I am sure that there are many people like me who drive and bike, and as a result, we are receptive to the many differing views expressed regarding bike lanes and our streets.
However, priorities must be given to small businesses, their fate and their ultimate survival since they have contributed so much to our city and our neighborhoods. In the 1950s and 1960s, I can remember ubiquitous grocery stores located on side streets throughout Chicago. Operating on small margins, they gradually disappeared due to the growth of grocery chains such as Dominick’s and Jewel. Some chains even offered reward programs such as S&H Green Stamps, which further undermined the vitality of these mom-and-pop stores.
For small businesses today, the situation is even more precarious. They not only have the brick-and-mortar chains to contend with, but they also have to compete with Amazon and hundreds of other online retailers.
The concerns of small businesses regarding parking must be adequately addressed in their favor before any consideration is given to drivers and bikers. I try my best to support small businesses even when their prices are higher. They personify what it means to succeed in America, and many patrons discover that they have excellent products and provide great personal service.
— Larry Vigon, Chicago
CDOT ignores our concerns
My sympathies to the residents around Archer Avenue in Brighton Park and Grand Avenue in West Town, which are undergoing “Complete Streets” projects. I am a longtime resident of Edgewater, which has been subjected to the Chicago Department of Transportation’s improvement plans on North Clark Street and Granville Avenue. Here, too, CDOT disregarded the objections of many residents as the agency previewed its plans during very limited neighborhood meetings and Zoom calls. Here, too, our City Council representatives were useless.
CDOT quotes data that supports its narrative and plans. Does it measure the increased commute times, traffic backups, lost customers for small businesses and excessive traffic diversion on the surrounding residential streets that result from “Complete Streets” projects? (Or maybe it does and doesn’t publish that data.) A possible increase in pedestrian accidents on surrounding residential streets would offset the reductions on the main arterial streets, but we’ll never know that.
— Kathleen Wall, Chicago
Unified plan for teen takeovers
This Memorial Day weekend made something unmistakably clear: Chicago is experiencing a wave of large, unstructured youth gatherings that are affecting many neighborhoods. From the lakefront to the West Side, residents are feeling the impact, and they are asking for a response rooted in both safety and dignity.
Crowds surged at 57th Street Beach, prompting a major police response. On the Near West Side, police arrested more than a dozen teens after a gathering turned disruptive. These incidents are part of a growing pattern of uncoordinated gatherings that have increased in size and frequency over the past several years. They are not isolated moments; they are a citywide challenge that requires a citywide plan.
Chicagoans are feeling concern, frustration and fatigue. Seniors walking to the store, workers heading home, parents with children, small business owners and the young people themselves are all navigating the consequences of gatherings that grow too large or lack structure. Public spaces should remain open and welcoming. Young people deserve places to gather, connect and enjoy the city. But safety is a shared responsibility.
At the same time, we cannot ignore Chicago’s long, complicated history of policing Black and Brown youths. Any response must balance accountability with dignity and restraint. Fear cannot justify overpolicing, and empathy cannot become inaction.
To their credit, the city of Chicago, elected officials, the Chicago Police Department, nonprofits, youth‑serving organizations and individuals with lived experience are already working to address these challenges. But meeting this moment requires more than effort. It requires alignment, intention and investment.
Chicago needs a unified plan that brings together city departments, community‑based organizations, violence interrupters, youth mentors and the private sector. That plan must include stronger coordination, clear policy solutions, sustainable funding, and an empowering of the agencies and people who know how to mediate these situations before they escalate.
Chicago’s identity has always been rooted in resilience and belonging. The events of this weekend do not define us. What will define us is how we respond — together, with clarity, coordination and care.
— Jourdan Sorrell, Chicago
Suggestions to curb takeovers
I grew up in Chicago in a simpler time. We had parents who knew where we were. We had communities that offered us activities: clubs in parishes and at high schools, dances with live bands and sometimes with high school students who were doing the singing, basketball games, football games, school plays and parties hosted by parents in homes.
I suggest holding the parents responsible of the offending teens in takeovers. Work with churches, schools, teen employers, such as parks, and any institutions with teen contacts to sponsor regular social events.
Kids love to perform; give them opportunities through drama groups, musical groups, choral groups and sports.
— Jean Moran, Palos Park
Chicago needs a city charter
Regarding the editorial “Chicago, meet Stonepeak Partners. Stonepeak Partners meet a Chicago that’s ticked off about your big parking meter deal” (May 20): Chicagoans love to hate the parking meter deal for good reason, and it’s cathartic to find a villain we can all get behind. But if we paint Stonepeak Partners as the newest villain in this story, we are missing the larger, more dangerous, point. To borrow a phrase: The call is coming from inside the house.
The real problem was never just the investors on the other side of the transaction, nor is it the new investors now. The problem was Chicago’s government lacked the process, transparency safeguards and independent oversight necessary to protect taxpayers from a catastrophic long-term deal in the first place. Troublingly, many of those same structural weaknesses still exist.
The lesson from the parking deal is not merely that the city got fleeced by private investors. It is that Chicago’s governing systems allowed a transaction for a 75-year lease involving a multibillion-dollar public asset to move forward without the level of review and public deliberation any sophisticated institution would require.
That should concern Chicagoans because those same governance failures are still happening, whether the issue is pensions, borrowing, labor agreements or tax increment financing. Unlike other cities of our size and larger, we lack a city charter, a crucial document outlining sound governance practices. This lack of oversight leads to the Chicago City Council approving an $830 million general obligation bond issue that will lead to the city ultimately paying $2 billion.
The City Council should absolutely explore whether there is a way to negotiate with Stonepeak. But if the public takeaway is only simply that Stonepeak is the bad guy, that turns this conversation into a morality play instead of a governance reform movement.
The hard truth is that Chicago’s biggest threat is our own lack of institutional guardrails. If we want a different outcome over the next 20 years, we need to start putting into place a City Council, a mayor and a General Assembly willing to put real financial oversight mechanisms into place in Chicago.
So, as the Stonepeak conversation causes anger to resurface over the parking meter deal, let this be a painful reminder that our city still lacks the systems to protect itself from its own decision-making process. Use this anger to vote for elected officials who support much needed structural change.
— Jessica Dadosky, Chicago
The power in how we spend
The editorial about Stonepeak Partners and the city’s parking meters piqued my interest and also my blood pressure, almost as much as the Chicago Bears, a franchise recently estimated to be worth $8.9 billion that seeks to play the taxpayers of Indiana and Illinois against each other to see which state will maximize their profits by minimizing their taxes.
The editorial urges Stonepeak to “come up with some concessions to show us you will be a better citizen than Chicago Parking Meters, LLC.” What does it mean for a corporation or partnership to be a good citizen? The Corporate Governance Institute states that corporate citizenship is “the extent to which businesses are socially responsible for their actions and the impact these actions have on society.” Philanthropy is certainly part of it.
I will never forget, while working for a nonprofit housing organization in the midst of the foreclosure crisis, the respect I felt for the head of a prominent foreclosure law firm, who unexpectedly presented our organization with a six-figure donation to support our efforts to prevent foreclosures.
Even the often maligned banking industry has shown a generous history of supporting the nonprofit housing industry in Chicago. As it turns out, Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, has a charitable giving arm — CPM Community Partners — but my effort to find its record of charitable giving has thus far been fruitless, beyond a 2011 article in the Austin Voice detailing over $50,000 in grants given out in 2010. On the same day as the editorial, the Tribune reported a $1.7 million grant from Lollapalooza to support arts education in Chicago Public Schools, a stark contrast in giving, even after accounting for 16 years of inflation.
One simple ask of the buyer and seller in the parking meter deal is a transparent history of charitable giving in Chicago. Corporations are free to maximize profits, and a contract, no matter how one-sided, might be the only thing truly sacred in our legal system. Nevertheless, actions have consequences, and even if too many of us no longer believe our votes count, our dollars and how we choose to spend them still can.
Whether it is through joining a campaign that chooses a day to pay parking tickets instead of meters or refusing to step foot in a Hammond stadium or spending money with sponsors that do, remember your choices in spending your money can make a difference.
— John Groene, Park Ridge
Don’t rush PDAB formation
Illinois patients are struggling with the cost of prescription medications, and my organization and I share the goal of improving affordability and access to care. However, we are concerned that proposed legislation (SB3496) to create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board in Illinois risks unintended consequences that could ultimately harm the very patients it aims to help.
PDABs have now been established in several states, but where is the evidence that they have produced meaningful or consistent savings for patients at the pharmacy counter? Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger recently vetoed PDAB legislation. In her veto statement, she said that “they are expensive undertakings that other states have either repealed or are considering repealing due to costs and ineffectiveness.” Late last year, New Hampshire repealed its PDAB, which had existed since 2020.
The experience in other states is instructive; these boards have faced legal challenges, delays with implementation and uncertainty around enforcement. Experts have also raised concerns that government-imposed upper payment limits could disrupt access to certain medications, particularly specialty and rare-disease treatments.
Illinois has a diverse patient population with significant health disparities, and policies that affect drug access must be evaluated carefully through that lens. Unfortunately, national health equity experts have cautioned that price-setting approaches, if not carefully designed, can unintentionally reduce access for communities already facing barriers to care by narrowing treatment options or discouraging participation in certain markets.
Prescription drug affordability is a complex issue that cannot be solved by focusing on one part of the supply chain alone. A PDAB does not address the roles of pharmacy benefit managers, insurance benefit design or rebate structures that often drive high out-of-pocket costs for patients. Without tackling these underlying factors, Illinois risks creating a new regulatory body unable to deliver real cost relief to patients.
Rather than adopting a model that has yet to demonstrate success elsewhere, Illinois should prioritize reforms that improve transparency, hold all stakeholders accountable and protect patient access to care. Moving forward with a PDAB before they have even proved to be effective risks wasting taxpayer dollars and requiring corrective legislative action in the future.
We urge lawmakers to proceed with caution and ensure that any effort to lower drug costs in Illinois strengthens, rather than weakens, patient access and equity.
— Jashua Justin Travis, executive director, Center for Healthcare Innovation
Springfield, not Vatican City
The Illinois General Assembly is in session only until Sunday and will not reconvene again until the fall for two weeks. Our mayor for some reason thinks it’s a good time to go visit the Vatican this week, instead of doing Chicago’s bidding in Springfield. Mayor Brandon Johnson has been awkward to say the least, in his dealings with Springfield and Gov. JB Pritzker in the past.
Johnson should go do his job!
— Mike Rice, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
