Chicago
Mayor Rahm Emanuel cakewalked into office, from his former position as
the White House chief of staff to President Obama, to succeed the
two-decade reign of Richard M. Daley. Like Daley, Emanuel faced weak
opponents who grumbled at his supersize war chest, thickly padded by
financiers from Hollywood to Wall Street. But unlike Daley, Emanuel
promised two things Chicagoans do not hear often: pledges for more
government transparency, and to make “tough choices” to fix the city’s
ballooning budget deficit.
Now, midway into his inaugural term,
the honeymoon is over. Emanuel faces scrutiny from groups Daley never
alienated: public sector unions, liberal progressives and minority
coalitions on the city’s South and West side. Since his election,
Emanuel’s approval numbers started dropping, and some are charging him
as racist — a “murder mayor” deaf to the marginalized swaths of Chicago
suffering from escalating street violence, inadequate transit and the
largest mass school closing in U.S. history. While he reigns as mayor in
a city traditionally ruled by Democrats, many consider him a Republican
in donkey blue clothing, who, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R),
swept into office and immediately hauled out the budget cleaver.
“Daley
didn’t make enemies of labor unions, but now, the police, the fire,
everybody essentially is now in opposition to Rahm and that didn’t have
to happen,” says Dick Simpson, a former Chicago alderman who now teaches
political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
To
the surprise of no one familiar with his Washington reputation, many see
the mayor as combative, refusing to take public input seriously, and
allied so closely to his tight pool of corporate benefactors that the
nickname “Mayor 1%” and Twitter hashtag #OneTermMayor have gone viral.
Even some members of his party — a tribe that rarely breaks ranks — are
scratching their heads in public. Most notable: Cook County board
president Toni Preckwinkle, who told the
two weeks ago that his decision to close so many schools was “a terrible idea” and “demoralizing.”
“The
closings are going to take place almost entirely within the
African-American community, and given the problems we already have with
violence, I think it’s very problematic,” she said.
In
any other city, the insurgency might suggest Emanuel’s chances for
reelection are in trouble, especially with two more years of drumbeating
by his opponents. But this is Chicago, where term limits go to die, and
where incumbents luxuriate in the home rule advantage.
Still, a
Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll
from early May shows a growing unrest. On the bright side, a healthy 50
percent of Chicago voters still approve of his job performance versus
40 percent who disapprove. But, a year ago, those numbers were 52-29.
And among black voters, the problems are more acute. Just 40 percent
approve of his performance while 48 percent disapprove; last year, that
disparity was the other way around, at 44-33.
The numbers reflect
the many confrontations Emanuel has faced these past two years: his
proposal to reduce public library hours and staff; a contentious teacher
strike that was the city’s first in 25 years; escalating gun violence
that entered national headlines since last summer; a five-month
renovation project that will shut down a major transit line on the South
Side, primarily affecting black commuters; lackluster efforts to better
the city’s unemployment rate that remains above 10 percent; and
conflicting agendas on spending priorities, like the controversial
announcement that 50 public schools will be shuttered in the city’s
neediest neighborhoods to help shore up funds. That announcement
happened to come the same week as another to spend $300 million in
public money to build a new basketball arena and renovate Navy Pier,
projects Emanuel promises will create 10,000 construction jobs, but
others are calling white elephants in the making.
“He’s been an
excellent CEO, he gives orders and things happen,” says Dick Simpson, a
former Chicago alderman who now teaches political science at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. “His weakness is that he’s not so
good on democracy.”
In his campaign for mayor, Emanuel was
scrutinized by his opponents as not being “from Chicago,” a technicality
that his legal team ultimately dismantled, but a contention that still
lingers as the mayor strives to show that he feels the pain of his
constituents, even if a growing number may not fully believe he feels as
sharp a sting.
Example: Daley left office on the heels of a $1.15
billion privatization deal involving selling the city’s 36,000 parking
meters to a consortium owned, in part, by Morgan Stanley. The deal was
not only later debunked as a financial catastrophe for the city — the
city’s inspector general later said it was valued for $974 million more —
but one that became a hot button issue for residents, as it cost them
nearly triple to park on city streets, and made parking costly in some
neighborhoods where meters previously didn’t exist. Since day one in
office, Emanuel made it clear he understood the political liability of
not doing something to rectify the situation. But critics say what he is
proposing feels shaky.
After Morgan Stanley delivered the city a
bill for an extra $49 million in fees — it turns out few city council
alderman read the fine print that mentioned being charged for lost
revenue from street festivals or disabled parking — Emanuel is proposing
a new deal that once again made Sunday parking free, in exchange for
allowing the company to extend parking hours, up to 10 p.m., in some
neighborhoods. Emanuel’s talking point for selling the swap is “trying
to make a little lemonade out of a big lemon.” But many aldermen,
spurred by local media reports that Emanuel’s numbers were flawed — and
worried their constituents will run them out of town on a rail — are
demanding hard data from city hall to determine if, indeed, the numbers
add up in their favor.
It doesn’t look good: A recent
Tribune analysis
concluded that Morgan Stanley would actually reap more under Emanuel’s
new deal, to the tune of $517 million in additional revenue above meter
fees. John Arena, a freshman alderman in the city’s 45th Ward, has been
one of the few in the city council to demand accountability for the new
deal, and he says the parking meter fight is an example of the mayor not
coming clean about whose side he’s ultimately on.
“Transparency
is the one thing the mayor was very vocal about in his campaign, and
that’s been something he’s not fully lived up to,” Arena says. “Of
course, when you’re in power, some of those promises may change, but my
point of view is, transparency is more important now after the Daley
years when it was a very closed circle of confidants and advisers and
it’s led us into a bad place.”
Politically, the swap has the
potential to test the patience of an electorate that the Tribune/WGN-TV
poll shows is already on the wane: 52 percent of voters believe Emanuel
has not kept his campaign pledge to rid government of insider deals, an
increase from 39 percent last year.
If there is a legacy issue
that may determine whether Emanuel’s reform agenda is best for Chicago,
or a debacle in the making, it’s likely his decision in May to
permanently shutter 50 public schools. Among his top reasons why: The
school district must close its $1 billion deficit and the number of
schools is disproportionate to the district’s population loss.
Again,
many dispute his
data.
Between 2000 and 2013, the city says it lost 145,000 students according
to census data, an 18 percent drop; however, school enrollment dropped
much less, just 6 percent. Also, the $1 billion in savings the city says
it will generate from the school closings is not likely to happen
considering the district admits that the majority of that money will get
redirected into the receiving schools as capital investments — which
means the budgetary nightmare will still remain as frightful.
“The
numbers are certainly going to be debated because we have different
resources coming up with different data and that certainly is going to
fuel both the defense and the distrust that some are feeling the system
is putting forward,” says Steve Tozer, a professor of education and
director of the Center for Urban Education Leadership at the University
of Illinois at Chicago.
While Tozer agrees with Emanuel that the
school district is woefully underfunded by the state, he says that
Emanuel’s solution to close so many schools was unusually bold, given
that he could have looked elsewhere for deep cuts — such as programs,
personnel or operating costs.
“Any time you’re talking about
closing even 10 percent of schools in any district, that’s pretty
significant. No doubt this is going to be deeply disruptive,” he says.
Politically,
the situation is disastrous, and some are (perhaps wishfully) taking it
as the first real sign of vulnerability for his reelection chances. The
Chicago Teachers Union is already spearheading a registration drive to
turn a constituency that is already against the mayor into voters, and
union president Karen Lewis labeled Emanuel “the murder mayor” because
of all his cuts to vital services. Multiple lawsuits are also pending
from families and the union who both say the mayor is violating the
civil rights of special needs children and those living in poorer,
marginalized neighborhoods. They say the closures are really a veiled
attempt to weaken the union and expand the privatized charter school
system.
No matter who wins the public relations war, the fight is
ultimately rooted in how Chicago governance operates. On paper, the
school board is an independent body, armed with the power to bypass city
hall politics and do what it perceives as right for the children — even
if it means raising taxes, which the board also has the right to do.
But
this is Chicago. And no sitting mayor is going to let a group of
appointee hacks stifle his chances at reelection. Which means that
although the school district is in a separate building, operates under
different rules, and is chartered to serve the children first, the
reality is that, under Emanuel, the board is a politicized body that
serves at his bidding.
“Chicago Public Schools pays a lot of money
for benefits for board members and salaries for public administrators
whose real job seems to be answering the phone when city hall calls and
try to find a way to implement the dictated policy. They’re not setting
the agenda so far as following the agenda,” says David Morrison, acting
director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, an advocacy
group. “They don’t seem to play an independent role, so why are they
there? Again, it comes back to the control that the fifth floor mayor’s
office has.”
Business leaders are more forgiving of Emanuel’s
no-nonsense style because they perceive him as a strong leader
emboldened to do whatever it takes to drag Chicago out of the red, and
develop long-term strategies to curb its financial crisis. Summing up
this perspective is a quote by United Airlines CEO Jeff Smisek, in a
current Time magazine cover story on the mayor, who described Emanuel as
“just what the doctor ordered.”
Lawrence Msall agrees. As
president of the Civic Federation, a government research organization in
Chicago, Msall says Emanuel “has begun a lot of the heavy lifting
that’s been needed in Chicago,” considering it faces a financial crisis
largely compounded, he says, by an unfunded liability of $32 billion in
the 10 Chicago-area public employee pension funds.
Msall
blames
much of the bungling of deals like the parking meters, not on the
mayor’s office, but on the city council — which he says is too big, and
lacks the authority to effectively analyze complicated financial
legislation. The solution, he proposes, is an Office of Independent
Budget Analysis that will vet all contracts and provide the council the
analysis needed to make smart budgetary decisions.
So far, Msall
says Emanuel is showing he is serious about confronting areas Daley
hesitated to touch. One example is his plan to phase out the city’s
subsidy of retiree healthcare by 2017 and moving the coverage under the
Affordable Care Act.
“Whether we have any money for more
government services, it is directly related to these legacy issues of
unfunded pensions and other areas that continue to put financial
pressure on the city,” Msall says. “That’s why a strong leader like
Mayor Emanuel is attractive in dealing with the issues that were avoided
or viewed as unworkable.”
Whatever its merit, this kind of talk
is unusual in Chicago, where Republican challengers are extinct and
mayors have traditionally maintained power through their patronage
armies — which have consisted mainly of city workers and unions, the
same groups that complain they are feeling the squeeze under Emanuel.
But
in recent years, the Democratic Party in Chicago has operated much
differently from its counterparts in other cities. Having zero
opposition from Republicans has allowed it to adopt some core Republican
principles, and push back harder against traditional constituent groups
without fear of retaliation. In essence, this hybrid Chicago boss —
corporate-friendly and anti-union, but progressive on traditional social
issues like gay marriage — seems to thrive here, making it quite
difficult for a serious challenger to rise up, either from the corporate
sector or among the progressives, and pose a serious threat.
“So
there is this remarkable void on the left and the right, which allows
mayors like Emanuel and Daley to steer this middle of the road course.
There isn’t much of a risk, even if Emanuel is seen as broadly
unpopular,” says Larry Bennett, a political scientist at DePaul
University in Chicago. “Chicago has been a one-party city for so long
that there’s very little infrastructure for running against an
incumbent.”
Indeed, while more in his party feel emboldened to
publicly criticize Emanuel than they had Daley, none are likely to mount
a serious campaign to knock him out of his seat in two years. One
reason is political: He still rules what remains a rubber stamp council.
The second is money: He has way more than they ever will see in their
lifetime. The third is time: For progressives, a traditionally
unorganized group, two years to coalesce into a political majority is
slim to none.
“You can’t be somebody with nobody. You have to have
a viable candidate and they have to have a movement behind them and
some fundraising capacity,” Simpson says. “Most aldermen aren’t there
yet.”
Still, while Emanuel’s war chest may ensure his political
future, money can’t buy him love. “Daley had a charm to him that
endeared him to residents of Chicago, even though he was making
decisions that hurt their interests,” Arena says.
“But Rahm is
different. He wants to squeeze. But the problem is, the more you
squeeze, the more things run through your fingers. That’s going to be a
challenge for him. You have to keep the city. The city has to love you.”
(Credit: Benjamin Wheelock/Salon/Reuters/Jeff Haynes)
No comments:
Post a Comment