denied by Kerner” Chicago Tribune 12/10/1969 pg.1
Alex P. Dobish; Thomas G. Lubenow, “The Mafia in Illinois; Illinois Mob Able to Murder with impunity for 50 Years in Northlake.” Milwaukee Journal 12/28/1969 Accent section pgs.1,2
Alex P. Dobish; Thomas G. Lubenow, “The Mafia in Illinois; Mobsters Smelled Cash in Northlake.” Milwaukee Journal 12/29/1969 pg.1
“Neri and 2 Plead Guilty to Extortion” Chicago Tribune 3/24/1971 pg.A17
Robert Wiedrich, “Developer Tells How Mob Took Over His Empire” Chicago Tribune 3/28/1971 pg.1
“Neri Income Tax Charges Are Dismissed” Chicago Tribune 4/1/1971 pg.A18
George Bliss; John R Thomson, “After testimony” Chicago Tribune 5/28/1973 pg.3
George Bliss; John R Thomson, “Surveillance is part of IRS Job” Chicago Tribune 5/29/1973 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “The old, gray Mob” Chicago Tribune 4/21/1974 pg.G24
“Accardo pal will talk” Chicago Tribune 2/10/1979 pg.S4
United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports
GIANCANA v. JOHNSON, 335 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1964)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=335+F.2d+366
UNITED STATES v. PRANNO, 385 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1967)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=385+F.2d+387
UNITED STATES v. BATTAGLIA, 394 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=394+F.2d+304
UNITED STATES v. PALERMO, 410 F.2d 468 (7th Cir. 1969)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=394+F.2d+304
UNITED STATES v. BATTAGLIA, 432 F.2d 1115 (7th Cir. 1970)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=432+F.2d+1115
Internal Revenue Service, “Joseph (Joe Shine) Amabile Racketeer”; 75 Years of IRS Criminal Investigation History”; Document 7233 (Rev. 2-96) 1996, pg 124
www.famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/IRS/irs_75_years.rtf
Frankly, it left me flabbergasted. I didn't think anybody read this stuff.
I had left it off because it was three pages long.
Here it is.
Paul K. Dickman
Newspaper Articles
Sandy Smith, “ACCARDO ASKS MOB TO PARTY” Chicago Daily Tribune 4/20/1961 pg. 1
Sandy Smith, “ACCARDO GIVES WEDDING BLAST” Chicago Daily Tribune 4/28/1961 pg. 1
“BUILDER ARGUES AGAINST DEMANDS” Addison Register 5/11/1961 pg.1
“Rent All 204 Apartments of New Complex in Addison.” Chicago Daily Tribune 2/2/1963 pg.W_A3
“$6.5 MILLION APARTMENT PROJECT TO BE DISCUSSED.” Palatine Enterprise 2/21/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “APARTMENT PROJECT STIRS BATTLE CRY.” Palatine Enterprise 3/7/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “Newspaper Ad Raises Ire Of Apartment Opponents.” Palatine Enterprise 3/21/1963 pg.1
Joan Lorenson, “Reject Apartment Complex.” Palatine Enterprise 3/28/1963 pg.1
“100 SUBURBS, TOWNSHIPS TO BALLOT TODAY.” Chicago Tribune 4/16/1963 pg.24
“VOTING MIXED IN SUBURBAN OFFICE RACES.” Chicago Tribune 4/17/1963 pg.4
Thomas Powers, “JUDGE TO HEAR GIANCANA TELL WOES WITH FBI” Chicago Tribune 7/13/1963 pg. A1
“CITY DETECTIVE IS POLICE CHIEF IN NORTHLAKE.” Chicago Tribune 7/29/1963 pg.8
Thomas Powers, “Giancana Slipping? 9 'Nominees' Line Up” Chicago Tribune 8/18/1963 pg.A8
Jean Weston, “6 School Districts Fight ‘Dream City’ Trailer Court” I1/9/1964 pg.1
Jean Weston, “'Dream City' Developer Has Obstacles to Hurdle.” I1/16/1964 pg.1
“Disclose Tax Bureau Probe in Northlake.” Chicago Tribune 3/12/1964 pg. E1
“U. S. SUBPENAS IN NORTHLAKE QUIZ REPORTED.” Chicago Tribune 3/13/1964 pg.4
Thomas Powers, “TOP COP QUITS IN NORTHLAKE FIRING PROTEST.” Chicago Tribune 3/14/1964 pg.8
“EX-FBI AGENT TO HEAR CASES IN NORTHLAKE.” Chicago Tribune 3/18/1964 pg. B1
“NORTHLAKE HOPES FOR NEW IMAGE.” Chicago Tribune 8/2/1964 pg. W1
Robert Wiedrich, “Link Giancana to Extortions.” Chicago Tribune 6/17/1965 pg.17
Robert Wiedrich, “5 IN NORTHLAKE INDICTED” Chicago Tribune 8/4/1965 pg.1
Fred Farrar, “Northlake Has Corrupt Image, But Residents Are Hopeful.” Chicago Tribune 8/9/1965 pg.B14
“4 DENY GUILT IN EXTORTIONS AT NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 8/11/1965 pg.B8
“Hope for Ailing Project” Chicago Tribune 10/16/1965 pg.A5
William Jones, “Term Housing Shells Hazards” Chicago Tribune 1/6/1966 pg.IND1
“Bribery Trial Told of $16,000 Payment” Chicago Tribune 3/2/1966 pg.B3
“$20,000 BRIBE DEMAND TOLD BY WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 3/3/1966 pg.3
“Northlake Extortion Details Told in Court” Chicago Tribune 3/4/1966 pg.1
John O'Brien, “MAYOR FREED IN NORTHLAKE BRIBERY TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 3/5/1966 pg.3
“DEFENSE ENDS IN NORTHLAKE BRIBERY TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 3/8/1966 pg.A8
John O'Brien, “Convict 3 in Extort Plot” Chicago Tribune 3/10/1966 pg.1
“Savings and Loan Pays for Pumping” Chicago Tribune 3/27/1966 pg.IND_A4
Robert Wiedrich, “Secret Midnight Meetings of Top Mobsters Revealed” Chicago Tribune 10/1/1966 pg.B11
Robert Wiedrich, “Mob Underling Rises in Power” Chicago Tribune 11/2/1966 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “GRAND JURY PROBES MOB SHAKEDOWNS” Chicago Tribune 12/5/1966 pg.1
“Drops S. & L. Project Deadline” Chicago Tribune 12/11/1966 pg.S9
“Lawn Officials Pledge King Arthur Progress” Chicago Tribune 2/16/1967 pg.IND1
Robert Wiedrich, “INDICT 2 HOODLUM CHIEFS” Chicago Tribune 2/17/1967 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “TELL OF PLAN BY AMABILE TO FLEE CITY” Chicago Tribune 2/19/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “Innocent, Say Battaglia, 4 Pals” Chicago Tribune 2/24/1967 pg.10
“Tells of Crime Link to Building Firm” Chicago Tribune 4/20/1967 pg.D3
“Witness Testifies How Hood Tried to Cheat Sam Battaglia” Chicago Tribune 4/21/1967 pg.19
Robert Enstad, “WITNESS GIVES INSIDE LOOK AT MOB BUSINESS” Chicago Tribune 4/22/1967 pg.19
Robert Enstad, “MOB MUSCLE DESCRIBED BY ITS FRONT MAN” Chicago Tribune 4/25/1967 pg.A6
Robert Enstad, “NAME CHANGE OF BATTAGLIA WITNESS HIT” Chicago Tribune 4/26/1967 pg.17
Robert Enstad, “Builder Tells Jury How Battaglia Stepped In, Ran His Firm” Chicago Tribune 4/27/1967 pg.4
Robert Enstad, “Ends Story in Battaglia Trial” Chicago Tribune 4/28/1967 pg.12
Robert Enstad, “Defense of Battaglia Opened” Chicago Tribune 4/29/1967 pg.F6
“FORCED TO AID HOODLUM IN DEAL: WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 5/2/1967 pg.B8
“COURT DENIES ACQUITTAL FOR BATTAGLIA, 2” Chicago Tribune 5/3/1967 pg.B10
Robert Enstad, “BUILDER LIED ON LAND COST COURT IS TOLD” Chicago Tribune 5/4/1967 pg.G11
Robert Enstad, “U. S. WITNESS WILL TESTIFY FOR BATTAGLIA” Chicago Tribune 5/5/1967 pg.D21
Robert Enstad, “2 SIDES REST IN BATTAGLIA HEARING HERE” Chicago Tribune 5/6/1967 pg.E11
Robert Enstad, “DELIBERATIONS BEGIN IN TRIAL OF BATTAGLIA” Chicago Tribune 5/9/1967 pg.12
Robert Enstad, “GANG CHIEF GUILTY JAILED” Chicago Tribune 5/10/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “BATTAGLIA IS SENTENCED TO 15-YEAR TERM” Chicago Tribune 5/30/1967 pg.1
“Firm Bids for Lansing Project” Chicago Tribune 7/30/1967 pg.IND6
Robert Enstad, “TRIAL IS SET TOMORROW FOR SUBURB MAYOR” Chicago Tribune 9/10/1967 pg.24
Robert Enstad, “WITNESS BARES DETAILS OF 'FIX' IN NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 9/15/1967 pg.A11
Robert Enstad, “Witness Tells of Neri 'Deal' for Payoffs” Chicago Tribune 9/20/1967 pg.A1
“DENIES MOVE FOR MISTRIAL IN NERI CASE” Chicago Tribune 9/21/1967 pg.A6
“LAWYER TELLS OF NERI DEAL FOR PERMITS” Chicago Tribune 9/23/1967 pg.W_A27
“NERI BRIBERY JURY HEARS ONE U. S. WITNESS” Chicago Tribune 9/26/1967 pg.7
“JURORS GIVEN TOWN RECORDS IN NERI TRIAL” Chicago Tribune 9/27/1967 pg.C13
Robert Enstad, “Neri Jury Hears of $70,000 'Work Permit'” Chicago Tribune 9/28/1967 pg.16
Robert Enstad, “RILEY TELLS 3 PAYMENTS FOR BUILDING O.K.” Chicago Tribune 9/29/1967 pg.25
“AID TO BUILDER TELLS OF BRIBE IN NORTHLAKE” Chicago Tribune 10/11/1967 pg.C9
“Witness Gives His Version of $1400 Payoff” Chicago Tribune 10/13/1967 pg.1
“JURY HEARS PALERMO ALIBI” Chicago Tribune 10/17/1967 pg.4
“Taking Payoff in Northlake Denied by Neri” Chicago Tribune 10/18/1967 pg.B22
“Neri Tells of Low Salary, High Life” Chicago Tribune 10/19/1967 pg.D2
“ALD. SHABABY DENIES PART IN EXTORTION” Chicago Tribune 10/20/1967 pg.17
“Defense Rests in Neri Case; Two Balk at Testifying” Chicago Tribune 10/24/1967 pg.C1
“Witness Tells of Hood's Threat to Northlake Mayor” Chicago Tribune 10/25/1967 pg.A8
Robert Enstad, “Mayor Neri 4 Others Guilty of Extortion” Chicago Tribune 10/28/1967 pg.1
Robert Enstad, “Neri Sentenced to 12 Years” Chicago Tribune 11/14/1967 pg.1
Pat Hensel, “JURY SUBPOENAS VILLAGE RECORDS” Addison Register 1/24/1968 pg.1
Rudolph Unger, “NERI ALLOWED TO POST BOND; NOT PALERMO” Chicago Tribune 4/5/1969 pg.N_A6
“Henry Neri Indicted in 1963 Tax Evasion” Chicago Tribune 4/15/1969 pg.A2
Alvin Nagelberg, “FSLIC Is Pushing Hard for 4 S. & L. Liquidations” Chicago Tribune 4/27/1969 pg.B11
Rudolph Unger, “Kerner Accused by Skolnick of Accepting Stock in Bank” Chicago Tribune 12/3/1969 pg.1
“Judicial Impropriety? .Kerner Silent On Charge.” Southeast Missourian 12/3/1969 pg.7
Rudolph Unger, “Stock Deal Is Denied by Kerner” Chicago Tribune 12/10/1969 pg.1
Alex P. Dobish; Thomas G. Lubenow, “The Mafia in Illinois; Illinois Mob Able to Murder with impunity for 50 Years in Northlake.” Milwaukee Journal 12/28/1969 Accent section pgs.1,2
Alex P. Dobish; Thomas G. Lubenow, “The Mafia in Illinois; Mobsters Smelled Cash in Northlake.” Milwaukee Journal 12/29/1969 pg.1
“Neri and 2 Plead Guilty to Extortion” Chicago Tribune 3/24/1971 pg.A17
Robert Wiedrich, “Developer Tells How Mob Took Over His Empire” Chicago Tribune 3/28/1971 pg.1
“Neri Income Tax Charges Are Dismissed” Chicago Tribune 4/1/1971 pg.A18
George Bliss; John R Thomson, “After testimony” Chicago Tribune 5/28/1973 pg.3
George Bliss; John R Thomson, “Surveillance is part of IRS Job” Chicago Tribune 5/29/1973 pg.1
Robert Wiedrich, “The old, gray Mob” Chicago Tribune 4/21/1974 pg.G24
“Accardo pal will talk” Chicago Tribune 2/10/1979 pg.S4
United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports
GIANCANA v. JOHNSON, 335 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1964)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=335+F.2d+366
UNITED STATES v. PRANNO, 385 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1967)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=385+F.2d+387
UNITED STATES v. BATTAGLIA, 394 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=394+F.2d+304
UNITED STATES v. PALERMO, 410 F.2d 468 (7th Cir. 1969)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=394+F.2d+304
UNITED STATES v. BATTAGLIA, 432 F.2d 1115 (7th Cir. 1970)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=F7CASE&cite=432+F.2d+1115
Internal Revenue Service, “Joseph (Joe Shine) Amabile Racketeer”; 75 Years of IRS Criminal Investigation History”; Document 7233 (Rev. 2-96) 1996, pg 124
www.famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/IRS/irs_75_years.rtf
Monday, December 13, 2010
Attic rooms
In the early days of zoning, a building’s size was controlled mostly by height and setback restrictions. Later, we added control of the building’s volume, called “Cubical Content” but in the 1950’s Chicago started to use “Floor Area Ratio” instead.
The F.A.R. is a ratio of the usable floor area of the building to the size of the lot it sits on. An F.A.R. of .9 meant that you could build a one story ranch house that covered 90% of your lot, or a 2 story that covered 45%.
At some point, while defining what part of the floor area is usable, the zoning department turned to attics.
Every municipality seems to have developed its own standard. Some said that unfinished attics don’t count, but finished ones do. Some said that the floor space of a finished attic with a ceiling height of 5 feet or more count. Chicago’s ordinance said “those portions of an attic having head-room of 6 feet 9 inches or more” were usable floor area.
This has always been understood to mean finished or unfinished. If you wanted to drywall your attic, zoning did not care. Unless you increased the amount of usable floor area by adding dormers, it was not a zoning concern.
The 2004 ordinance says almost precisely the same thing. However, they added the definition of an attic. Section 17-17-0213 says that an attic is “Unfinished floor space located immediately below a gabled roof or other form of sloped roof”.
The zoning department has interpreted this to mean any portion of a finished attic constitutes usable floor space. Now, if your rebellious teenager needs more privacy or you want someplace to put your desk, think twice about using your attic.
You may need a zoning change just to hang a few sheets of drywall.
Paul K. Dickman
The F.A.R. is a ratio of the usable floor area of the building to the size of the lot it sits on. An F.A.R. of .9 meant that you could build a one story ranch house that covered 90% of your lot, or a 2 story that covered 45%.
At some point, while defining what part of the floor area is usable, the zoning department turned to attics.
Every municipality seems to have developed its own standard. Some said that unfinished attics don’t count, but finished ones do. Some said that the floor space of a finished attic with a ceiling height of 5 feet or more count. Chicago’s ordinance said “those portions of an attic having head-room of 6 feet 9 inches or more” were usable floor area.
This has always been understood to mean finished or unfinished. If you wanted to drywall your attic, zoning did not care. Unless you increased the amount of usable floor area by adding dormers, it was not a zoning concern.
The 2004 ordinance says almost precisely the same thing. However, they added the definition of an attic. Section 17-17-0213 says that an attic is “Unfinished floor space located immediately below a gabled roof or other form of sloped roof”.
The zoning department has interpreted this to mean any portion of a finished attic constitutes usable floor space. Now, if your rebellious teenager needs more privacy or you want someplace to put your desk, think twice about using your attic.
You may need a zoning change just to hang a few sheets of drywall.
Paul K. Dickman
Sunday, September 12, 2010
LEED Platinum Parking Garages
It seems that every proposed parking garage project I see, is touting itself as being LEED Platinum.
I have no real problem with parking garages, and I have no real beef with the U.S. Green Building Council (who developed the LEED rating system), but parking garages must not have crossed their minds when the put together the system.
I am not talking about the oxymoronic notion of a parking garage being green. I am talking about the idea that the LEED ratings are unintentionally weighted for parking garages.
The typical public garage in Chicago is:
Made of concrete and steel.
Built with no heat or air conditioning.
Has open sides.
Has a concrete roof.
Has no paint or carpeting.
Has little or no plumbing.
Poorly lit.
Built in an area of moderately high density.
Built in an area near to shopping, libraries, offices etc.
All of these attributes are good for points in the LEED system.
Steel is 75% recycled.
Concrete is produced locally.
No air conditioning means no CFCs.
Open sides provide natural light and ventilation.
Concrete roofs have enough reflectivity to fight the heat island effect.
You get the picture.
Virtually every above ground parking garage in Chicago has enough points to be LEED Certified. They could push themselves into a Gold Rating by the simple expedients of getting more efficient light fixtures and using a rain barrel to water the parkway trees.
Getting a Platinum rating on new garage construction would cost pocket change.
Don’t get suckered in by this hype.
Paul K. Dickman
I have no real problem with parking garages, and I have no real beef with the U.S. Green Building Council (who developed the LEED rating system), but parking garages must not have crossed their minds when the put together the system.
I am not talking about the oxymoronic notion of a parking garage being green. I am talking about the idea that the LEED ratings are unintentionally weighted for parking garages.
The typical public garage in Chicago is:
Made of concrete and steel.
Built with no heat or air conditioning.
Has open sides.
Has a concrete roof.
Has no paint or carpeting.
Has little or no plumbing.
Poorly lit.
Built in an area of moderately high density.
Built in an area near to shopping, libraries, offices etc.
All of these attributes are good for points in the LEED system.
Steel is 75% recycled.
Concrete is produced locally.
No air conditioning means no CFCs.
Open sides provide natural light and ventilation.
Concrete roofs have enough reflectivity to fight the heat island effect.
You get the picture.
Virtually every above ground parking garage in Chicago has enough points to be LEED Certified. They could push themselves into a Gold Rating by the simple expedients of getting more efficient light fixtures and using a rain barrel to water the parkway trees.
Getting a Platinum rating on new garage construction would cost pocket change.
Don’t get suckered in by this hype.
Paul K. Dickman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
