Three North Side Aldermen to Retire
- Details
- Category: Latest News
Within weeks of each other, 46th Ward Alderman James Cappelman, 48th Ward Alderman Harry Osterman and 43rd Ward Alderwoman Michele Smith all announced that they would not run for reelection to the Chicago City Council in 2023. For Cappelman and Osterman, there is little doubt that serious challenges from left-leaning opponents played heavily into their decisions.
Both of these men stated that they had mixed emotions about their decisions. Although neither specifically cited competition from the political far left of the Democratic party, there is little doubt that the shifting political landscape within their Wards and in Chicago more generally weighed heavily in their decisions not to run.
There is little doubt that serious challenges from left-leaning opponents played heavily into their decisions.
The two Aldermen shared strikingly similar experiences as Aldermen, representing two adjacent and similar far North Side communities. Both were elected in 2011 at a time when these Wards were recovering from the devastation of the Great Recession, and from an even longer period of relatively low investment and accumulating social and economic challenges.
Although no one could have known it at the time, both neighborhoods would experience dramatic economic reversals over the next decade, flipping the political narrative from too little investment to too much.
During their early years, both Cappelman and Osterman were successful in stabilizing their communities by attracting new investment and working to reduce crime. But as the flow of investment dollars into these communities grew, their character began to change in ways that many residents did not like. The flow of wealthier and more educated newcomers to these communities was perceived as a threat to many less affluent residents who had lived there for many years.
Ironically, a significant share of the more affluent and educated newcomers moving into these communities – the very people who were causing the demographic change – held similarly anti-gentrification views. Both new arrivals and long-time residents were united in their belief that it was the money and influence of real estate developers, in cahoots with corrupt, “pay-to-play” politicians who were responsible for rising real estate values and rents. As the pace of investment increased in both neighborhoods, so too did the stridency of the anti-development and anti-gentrification movement.
Although no one could have known it at the time, both neighborhoods would experience dramatic economic reversals over the next decade, flipping the political narrative from too little investment to too much.
Beginning with the election of Carlos Ramirez-Rosa in 2015, and accelerating with the election cycle four years later, Democratic Socialist and other far-left Progressive politicians began winning Aldermanic races around Chicago, from Logan Square to Pilsen to Rogers Park. The demographics and social forces at work in these neighborhoods are similar to those of Uptown and Edgewater. These forces are ascendant and continue to create new openings for far-left candidates in other parts of the city.
Uptown and Edgewater are two such areas where these trends are evident. Of the two communities, Uptown has experienced the most extreme change of fortunes since the end of the Great Recession. When Cappelman was first elected – replacing longtime Alderwoman Hellen Schiller – there was growing anger over the perception that Uptown had become the dumping ground of the North Side for the homeless and group facilities serving people with acute mental health issues, addictions and other dependencies.
Cappelman won election by promising to bring more balanced development to the neighborhood and to make it safer for residents. Perhaps the Alderman was too successful. By 2022, Uptown had become a development hot-spot with hundreds of new, luxury apartments and condominiums all across the neighborhood. Inevitably, rising real estate prices and rents made it harder for many long-term residents to remain in the neighborhood. Many began to leave in search of more affordable housing.
These changes prompted a new wave of discontent to wash over Uptown. A coalition of long-term residents and many new, younger arrivals shared strong, anti-gentrification views and rebelled against the changes they saw occurring in their neighborhood. For many of these people, there was a strong sense that developers and their money were the root cause of the changes occurring in their community, and that the local Alderman were the enablers allowing it all to happen.
The situation in Edgewater and Andersonville was never as dire as it was in Uptown, and the transformation of these communities was less dramatic. But, in both the 46th and the 48th Wards, growing concern with affordability and social justice created coalitions of new and old residents who wanted nothing more than to halt development and reverse gentrification which they blamed for the displacement and inequities that they saw in their communities.
Cappelman won election by promising to bring more balanced development to the neighborhood and to make it safer for residents. Perhaps the Alderman was too successful.
While one can argue the relative merits or pitfalls of new development, the political reality is that gentrification is increasingly viewed with suspicion and hostility by many Chicagoans. This sentiment has been successfully exploited by far left politicians who are increasingly winning the hearts and minds of younger, more socially conscious newcomers, along with the lower-income residents who have been most directly impacted by these changes.
Ultimately, although neither Osterman or Cappelman will say so publicly, it was the prospect of being defeated by more left-leaning opponents that figured heavily in their decisions not to seek new terms in the 2023 elections. If there was any lingering doubt about where the political winds in Chicago are blowing, this double retirement should make it clear that that direction is further to the left.
For those of us who do not believe that gentrification is either inherently evil or the cause of all social ills, there is some reason for optimism if we widen our lens to political trends across the country. As reported by The Economist magazine in their July 16th edition, progressive political overreach has already driven moderate Democrats and Independents to reject the Democratic Party in many places where Democrats have long held sway. The Economist states:
The political reality is that gentrification is increasingly viewed with suspicion and hostility by many Chicagoans.
“The good news is that Democrats are showing signs of turning back from peak progressive. In San Francisco irate voters have recalled their district attorney as well as three school-board members whose zeal for ideological coups de theatre neglected bread-and-butter problems with crime and schooling. Last year Minneapolis defeated a referendum to de-fund the police and New York chose a former police captain as mayor. All these causes were backed by non-white voters, including Asian-Americans in San Francisco and African-Americans in Minneapolis. Prominent Democrats running in battleground states are steering clear of the rhetoric that enthralled the party in 2020.”
Notice, however, that The Economist does not list Chicago as one of the places where this rejection of the far left is evident. Perhaps the falling fortunes of the political far-left nationally will eventually be felt here in Chicago too. For all their talk of social justice and equity, the track record of the new Progressive and Social Democratic politicians in Chicago has been meager. As in San Francisco, these politicians seem more interested in symbols than actual accomplishment, and appear to be better at opposing policies than coming up with effective new ones.
In the meantime, a more direct fear here in Chicago is that many of the “solutions” proposed by the far left will only make the housing situation in the city worse, not better. Increasingly onerous and punitive restrictions on housing providers may win votes by rousing up the misplaced anger of citizens – a tactic used with great success on the other side of the political spectrum by Republicans who continue to insist, without evidence, that Biden stole the 2020 election. But they will only hurt an industry already reeling from over regulation and political interference. The prospect of rent control and just cause eviction restrictions will only drive more small owners out of the market. If these measures ever actually get enacted into law, they will further destabilize and damage the housing market to the detriment of all.
Unfortunately, any shift in political directions will have to wait at least until after the 2023 elections which continue to favor the political far left in progressive enclaves like Uptown and Edgewater. But, as San Francisco, New York and Minneapolis have all shown, sometimes the pendulum can swing too far. When that happens, new coalitions can emerge with new political movements to represent them. For many housing providers in Chicago, that can’t happen soon enough. For others, it’s already too late.
