More on Cappleman vs. Shiller

Posted on 2/8/2007 by Erik Moe

Today Chicagoist’s Kevin Robinson has another analysis of the heated race here in the 46th ward. Dismissing the train-wreck of embarrassingly hyperbolic online campaigning from a prolific minority on both sides, Robinson looks at last week’s debate, and criticizes both sides before essentially endorsing Shiller:

For all her faults – and there are many – we think Helen Shiller has done a pretty good job making Uptown a livable area for a community of people that might not otherwise have access to public transportation, low rent, social services, and the lake front. She hasn’t always done a good job communicating with her constituents, but she’s a great negotiator, and cares more about getting things done than talking about it, which is to her disadvantage.

I agree that openness is essential. Poor communication may well be the reason there is so much vitriol in the air. As a newcomer who’s been living and working in some far more troubled areas of Philadelphia for the past five years, Uptown Chicago looks pretty good to me, and there is active development going on. The unique issues posed by the ward’s concentration of mental illness and public assistance facilities guarantees heated debate. Robinson concludes:

We fear that the solution imposed on Uptown will be a mass exodus of the most vulnerable, sent away from social services, to be someone else’s problem. It seems to us that there is a small group of angry condo owners that are frustrated that Uptown hasn’t become the next hot North Side neighborhood. Without a comprehensive plan to do more than simply move the poor out of the ward, we’re skeptical of Cappleman and and those who support him.

Those are fighting words, but I have to admit to some of the same concerns if not the same blanket characterization of the Cappleman camp.

I don’t like what I’ve seen of the notorious political machinery here in my first Chicago election, but I don’t necessarily believe that anyone carried along by a dirty machine is completely compromised themselves. Of course, public statements advocating transparency, open government, and campaign reform would go a long way toward earning my vote and solving the problem in future elections…

PS: There is plenty more to digest in the comments section of Robinson’s post for Chicagoist. The mudslinging cuts both ways, but a quick count of the vulgarities shows a disproportionate count coming from the Cappleman camp supporters. What’s up with that? A little civility goes a long way in convincing undecided voters that your arguments are sound.

This entry was posted in Blog, chicago, the political. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.uptown-chicago.com JP Paulus

    i’m surprised that they haven’t posted a link to this blog entry at the buenaparkneighbors.org messageboard. They’re usually pretty good about finding anything related to Uptown (even socialist/communist stuff!) and posting it.

    Erik, have you talke dto your neighbors, and/or people new to the 46th their opinions on the election. What do they see?

    i appreciate your thoughts on the undecided voters…that’s been my opinion for years, but they seem to think that you are either 100% for Shiller, or you have a sane mind & are voting for Cappleman. Hot or cold — can’t be lukewarm!

    Thanks for your entry…i look forward to reading more…

    there’s i think 112 comments on that one entry on the Chicagoist

    it would be interesting to count up how many are coming from the same people (i’m one, IrishPirate is another)

  • se

    Thanks for your dispassionate entry. I agree with your characterization of nearly every online discussion about the 46th as a “train wreck.” If only I could avert my eyes from the carnage!

    I think most of the issues in the ward are being addressed appropriately by the incumbent. I think the projects she’s helping to lead should be seen through to completion. I am proud Shiller’s my representative, so she has my vote.

  • KC

    You comments relating to the “Cappleman Camp,” infer that the Cappleman Campaign has been mud-slinging and I don’t think that is the case. Yes, members of the 46th Ward are passionate about the community and this results in a lot of mud-slinging about Shiller. The Cappleman campaign has been focused on transparency in the community, which is lacking today. See the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan political organization, complaints about Shiller unethical campaigning (http://www.lwvchicago.org/newsevents/press.htm) to understand why residents are ready for a change of leadership.

  • http://erikmoe.com Erik

    Point taken. I’ve changed “camp” to “supporters.” I did see the discussion of the video rule violation in the comments to Robinson’s Chicagoist post. Rules are rules, and the video should not have been posted.

    Though it seems to me that in the YouTube age debates should be posted online in their entirety for the benefit of the busy and the less mobile. If both candidates are in favor of open government and open dialogue, shouldn’t this be a given? There would need to be a way for the videos to be non-biased. I write about documentary film in one of my real jobs, and I know that it would be easy enough for one side to look bad (even without being taken out of context) based on camera angles and lighting alone. Someone needs to give the LWV a grant to do impartial videos of these things.

  • KC

    Frankly, I don’t have an issue with the videos on You Tube, but rather the candidate posting it after agreeing not to do so. One could argue that both candidates are public figures and you can’t stop people from using their images, etc. on the internet. It was Shiller’s direct violation of the rules she signed that shows her true colors.

  • http://www.uptown-chicago.com JP Paulus

    i am not arguing about the Shiller camp being wrong to have, andthen post those videos.

    But you have to look at WHY such a rule would be suggested in the first place. In other elections, YouTube is being positively used for candidates to state their positions and other things. Debates for other wards are appearing on public access.

    The ONLY reason i can think of would be IrishPirate’s many videos. According to a poll on BuenaParkNeighbors, where IrishPirate regularly posts (his views & links to the latest video), at least 12 people say they are OFFICIALLY involved with the campaign. With that many, it’s hard to imagine that James Cappleman doesn’t know about those negative videos…meaning he has the ability to stop it, or at least post to say it should be stopped (not censored).

    Those videos are like the ones done for the 6th district against Tammy Duckworth and Peter Roskam by the Parties’ National Congressional Committees. The candidates maynot have approved those messages, but they sure condoned them by not speaking out and having them stopped.

    At the very least, a quick public suggestion by Cappleman to urge IrishPirate to make the videos positive.

  • JS

    The rules of the Shiller-Cappleman debate were set by the League of Women Voters, which has a long, well-known history as a respected, non-partisan political organization. These rules apply to campaigning in every single ward in Chicago.

    One of these rules states that the League claims sole ownership to all content from the Shiller-Cappleman deabte. Each candidate agreed to the League’s claim in press releases issued shortly after the debate was finished.

    My point, therefore, is that it is irrelevant whether video from the Shiller-Cappleman debate was put on YouTube. YouTube is not the issue. The REAL issue is that the Shiller campaign should not be making use of video or content from the S-C debate FOR ANY PURPOSE AT ALL. For them to do so is a bad-faith violation of the very rules that they agreed to, and is yet another example of how Shiller flaunts the rules to achieve her own personal objectives and not those of the 46th ward.

  • UptownRising

    I wouldn’t assume too much about James Cappleman based on what a few rabid Helen-haters post on the internet. If you ever saw what James posted on Buena Park Neighbors, his posts were always calm and fair-minded… And certainly not representative of an angry condo-owner bent on ridding the poor from Uptown. James Cappleman supports affordable housing, but he wants it to be part of a larger urban planning strategy that creates an integrated mixed-income community instead of more segregated ghettos.

  • http://erikmoe.com Erik

    UptownRising – Thanks for the insight. I didn’t know Cappleman was active in the online community. That kind of open dialogue is definitely a good thing. I tried exploring the Buena Park Neighbors site a bit, but find the message board interface a little cumbersome. Is there an easy way to browse his contributions?

  • Uptown Gal

    Kevin, So glad that you have everything figured out about Uptown, given you now live in Andersonville and spent the past 5 years in Philadelphia. I guess those 18 years I’ve spent living here don’t give me any insight into the waste of office that is Helen Shiller.

    How many trees have you planted? Let me tell you, for those of us who’ve been doing for this for nearly 20 years, the AlderBeast will show up and start screaming that you are gentrifying the neighborhood and you’d better stop immediately – even when the tree is in your own front lawn. Take it from one’s who’s experienced it.

  • http://erikmoe.com Erik

    Wait. Who’s Kevin? I’m the one who lived in Philly for the past five years and now live in the “Andersonville Terrace” appendage of the 46th. And I’m definitely not claiming to have everything figured out.

  • http://www.uptown-chicago.com JP Paulus

    Uptown Girl is probably mistaking you with Kevin Robinson of the Chicagoist.

    It seems to me that if a reporter or blogger that doesn’t agree at least 90% with the Anti-Shiller movement (or speak that language) they are considered by a minority with a loud view to be ignorant of the neighborhood.

    It doesn’t seem to occur to people that it’s possible to have the same chronological experience in a nieghborhood and come up with different views of the same place.

  • Pingback: emopage - by erik moe - this is not a fugazi blog. » Blog Archive » Goodbye Chicago, Hello Taxation Without Represention