Thanks to op-ed writer Cam Lippert-Roof for his June 8 piece (“I’m house-hunting in Chicago. Why does the process feel so stuck in the past?”). It laments Chicago’s arcane residential real estate market maneuverings that attempt to control access to for-sale properties in ways that appear to violate the provisions of the open housing market arrangement set up decades ago to combat secret access to available properties. These restrictive covenants were meant to exclude “the wrong people” from buying into certain neighborhoods.
Eventually, enforcement of covenants was declared illegal because it violated constitutionally protected equal access provisions, arising from racial or religious discrimination.
His op-ed’s headline asks why today’s process “feels so stuck in the past.” Answer: Because too many sellers and brokers still try to circumvent fair housing rules in a vain effort to establish islands of exclusivity, though there’s no evidence that open housing undermines values.
The penalty for violation is severe, and transactions cannot be kept secret. Is the risk that trifling? A big gamble over time, unless the fix is in. Whatever; it flunks the sniff test.
Whoever is asleep at the switch needs to be replaced for the law to stand a chance of being effective and for the buying process to flow smoothly, without unfair maneuverings.
— Ted Z. Manuel, Chicago
‘Secret’ real estate listings
I found Cam Lippert-Roof’s op-ed about “secret” real estate listings to be eye-opening. But on further reflection, I don’t think it’s that surprising.
After all, we’ve made real estate commissions negotiable, effectively allowing consumers to pay less and Realtors to earn less. Realtors have found a new tool, “exclusive listings,” to help them negotiate their commissions upward.
I do not work in the real estate industry, and I’m not looking for a new home (thank goodness!), so I think it’s pretty clever. It’s the way our economic system works.
— Jeff Landsman, Lincolnwood
Proposed ordinance a bad idea
Regarding the editorial “Johnson administration floats an unfair and ill-conceived crackdown on Chicago landlords” (June 5): I share the Tribune Editorial Board’s opinion that housing providers will soon be facing an “unfair and ill-conceived crackdown on Chicago landlords.” Chicago’s affordability crisis is real, but the soon-to-be-unveiled Protecting Renters Ordinance (PRO) would move us further in the wrong direction. Instead of improving affordability, PRO would expand regulation and add new layers of bureaucracy. The results would be very predictable, including less investment, fewer housing options, higher rents and ultimately more pressure on the very renters the ordinance claims to help.
Chicago already has some of the strongest tenant protections in the country. PRO is not a balanced reform but is a sweeping expansion of regulations that risks shrinking the city’s housing supply. One of the clearest examples is the proposal requiring landlords to pay tenants the equivalent of 10 months’ rent or $10,000, whichever is greater, should they elect to not renew a lease including a standard annual rent increase. That is not a reasonable safeguard; it is a punitive mandate that would discourage investment and destabilize the rental market.
Chicago’s housing challenges stem from a chronic shortage of supply and years of regulatory layering that make it increasingly difficult and expensive to operate or build multifamily housing. PRO continues this trend and mirrors policies in some of the nation’s least affordable markets, from New York to San Francisco, where we see the dire effects of heavy‑handed regulation shrinking supply and driving up rents.
It’s no surprise that PRO is broadly opposed by the housing providers responsible for maintaining and expanding Chicago’s rental stock. The ordinance fails to reflect the economic realities of operating and developing housing in this city. Chicago needs policies that grow supply and improve affordability. PRO does neither.
— Michael Mini, executive vice president, Chicagoland Apartment Association
Kids deserve quality education
In response to letter writer Linda Burke from Indian Head Park (“Public schools,” June 4): I disagree with her perspective on this issue. Sadly in Illinois, Democratic legislators let the Invest in Kids Act expire at the end of 2023. This program enabled low-income students to attend private or parochial schools. This voucher system was funded by individuals and businesses, which then received a tax credit. A win-win situation for those involved. The Illinois General Assembly and Gov. JB Pritzker have surrendered to the demands of the Chicago Teachers Union.
Look at students’ abysmal proficiency rates in the state of Illinois and tell me a federal program is not needed. Students should not be deprived of a quality education because of their ZIP code. Our kids cannot succeed in life without a quality education, and parents should be able to send their children to a private or parochial school if they wish.
— Patricia Bonk, Midlothian
Stereotyping Italian Americans
In her otherwise lovely June 3 tribute (“All in the family”) to restaurant immigrant families in Chicago, reporter Eva Remijan-Toba brings up Al Capone when talking about Tufano’s Vernon Park Tap but makes no mention of Asian criminals when talking about Sun Wah.
Neither immigrant family should be linked to violent gangsters, of course. That goes without saying.
My point is that Italian Americans continue to have an unfair albatross hanging around their necks via organized crime.
The On Leong Tong operated in Chicago during Capone’s era but did so quietly. Federal agents were more enthralled with the publicity-seeking Capone.
In fact, the largest gangland massacre in U.S. history happened not in Chicago (the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929) but in Seattle in 1983 (the Wah Mee Massacre).
The continuing fascination with Capone calls to mind a quote by the great journalist Harry Golden Sr. in 1957: “The Italian American has become a stereotype of the gangster. This is not only unfair but untrue.”
Still unfair. Still untrue.
— Bill Dal Cerro, Chicago
Why bring gender into it?
In the June 9 article “Wolves probably were protecting fallen wolf when they attacked zookeepers” by Jim Woods, the injured employees are described as “women zookeepers.”
Why is their gender relevant? If they happened to be male, would they have been referred to as “men” zookeepers? Is the assumption that the “women” zookeepers could not wrassle the wolves as perhaps the “men” zookeepers surely would have?
— Becky Kirsh, Oak Park
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
