IL should split from Cook Co.

[bushforever]

Either IL should split from Cook Co., or IL should vote by CD.  We are being poorly represented in IL because of the Daley machine, and the corrupt political doings in Chicago, and the high population which prevents the rest of IL from having a real voice.  I also believe the 6 townships in NW Cook County (Barrington, Palatine, Wheeling, Hanover, Schaumburg, Elk Grove) should split from Cook and form a new county before this happens...this new county would be a swing county as well.  I figured the results out if the remainder of Cook Co. formed its own state separate from NW Cook Co. and the rest of Illiniois.

Current Illinois totals:
2,826,757 Kerry (55%)
2,313,415 Bush (45%)
31,863 Badnarik (0%)
5,171,235 TOTAL (100%)

Current Cook County totals:
1,389,631 Kerry (70%)
583,774 Bush (29%)
11,103 Badnarik (1%)
1,984,508 TOTAL (100%)

New Cook Co state:
1,279,650 Kerry (73%)
469,761 Bush (27%)
9,608 Badnarik (0%)
1,759,019 TOTAL (100%)

New NW Cook Co (as part of Illinois state):
109,981 Kerry (49%)
114,013 Bush (51%)
1,495 Badnarik (0%)
225,489 TOTAL (100%)

New Illinois state (including NW Cook):
1,547,107 Kerry (45%)
1,843,654 Bush (54%)
21,455 Badnarik (1%)
3,412,216 TOTAL (100%)

Electoral Vote result:
Cook County (7 EV KERRY)
Illinois (14 EV BUSH)

BUSH 300
KERRY 238

Results used are from cnn.com

Any friendly debate or insight appreciated.  Especially Illinois people, election reform people, and other crazies who want to sell the NE to Canada, etc.  Any other crazy state-splitting ideas welcome too.

[Lunar]

Southern Texas and Northern California (where I live) are being "oppressed" too.  Boo-hoo.

I see you managed to split the state in a way to maximize the electoral victory for Bush too.

[bushforever]

Southern Texas and Northern California (where I live) are being "oppressed" too.  Boo-hoo.

I see you managed to split the state in a way to maximize the electoral victory for Bush too.

Mainly for fair representation, rather than electoral victory.  You could then see how starved Cook would be for money and how ghetto Chicago would become without the tax money of the collar counties.  I think voting by CD is an interesting subject as well, but only if it were nationwide.

[bushforever]

We're turning into taxation without representation.  Why should our money go to other people and other public projects when we aren't represented one bit.  No wonder the suburbs are choked with traffic, rural poverty is being ignored, and museums/educational facilities are lacking outside the cities.  All our money is being funneled into city projects and welfare programs.  Maybe the cities would have to figure it out themselves for once, instead of feeding off us.  We don't need the city.  We can make our own professional teams, our own large suburb skyscrapers, our own transportation systems.

[Lunar]

Absurd.

You build skyscrapers without the cities?  What, are you going to spread them ten miles apart?  Great efficiency.

Face it.  Cities are population centers that keep a key aspect of the country moving forward.  They allow for labor to be nearby the workplace and for that workplace to be near the supplier and so on. 

I live in a small rural city in the most populous state in the Union.  I hate Boxer and hated Davis, but I never complained about the cities oppressing me and all of that crazy talk.

[bushforever]

Absurd.

You build skyscrapers without the cities?  What, are you going to spread them ten miles apart?  Great efficiency.

Face it.  Cities are population centers that keep a key aspect of the country moving forward.  They allow for labor to be nearby the workplace and for that workplace to be near the supplier and so on. 

I live in a small rural city in the most populous state in the Union.  I hate Boxer and hated Davis, but I never complained about the cities oppressing me and all of that crazy talk.

Take a look at the book called Edge City.  It talks about suburban areas becoming city-esque, yet many of these cities still remain GOP or 50-50.  It focuses more on the social life in suburbs rather than politics.  The book Metropolitics focuses more on the problems of politcs between cities and suburbs.  Plenty of suburbs outside Atlanta (Dunwoody), Dallas (Arlington, Plano), Chicago (Schaumburg, Oak Brook), Detroit (Oakland Co.), New York (NJ, L.I.), Seattle (Bellevue), L.A. (Orange Co.), San Francisco (San Jose, Pleasanton), Minneapolis (Bloomington), Philadelphia (King of Prussia), Washington (Farifax Co.), Houston (The Woodlands), Denver (Aurora), etc. have job centers with skyscrapers and entertainment/civic centers well outside their borders.  We do not need the cities to survive.  They are just havens for crime and wastes of money.  Downtowns are yesterday.  Edge cities/large suburbs are the future.  And I said we are being unrepresented, rather than oppressed.

[A18]

General Rule of Taxation: no one who doesn't have/own the thing being taxed should have any say in what the taxation on that thing is.

[Nym90]

Absurd.

You build skyscrapers without the cities?  What, are you going to spread them ten miles apart?  Great efficiency.

Face it.  Cities are population centers that keep a key aspect of the country moving forward.  They allow for labor to be nearby the workplace and for that workplace to be near the supplier and so on. 

I live in a small rural city in the most populous state in the Union.  I hate Boxer and hated Davis, but I never complained about the cities oppressing me and all of that crazy talk.

Take a look at the book called Edge City.  It talks about suburban areas becoming city-esque, yet many of these cities still remain GOP or 50-50.  It focuses more on the social life in suburbs rather than politics.  The book Metropolitics focuses more on the problems of politcs between cities and suburbs.  Plenty of suburbs outside Atlanta (Dunwoody), Dallas (Arlington, Plano), Chicago (Schaumburg, Oak Brook), Detroit (Oakland Co.), New York (NJ, L.I.), Seattle (Bellevue), L.A. (Orange Co.), San Francisco (San Jose, Pleasanton), Minneapolis (Bloomington), Philadelphia (King of Prussia), Washington (Farifax Co.), Houston (The Woodlands), Denver (Aurora), etc. have job centers with skyscrapers and entertainment/civic centers well outside their borders.  We do not need the cities to survive.  They are just havens for crime and wastes of money.  Downtowns are yesterday.  Edge cities/large suburbs are the future.  And I said we are being unrepresented, rather than oppressed.

Of course there are jobs in the suburbs, but downtowns are not yesterday. People want to be able to walk where they are going, and not have to drive everywhere. Suburban sprawl is NOT the most efficient use of natural resources; it wastes time, money, fuel, and land. It's the best for business, but not the best for the consumer. It's just not a natural way for people to live; isolated communities in which everyone is forced into noninteraction and into driving everywhere. People need to have choices about how they work, live and play; to go to a nearby store within a short distance, or drive all the way out to the strip mall. That's why I strongly support the New Urbanist philosophy of suburban planning.

Cities contribute more tax dollars than they consume from state governments.

[A18]

A bunch of non- property owners who support the income tax. Oppression in any sense of the word.

[bushforever]

Absurd.

You build skyscrapers without the cities?  What, are you going to spread them ten miles apart?  Great efficiency.

Face it.  Cities are population centers that keep a key aspect of the country moving forward.  They allow for labor to be nearby the workplace and for that workplace to be near the supplier and so on. 

I live in a small rural city in the most populous state in the Union.  I hate Boxer and hated Davis, but I never complained about the cities oppressing me and all of that crazy talk.

Take a look at the book called Edge City.  It talks about suburban areas becoming city-esque, yet many of these cities still remain GOP or 50-50.  It focuses more on the social life in suburbs rather than politics.  The book Metropolitics focuses more on the problems of politcs between cities and suburbs.  Plenty of suburbs outside Atlanta (Dunwoody), Dallas (Arlington, Plano), Chicago (Schaumburg, Oak Brook), Detroit (Oakland Co.), New York (NJ, L.I.), Seattle (Bellevue), L.A. (Orange Co.), San Francisco (San Jose, Pleasanton), Minneapolis (Bloomington), Philadelphia (King of Prussia), Washington (Farifax Co.), Houston (The Woodlands), Denver (Aurora), etc. have job centers with skyscrapers and entertainment/civic centers well outside their borders.  We do not need the cities to survive.  They are just havens for crime and wastes of money.  Downtowns are yesterday.  Edge cities/large suburbs are the future.  And I said we are being unrepresented, rather than oppressed.

Of course there are jobs in the suburbs, but downtowns are not yesterday. People want to be able to walk where they are going, and not have to drive everywhere. Suburban sprawl is NOT the most efficient use of natural resources; it wastes time, money, fuel, and land. It's the best for business, but not the best for the consumer. It's just not a natural way for people to live; isolated communities in which everyone is forced into noninteraction and into driving everywhere. People need to have choices about how they work, live and play; to go to a nearby store within a short distance, or drive all the way out to the strip mall. That's why I strongly support the New Urbanist philosophy of suburban planning.

Cities contribute more tax dollars than they consume from state governments.

I intend on becoming an urban planner and I do agree in some aspects of the new idea of suburban planning.  Public Transportation is very key and I believe if a developer wants to build 1,000 homes or 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail, they better fork over a new water tower, widened roadways, lots of parkland, rapid transit funding and space, a fire station, and proper educational facilities.  I also believe in mix-use developments that include residential, office, retail, civic, and recreational uses, rather than large tracts of land for one use only.  Developers need to pay up and fit the requirements of mixed use and proper density, or the communities better say "see ya" if they don't comply.  Most communities are timid when they are small, begging for an economic engine.  They give in to the developers and lack focus in shaping their communities.  They really need to stand up and not let sprawl consume their communities.  Also, if suburban areas are expected to thrive, we can't be forking over all our money to the rotting city.  We need transit, education, and civic centers too.

[bgwah]

But aren't these suburbs just urbanizing and becoming cities themselves?

I can't believe you think "downtown" are yesterday, that is absurd. Why the hell do people pay millions of dollars to live in small condo in  Manhattan, when they could afford a mansion in the suburbs?

The suburbs and their attachment to automobiles is not good. I can't  believe how much some people pay for gas. The suburbs are an inefficient use of resources. They waste land, destroy forests, destroy animal habitats, encourage dependency on autmobiles which increases pollution, and amusingly enough, I read once that you have a better chance of dying in a car crash in the suburbs than you do being murdered in the cities!!! Hahaha.

I don't hate the suburbs, I live in one, but at least in Seattle, all of these little suburbs are trying to "promote" urban downtowns. Why imitate the cities if they're so bad?

You mentioned Bellevue, is building 40 story condo towers and huge office buildings really suburban? They want to become like Seattle.





Back to the original topic, there are a lot of changes that need to be made to states. Especially in the West, the states were formed before our current curtural regions had even developed. Having states that are squares is ridiculous.

I think Western Washington/Oregon should be a state, and then Eastern Washington/Oregon could be a state or maybe just join Idaho since they don't have that many people.

[Nym90]

Absurd.

You build skyscrapers without the cities?  What, are you going to spread them ten miles apart?  Great efficiency.

Face it.  Cities are population centers that keep a key aspect of the country moving forward.  They allow for labor to be nearby the workplace and for that workplace to be near the supplier and so on. 

I live in a small rural city in the most populous state in the Union.  I hate Boxer and hated Davis, but I never complained about the cities oppressing me and all of that crazy talk.

Take a look at the book called Edge City.  It talks about suburban areas becoming city-esque, yet many of these cities still remain GOP or 50-50.  It focuses more on the social life in suburbs rather than politics.  The book Metropolitics focuses more on the problems of politcs between cities and suburbs.  Plenty of suburbs outside Atlanta (Dunwoody), Dallas (Arlington, Plano), Chicago (Schaumburg, Oak Brook), Detroit (Oakland Co.), New York (NJ, L.I.), Seattle (Bellevue), L.A. (Orange Co.), San Francisco (San Jose, Pleasanton), Minneapolis (Bloomington), Philadelphia (King of Prussia), Washington (Farifax Co.), Houston (The Woodlands), Denver (Aurora), etc. have job centers with skyscrapers and entertainment/civic centers well outside their borders.  We do not need the cities to survive.  They are just havens for crime and wastes of money.  Downtowns are yesterday.  Edge cities/large suburbs are the future.  And I said we are being unrepresented, rather than oppressed.

Of course there are jobs in the suburbs, but downtowns are not yesterday. People want to be able to walk where they are going, and not have to drive everywhere. Suburban sprawl is NOT the most efficient use of natural resources; it wastes time, money, fuel, and land. It's the best for business, but not the best for the consumer. It's just not a natural way for people to live; isolated communities in which everyone is forced into noninteraction and into driving everywhere. People need to have choices about how they work, live and play; to go to a nearby store within a short distance, or drive all the way out to the strip mall. That's why I strongly support the New Urbanist philosophy of suburban planning.

Cities contribute more tax dollars than they consume from state governments.

I intend on becoming an urban planner and I do agree in some aspects of the new idea of suburban planning.  Public Transportation is very key and I believe if a developer wants to build 1,000 homes or 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail, they better fork over a new water tower, widened roadways, lots of parkland, rapid transit funding and space, a fire station, and proper educational facilities.  I also believe in mix-use developments that include residential, office, retail, civic, and recreational uses, rather than large tracts of land for one use only.  Developers need to pay up and fit the requirements of mixed use and proper density, or the communities better say "see ya" if they don't comply.  Most communities are timid when they are small, begging for an economic engine.  They give in to the developers and lack focus in shaping their communities.  They really need to stand up and not let sprawl consume their communities.  Also, if suburban areas are expected to thrive, we can't be forking over all our money to the rotting city.  We need transit, education, and civic centers too.

I agree with all of what you said, except that suburbs are forking over all of their money to the rotting city. Cities are a critical part of the economic health of a region, and if they are "rotting", need to be revitalized, not ignored. It can be done, and it will be worthwhile in the long run to improve the city rather than letting it die.

I also still maintain that cities in most places don't consume as many tax dollars as they produce; the rest of the state still gains on the whole from having the city. States that have cities tend to be better off economically than those without. The suburbs wouldn't exist if there wasn't a city there for them to build around.

Good to see another city planner on the board; I intend to get into that myself. :-)

[J. J.]

Okay, how many CD's did each candidate win?

[muon2]

Okay, how many CD's did each candidate win?

Without looking I know that Kerry won IL CD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9. IL 12 and 17 were gerrymandered to be safe Democrat CDs, but I don't know if that held true in the Presidential results as well. I doubt that he carried any others. I'll do some checking to see if there are more detailed results yet.

[muon2]

... I also believe the 6 townships in NW Cook County (Barrington, Palatine, Wheeling, Hanover, Schaumburg, Elk Grove) should split from Cook and form a new county before this happens...this new county would be a swing county as well.

There was a bill in the IL General Assembly to do this as recently as five years ago. It would have split Cook into as many as 6 counties: Chicago, near north suburbs, northwest suburbs, near west suburbs, southwest suburbs and near south suburbs.

On the November ballot this year were advisory referenda questions in two south suburban Cook cities to form a new county with their neighbors. Both questions were defeated.

[muon2]

Absurd.

You build skyscrapers without the cities?  What, are you going to spread them ten miles apart?  Great efficiency.

Face it.  Cities are population centers that keep a key aspect of the country moving forward.  They allow for labor to be nearby the workplace and for that workplace to be near the supplier and so on. 

I live in a small rural city in the most populous state in the Union.  I hate Boxer and hated Davis, but I never complained about the cities oppressing me and all of that crazy talk.

Take a look at the book called Edge City.  It talks about suburban areas becoming city-esque, yet many of these cities still remain GOP or 50-50.  It focuses more on the social life in suburbs rather than politics.  The book Metropolitics focuses more on the problems of politcs between cities and suburbs.  Plenty of suburbs outside Atlanta (Dunwoody), Dallas (Arlington, Plano), Chicago (Schaumburg, Oak Brook), Detroit (Oakland Co.), New York (NJ, L.I.), Seattle (Bellevue), L.A. (Orange Co.), San Francisco (San Jose, Pleasanton), Minneapolis (Bloomington), Philadelphia (King of Prussia), Washington (Farifax Co.), Houston (The Woodlands), Denver (Aurora), etc. have job centers with skyscrapers and entertainment/civic centers well outside their borders.  We do not need the cities to survive.  They are just havens for crime and wastes of money.  Downtowns are yesterday.  Edge cities/large suburbs are the future.  And I said we are being unrepresented, rather than oppressed.

Of course there are jobs in the suburbs, but downtowns are not yesterday. People want to be able to walk where they are going, and not have to drive everywhere. Suburban sprawl is NOT the most efficient use of natural resources; it wastes time, money, fuel, and land. It's the best for business, but not the best for the consumer. It's just not a natural way for people to live; isolated communities in which everyone is forced into noninteraction and into driving everywhere. People need to have choices about how they work, live and play; to go to a nearby store within a short distance, or drive all the way out to the strip mall. That's why I strongly support the New Urbanist philosophy of suburban planning.

Cities contribute more tax dollars than they consume from state governments.

I intend on becoming an urban planner and I do agree in some aspects of the new idea of suburban planning.  Public Transportation is very key and I believe if a developer wants to build 1,000 homes or 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail, they better fork over a new water tower, widened roadways, lots of parkland, rapid transit funding and space, a fire station, and proper educational facilities.  I also believe in mix-use developments that include residential, office, retail, civic, and recreational uses, rather than large tracts of land for one use only.  Developers need to pay up and fit the requirements of mixed use and proper density, or the communities better say "see ya" if they don't comply.  Most communities are timid when they are small, begging for an economic engine.  They give in to the developers and lack focus in shaping their communities.  They really need to stand up and not let sprawl consume their communities.  Also, if suburban areas are expected to thrive, we can't be forking over all our money to the rotting city.  We need transit, education, and civic centers too.

I agree with all of what you said, except that suburbs are forking over all of their money to the rotting city. Cities are a critical part of the economic health of a region, and if they are "rotting", need to be revitalized, not ignored. It can be done, and it will be worthwhile in the long run to improve the city rather than letting it die.

I also still maintain that cities in most places don't consume as many tax dollars as they produce; the rest of the state still gains on the whole from having the city. States that have cities tend to be better off economically than those without. The suburbs wouldn't exist if there wasn't a city there for them to build around.

Good to see another city planner on the board; I intend to get into that myself. :-)

There is a critical balance between the city center and its suburban ring. Many suburbs around Chicago have developed into "edge cities" as described by Garreau. Some were that way as old industrial centers engulfed as suburbs moved out. Others were created on greenfield and had no idea what they would become.

Almost all suburbs I know in the collar counties ask developers for some if not all the amenities described: "a new water tower, widened roadways, lots of parkland, rapid transit funding and space, a fire station, and proper educational facilities". Few towns are the kind of wimps that you may think.

BTW, if either of you, bushforever or Nym90, are seriously looking at a planning career in suburban Chicagoland, let me know.

[Erc]

If I cut Alameda, SF, & LA counties from CA, we'd have a Bush state.

If I cut Multonomah from OR, we'd have a Bush state.

Repeat ad infinitum for pretty much every Dem State.

[English]

This is a rather silly argument. I think what you're endorsing is a parliamentary system like the ones in Britain and Canada? This splits the nation up into small constituences and means if you live in a Republican area you get a Republican representive. Just removing big cities from their states wouldn't be fair either. What about small Democrat voting cities and towns like Tacoma in WA and Sacramento in CA? These would complain then that they had Republicans thrust upon them? What about Montgomery in AL or Austin TX? These should be removed then to give the Democrats an EV or 2? Either you keep the Electoral college system or go the whole hog and have UK style constituences. There is no half-way model.

[opebo]

And St. Louis is trapped/unrepresented because it is trapped in a redneck state.  There are incidences of this sort of thing all over the country.  The obvious answer would be to do away with the electoral college.  Barring that, just live with it.

As for suburbs - American sprawl is probably the single most unpleasant living environment ever devised.  But I think most working class people are stuck living out there.

[English]

I agree Opebo. He's just trying to Gerrymander the system to get more EV for the Republicans.
There are lots of instances were GOP areas are trapped in Democrat states and vice versa. It evens out overall.

Surely it makes more sense to invest in cities? That way they wouldn't become horrendous ghettos, but would be nice places to live, full of high earners and professionals?
European cities are often the opposite to those in the US. The wealthy live in the centres (Paris, Madrid etc.) the poor live in the suburbs.

[opebo]

European cities are often the opposite to those in the US. The wealthy live in the centres (Paris, Madrid etc.) the poor live in the suburbs.

Yeah, I know!  Americans pay extra and drive their lives away to live in places a European wouldn't tolerate for a week!

[English]

European cities are often the opposite to those in the US. The wealthy live in the centres (Paris, Madrid etc.) the poor live in the suburbs.

Yeah, I know!  Americans pay extra and drive their lives away to live in places a European wouldn't tolerate for a week!

I think the only US cities with large wealthy inner city populations are  New York and San Fransisco? Is that true?
UK cities unfortunately are also going down the pan, but they don't seem to be quite as poor as American inner cities.

[ill ind]

  I live in Ill and I don't agree with the idea at all.  Heck I live in the suburbs (Du Page) as well.  I get pretty tired of listening to the constant whining of suburbanites about how bad the city is and how they are causing the state to go to hell in a handbasket...on and on.
  In all honesty, the Ill Republicans need to take a long hard look at themselves if they ever intend to win a statewide race here.  They held the Governor's office for over 25 years and now have lost it.  In my opinion 99.95% of their problems are their own doing, and they better figure out what they are going to do to correct it, and fast if they have any intention of winning back the Governor's office in 2006.  Heck I went to a wrestling cage match the other day, and to my suprise it was a Illinois Republican party meeting!!!!   When the various factions of the party can actually speak to each other, and put aside all the bickering, they might actually win a few elections.  Alan Keyes definitely did not help the situation either.!!!
  I believe the root cause of the Ill GOP's demise can be traced to its 'comfortability and complacency' in controlling the state government over the years which eventually led to corruption.  The Cook County Democratic party has gotten all the bad press for corruption over the years, but in reality the DuPage Republican and the state Republican organizations have been just as corrupt!!!    Heck the Republicans won the Governor's office for so long that they got complacent and started nominating poor candidates. ie Jim Ryan who had about as much life as a plate of pasta.  Now all the factions in  the party are vying to see who will control the organization.
  That being said, I hope that the Ill GOP can get its act together, as I do not want to live in a 1 party state where the Governor, the mayor of Chicago, Michael Madigan and all the others will not have to answer to anybody.

[opebo]

European cities are often the opposite to those in the US. The wealthy live in the centres (Paris, Madrid etc.) the poor live in the suburbs.

Yeah, I know!  Americans pay extra and drive their lives away to live in places a European wouldn't tolerate for a week!

I think the only US cities with large wealthy inner city populations are  New York and San Fransisco? Is that true?

Oh, I think you could add Boston to that list..  I don't know much about the rest.  Of course even in my hometown of St. Louis people are rehabbing old buildings and snapping up lofts like crazy.  Sort of a reaction agains the horrors of suburbia, even though our City center isn't nice at all.

[danwxman]

Get over it. You live in a Democratic state.