Rahm Emanuel and the Unraveling of Chicago

This illustration can only be used with the John B. Judis story that originally ran in the 3/28/2015 issue of National Journal magazine.
Javier Muñoz
Add to Briefcase
John B. Judis
March 27, 2015, 12:11 a.m.

Rahm Emanuel is prob­ably go­ing to be reelec­ted may­or of Chica­go, but it won’t have been a pretty road to get there. He failed to garner a ma­jor­ity in the first round of vot­ing, back in Feb­ru­ary — a re­buke, of sorts, from voters, who had four years ago giv­en him 55 per­cent of the first-round vote. As a res­ult, he now faces an April 7 run­off against county of­fi­cial Je­sus “Chuy” Gar­cia.

When polit­ic­al junkies in the rest of the coun­try think about Emanuel, they tend to fo­cus on his le­gendary haught­i­ness. To take one ex­ample: A con­stitu­ent who met with Emanuel earli­er this month to protest the clos­ing of men­tal-health clin­ics com­plained that the may­or had yelled, “You’re gonna re­spect me!” (Emanuel’s camp denied to The Huff­ing­ton Post that the may­or had yelled.) Such haught­i­ness has cer­tainly hurt Emanuel dur­ing this cam­paign. Where­as his pre­de­cessor, Richard M. Da­ley, was per­fectly cap­able of ar­rog­ance, his per­son­al­ity didn’t seem to of­fend Chica­goans the same way Emanuel’s does. Da­ley had the bluster of the com­mon man; Emanuel comes across as im­per­i­ous. “Da­ley could be your broth­er or uncle,” one labor lead­er told me re­cently. “Rahm is more up­per class.” The press in Chica­go has been fond of re­count­ing how Emanuel was seen with his ex­tremely wealthy friend, Illinois’s Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernor, Bruce Rau­ner, at a posh Montana re­sort car­ry­ing a bottle of wine that’s only avail­able through an ex­clus­ive buy­er’s club — which costs six fig­ures to join.

But while Emanuel’s col­or­ful per­son­al­ity has cer­tainly been a key factor in the minds of many voters, it isn’t — or at least shouldn’t be — the real story about Chica­go polit­ics right now. Per­haps more than any oth­er ma­jor city in Amer­ica, Chica­go is fa­cing a truly grave set of prob­lems — prob­lems that are es­sen­tially more ex­treme ver­sions of the chal­lenges con­front­ing city gov­ern­ments across the coun­try.

The quandar­ies be­gin with Chica­go’s dra­mat­ic so­cial di­vide. To an even great­er ex­tent than is the case in, say, New York or Phil­adelphia, Chica­go has be­come two en­tirely sep­ar­ate cit­ies. One is a bust­ling met­ro­pol­is that in­cludes the Loop, Michigan Av­en­ue’s Mag­ni­fi­cent Mile, and the Gold Coast, as well as the city’s well-to-do, work­ing-class, and up­wardly mo­bile im­mig­rant neigh­bor­hoods. The oth­er Chica­go con­sists of im­pov­er­ished neigh­bor­hoods on the far South and West Sides, primar­ily pop­u­lated by Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans. These places have re­mained bey­ond the reach of the city’s re­cov­ery from the Great Re­ces­sion.

(RE­LATED: Rahm Emanuel Needs Re­pub­lic­an Help)

Mean­while, even as it grapples with this ex­treme gap, Chica­go is suf­fer­ing from a severe fisc­al crisis. Like plenty of oth­er mu­ni­cip­al­it­ies, Chica­go lacks the rev­en­ue to pay its bills, par­tic­u­larly its pen­sion ob­lig­a­tions to city work­ers. Ac­cord­ing to a 2013 Pew re­port, 61 oth­er U.S. cit­ies face sim­il­ar dif­fi­culties, but Chica­go’s situ­ation is one of the worst. “Voters must real­ize we are fa­cing the greatest eco­nom­ic crisis since the Great De­pres­sion,” says Roosevelt Uni­versity’s Paul Green, the doy­en of Chica­go polit­ic­al ex­perts. “If something doesn’t hap­pen, the city is bey­ond the abyss.”

Those prob­lems aren’t really Emanuel’s fault, but his ef­forts to fix them over the past four years haven’t yiel­ded es­pe­cially good res­ults. For his part, Gar­cia — who has been at the fore­front of Latino polit­ics in Chica­go for four dec­ades and who has a his­tory of buck­ing Chica­go’s polit­ic­al es­tab­lish­ment — has run a cam­paign long on gen­er­al pop­u­list cri­ti­cism of the in­cum­bent, but short on cred­ible ideas about what he would do dif­fer­ently.

All of which means that this elec­tion won’t yield much of a man­date for dra­mat­ic solu­tions to Chica­go’s twin crises. After April 7, however, Emanuel or Gar­cia will have no choice but to try. If the gap­ing holes in Chica­go’s so­cial and fisc­al fab­ric can some­how be men­ded, the city will have cre­ated a power­ful blue­print that oth­er large urb­an cen­ters could in the­ory fol­low. And if they can’t be fixed? Then Chica­go may end up serving as a cau­tion­ary tale about the grim polit­ic­al and eco­nom­ic fate await­ing oth­er U.S. cit­ies that put off or wish away their prob­lems.

Emanuel's efforts to improve Chicago's schools let to the shutdown of 49 low-performing elementary schools, which was met with protests in 2013. (Scott Olson/Getty Images) Getty Images

IF YOU DRIVE through the pre­dom­in­antly Afric­an-Amer­ic­an neigh­bor­hoods on Chica­go’s far South and West Sides, it’s dif­fi­cult not to be struck by the sheer des­ol­a­tion. While much of the city — in­clud­ing Pilsen, a Mex­ic­an-Amer­ic­an area where Gar­cia grew up — teems with life and com­merce, swathes of the South and West Sides seem bereft of hope. Garbage is strewn on empty lots, stores are boarded up, and streets are deser­ted in day­time. In West Engle­wood, for in­stance, from 2008 to 2012, a third of house­holds were be­low poverty, un­em­ploy­ment among those ages 16 and older was 34.7 per­cent, and 30 per­cent lacked high school dip­lo­mas. In River­dale, 61.4 per­cent of house­holds were be­low poverty, 25.4 per­cent were un­em­ployed, and a quarter lacked a high school dip­loma. Ac­cord­ing to the Census Bur­eau, over­all Afric­an-Amer­ic­an un­em­ploy­ment in Chica­go in 2013 was 25 per­cent, con­sid­er­ably high­er than the Afric­an-Amer­ic­an un­em­ploy­ment rates in Amer­ica’s oth­er four largest cit­ies.

Many of Chica­go’s black res­id­ents are the des­cend­ants of those who came from the South in the 1940s to work in the city’s factor­ies, but most of Chica­go’s large factor­ies have shut down or moved over the last 40 years. The city’s key in­dus­tries, primar­ily centered in and around the Loop, are fin­an­cial ser­vices, tour­ism, trans­port­a­tion, lo­gist­ics, health care, and edu­ca­tion. In March 2012, a re­port of the city’s main plan­ning group warned that “the de­mand for low-skilled work­ers con­tin­ues to de­crease” and that “in the years ahead, the de­mand for high-skilled em­ploy­ees will in­crease twice as fast the de­mand for lower-skilled work­ers.” It also pre­dicted grow­ing de­mand for “jobs that re­quire mid-skilled work­ers,” but these are gen­er­ally work­ers who at least have as­so­ci­ate de­grees from com­munity col­leges. The up­shot is that those without high school de­grees, or with only high school de­grees, will in­creas­ingly be un­able to find jobs; and it will be very dif­fi­cult to per­suade busi­nesses, al­most all of which now re­quire some fa­mili­ar­ity with com­puter tech­no­logy, to set up shop in Chica­go’s poor neigh­bor­hoods.

If there is a vi­able al­tern­at­ive to Emanuel’s ap­proach, Gar­cia is not air­ing it.

Emanuel’s re­sponse to this prob­lem has primar­ily been to try to im­prove Chica­go’s schools. He got the school board, which he con­trols, to lengthen the school day and year, and in­sti­tute all-day kinder­garten; in his cam­paign, he is prom­ising to ex­pand pre­kinder­garten and give free tu­ition to com­munity col­lege for high school gradu­ates with a B av­er­age. The school board also shut down 49 un­der­used and low-per­form­ing ele­ment­ary schools, and sought to trans­fer those who were dis­placed — 12,000 pre­dom­in­antly low-in­come Afric­an-Amer­ic­an stu­dents — to bet­ter-per­form­ing schools. While this move was ini­tially jus­ti­fied on fin­an­cial grounds, it was also part of a broad­er strategy to im­prove stu­dent achieve­ment. The res­ults were mixed: Ac­cord­ing to a Uni­versity of Chica­go study, 93 per­cent of the stu­dents trans­ferred from third-tier to second- or first-tier schools, but only the 21 per­cent who at­ten­ded first-tier schools showed sig­ni­fic­ant schol­ast­ic im­prove­ment.

Emanuel has also made some ef­fort to se­cure in­vest­ments in the South and West Sides. He got Meth­od, a com­pany that makes clean­ing products, to build a small fact­ory on the far South Side that will cre­ate about 100 jobs. And with tax breaks, he in­duced up­scale Whole Foods to put a store in Engle­wood, which, like many Afric­an-Amer­ic­an neigh­bor­hoods, lacked gro­cery stores. Still, it’s un­clear how much these small-scale in­vest­ments, coupled with the city’s edu­ca­tion­al ini­ti­at­ives, can really do to ameli­or­ate the gap between the South and West Sides and the rest of the city.

One of Gar­cia’s cri­ti­cisms of Emanuel is that he has fo­cused on eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment down­town, rather than in the poorer neigh­bor­hoods. Emanuel has re­spon­ded by say­ing that it’s “a false choice to pit one part of the city against an­oth­er. No great city does not have a thriv­ing cent­ral city that sup­ports jobs where all parts of the city go to.” Emanuel isn’t wrong, ex­actly. But it’s also true that he has squandered tax breaks in­ten­ded for blighted areas on lux­ury ho­tels, high rises, and an arena for De­Paul’s bas­ket­ball team in the South and West Loop — all while lur­ing Yelp and Mo­torola Mo­bil­ity to down­town Chica­go and put­ting money in­to Mc­Cormick Place and Navy Pier, two key tour­ist des­tin­a­tions.

Emanuel speaks to the press on Election Day in Chicago last month. He failed to garner a majority of votes. (Scott Olson/Getty Images) Getty Images

And yet, while Gar­cia and his al­lies have le­git­im­ate cri­ti­cisms of Emanuel’s eco­nom­ic-de­vel­op­ment ef­forts, they have not pro­duced any­thing re­sem­bling a vi­able al­tern­at­ive. When I asked Gar­cia dur­ing a re­cent in­ter­view in his cam­paign headquar­ters what he would do about Chica­go’s so­cioeco­nom­ic di­vide, he said there was “the po­ten­tial on the West Side for loc­al busi­nesspeople to in­vest in co­oper­at­ive en­ter­prises, work­er-owned en­ter­prises.” I asked him for an ex­ample, and he cited New Era Win­dows, which had taken over the old Re­pub­lic Win­dows plant, and which pro­duces re­place­ment win­dows. “Check it out,” he told me. “It’s an ex­ample of what can be done if there is polit­ic­al will and an un­der­stand­ing on what needs to be done, par­tic­u­larly on the West and South Sides, to cre­ate op­por­tun­it­ies.”

I checked it out mid­day on a sunny Thursday. I found an old build­ing with the com­pany’s name painted on the wall, but the park­ing lot was nearly deser­ted. A work­er at a neigh­bor­ing busi­ness poin­ted me to a door, but it was locked. In an ad­join­ing build­ing, someone else sug­ges­ted I look in a suite of of­fices on the third floor, but there was no one there or on the oth­er floors. I called the com­pany’s num­ber later, and the per­son on the phone as­sured me that the com­pany is still op­er­at­ing, but “might have been closed” when I tried to vis­it. I asked her how many people the com­pany em­ployed, and she said 16.

To be sure, the fate of New Era Win­dows won’t de­term­ine the vi­ab­il­ity of Gar­cia’s strategy. But it points to the dif­fi­culties in­her­ent in any at­tempt to re­vive the South and West Sides. In his de­bate with Emanuel, Gar­cia called for “at­tract­ing mod­ern in­dustry and man­u­fac­tur­ing” to Chica­go’s neigh­bor­hoods. If by mod­ern in­dustry, he means Yelp and Linked­In, then the prob­lem will be that these kind of firms want to loc­ate near oth­er fin­an­cial and busi­ness ser­vices down­town. And if he means man­u­fac­tur­ing on a scale that Chica­go once en­joyed, the long-term trends in the loc­al eco­nomy are run­ning against such a strategy. As one head of an eco­nom­ic-de­vel­op­ment or­gan­iz­a­tion in a minor­ity neigh­bor­hood told me, hopes of re­viv­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing on a large scale are a “pipe dream.”

{{third­PartyEmbed type:magazineAd source:magazine_mid}}

AS IF THE so­cioeco­nom­ic gap wasn’t hard enough to solve on its own, it’s made even more dif­fi­cult by the loc­al gov­ern­ment’s ter­rible fisc­al con­di­tion. Chica­go’s fin­ances, like those of some oth­er city gov­ern­ments, have suffered from the boom-bust cycle of the past 20 years. The city grew com­pla­cent dur­ing the boom, fail­ing to set aside funds for the fu­ture, and then didn’t take the ne­ces­sary cor­rect­ive steps when the eco­nomy faltered. The blame largely be­longs to Da­ley, Emanuel’s pre­de­cessor, who lav­ished money on civic pro­jects and doled out funds to ap­pease al­der­men without rais­ing taxes. When fi­nally faced with fall­ing rev­en­ues, he un­der­took sev­er­al con­tro­ver­sial ef­forts at privat­iz­a­tion, but the ini­tial funds the city gained quickly evap­or­ated.

The heart of Chica­go’s cur­rent fisc­al woes is its pen­sion sys­tem. The city’s pub­lic work­ers, in­clud­ing teach­ers, do not re­ceive So­cial Se­cur­ity. In­stead, they get pen­sions from the city. The gov­ern­ment pays for these pen­sions through funds that con­sist of em­ploy­ees’ and tax­pay­ers’ con­tri­bu­tions and what Chica­go earns on in­vest­ments from these con­tri­bu­tions. Ac­cord­ing to Uni­versity of Chica­go pub­lic-policy ex­pert Mi­chael Bel­sky, in­vest­ment earn­ings have gen­er­ally ac­coun­ted for two-thirds of the total funds.

Private pen­sion funds are usu­ally re­quired to main­tain as­sets equal to 100 per­cent of their total li­ab­il­it­ies, meas­ured as what would be re­quired to pay be­ne­fits to ex­ist­ing work­ers and re­tir­ees; but be­cause cit­ies and states can count on be­ing able to tax to cov­er their ob­lig­a­tions, rat­ing agen­cies and reg­u­lat­ors be­lieve their as­sets need to cov­er only about 80 per­cent of their total li­ab­il­it­ies. Chica­go’s pen­sion funds re­mained at that level or above un­til the early 2000s. Then they began to drop pre­cip­it­ously. The main cause was the dot-com re­ces­sion of 2001 and 2002 and the Great Re­ces­sion that began in 2007 — both of which caused the funds’ earn­ings on in­vest­ments to plum­met. In ad­di­tion, city con­tri­bu­tions through tax­pay­ers, which were cal­cu­lated us­ing a fixed for­mula that didn’t re­flect in­creases in li­ab­il­it­ies, failed to keep pace; and for sev­er­al years, Da­ley didn’t put even the tax money that the city did col­lect back in­to the funds. At the same time, the pen­sion bill it­self in­creased due to a great­er life span among re­tir­ees and be­ne­fit in­creases gran­ted to pub­lic em­ploy­ees. By the end of 2012, the as­sets in the city’s funds amoun­ted to just 36 per­cent of their li­ab­il­it­ies.

In the Roseland neighborhood of Chicago, almost one in 10 properties is vacant. (Tim Boyle/Bloomberg via Getty Images) Bloomberg via Getty Images

At this dis­mal level, the pen­sion funds began to use their as­sets to pay off im­me­di­ate be­ne­fits. That meant the total funds were be­ing stead­ily re­duced, which meant the in­vest­ment in­come was also go­ing down. The pen­sion funds were in a death spir­al — and they still are.

If pen­sions were a small part of a city’s budget, then all of this wouldn’t mat­ter that much. But pen­sions rep­res­ent one of the largest ex­pendit­ures in Chica­go’s budget (which is also true of oth­er cit­ies). Of a budget that runs around $8 bil­lion, pen­sion costs will amount to about $1.1 bil­lion in 2015, and will rise to $1.2 bil­lion in 2016 and $1.3 bil­lion in 2017.

The rat­ing agen­cies have taken note. In 2013, Moody’s is­sued a “su­per down­grade,” re­du­cing Chica­go’s cred­it rat­ing three notches. Last Feb­ru­ary, Moody’s took Chica­go down an­oth­er notch, leav­ing it only three steps from junk-bond status. Lower bond rat­ings mean high­er in­terest rates, mak­ing it more ex­pens­ive for Chica­go to bor­row money to cov­er its de­fi­cits. Oth­er cit­ies have faced sim­il­ar crises, but among ma­jor Amer­ic­an cit­ies, only De­troit has a lower bond rat­ing than Chica­go.

Faced with a budget crisis of this mag­nitude, Emanuel did make some cuts, shut­ter­ing some schools and men­tal-health clin­ics. But these meas­ures mainly in­furi­ated the af­fected Chica­goans while gen­er­at­ing few sav­ings. He also op­ted for a dodgy bond strategy used earli­er by Da­ley called “scoop and toss”: He sold new city bonds with high in­terest rates so that he could buy the prin­cip­al of bonds that were com­ing due and use the dif­fer­ence to make up the de­fi­cit. The strategy as­sumed Chica­go’s im­min­ent re­cov­ery from the Great Re­ces­sion, which would raise rev­en­ues, but the city, which de­pends on lag­ging busi­ness and fin­an­cial ser­vices, still had not fully re­covered. As a res­ult, Emanuel’s strategy raised Chica­go’s in­terest costs and con­trib­uted to Moody’s 2013 de­cision.

In April 2014, Emanuel fi­nally put forth a com­pre­hens­ive strategy for re­du­cing the de­fi­cits on two of the city’s main pen­sion plans. He sought to in­crease city work­ers’ con­tri­bu­tions and re­duce the be­ne­fits paid out to re­tir­ees, while in­creas­ing the tax­pay­er con­tri­bu­tion by rais­ing prop­erty taxes. Every­one had to make sac­ri­fices, he ar­gued.

But by Illinois law, he had to seek ap­prov­al from the state gov­ern­ment for any modi­fic­a­tion of the be­ne­fit or con­trib­ut­or for­mu­las. Then-Gov­ernor Pat Quinn, fa­cing reelec­tion, re­fused to ap­prove a prop­erty-tax hike, and Emanuel had to com­prom­ise on a bill that kept the be­ne­fit cuts and in­creases in work­er con­tri­bu­tions but lim­ited rev­en­ue in­creases to a tele­phone tax. He sup­ple­men­ted this tele­phone tax with vari­ous fees and fines — in­clud­ing those from ex­pan­ded use of red-light and speed­ing cam­er­as — that have proved ex­ceed­ingly un­pop­u­lar. Com­plic­at­ing mat­ters fur­ther, some uni­ons, cit­ing a state con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­vi­sion that pro­hib­its be­ne­fit cuts without the be­ne­fi­ciar­ies’ ap­prov­al, got the deal thrown out in a lower court. It is now be­ing con­sidered by the Illinois Su­preme Court, and it is very pos­sible that it will com­pletely col­lapse.

{{third­PartyEmbed type:magazineAd source:magazine_bot­tom}}

In his cam­paign this year, Emanuel has pro­posed broad­en­ing taxes to in­clude ser­vices by ac­count­ants, law­yers, and oth­er pro­fes­sion­als, and also es­tab­lish­ing a casino, whose rev­en­ue would be ded­ic­ated to meet­ing pen­sion ob­lig­a­tions. He has said he op­poses rais­ing prop­erty taxes, but one of his chief lieu­ten­ants on the city coun­cil ac­know­ledged that the city would even­tu­ally have to do so. High­er prop­erty taxes, coupled with mod­est re­tir­ee be­ne­fit cuts and an in­crease in city-work­er con­tri­bu­tions, seem like the only plaus­ible solu­tion — even though this ap­proach runs afoul of the pub­lic’s deep aver­sion to tax in­creases and pub­lic work­ers’ res­ist­ance to any re­duc­tion in their be­ne­fits.

Gar­cia, mean­while, has pro­posed meas­ures that, in Paul Green’s words, are “either il­leg­al or im­possible.” He has said he wants to im­pose a gradu­ated state in­come tax, which is il­leg­al un­der the state con­sti­tu­tion and would re­quire a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment passed by a three-fifths vote in the state Le­gis­lature. (Gar­cia’s main back­er, the Chica­go Teach­ers Uni­on, wants to im­pose a fin­an­cial-trans­ac­tions tax on city firms, which could drive one of the Chica­go’s most im­port­ant in­dus­tries out of town.) Gar­cia has also said he op­poses re­du­cing pen­sion be­ne­fits, which would put the onus of resolv­ing the crisis en­tirely on tax­pay­ers. In short, if there is a vi­able al­tern­at­ive to Emanuel’s ap­proach, Gar­cia is not air­ing it.

EMANUEL IS WELL ahead in the polls, but Gar­cia could still pull an up­set. As vet­er­an cam­paign con­sult­ant Don Rose, who is ad­vising Gar­cia, has noted, anti­es­tab­lish­ment may­or­al chal­lengers Jane Byrne and Har­old Wash­ing­ton were both trail­ing in the polls but man­aged to win on Elec­tion Day.

Gar­cia’s elec­tion hopes rest on rais­ing turnout among the city’s Lati­nos and win­ning re­spect­able mar­gins in the Afric­an-Amer­ic­an and white com­munit­ies. He has been en­dorsed by Jesse Jack­son, Wil­lie Wilson, and oth­er prom­in­ent Chica­go black lead­ers, but Emanuel has the sup­port of the city’s most im­port­ant black lead­er, Pres­id­ent Obama. And while Gar­cia has cham­pioned a polit­ic­al al­li­ance between the city’s Latino and Afric­an-Amer­ic­an voters, there re­mains a linger­ing hos­til­ity between the two groups. “It’s a jobs is­sue, an is­sue of con­tracts fa­vor­ing His­pan­ic firms,” ex­plains my former col­league Salim Muwakkil, now a top Chica­go talk-show host. “You hear things like, ‘Did you ever see black busi­nesses in Pilsen? But we see His­pan­ic busi­nesses in our com­munity.’”

On Chica­go’s primar­ily white North Side, Emanuel seems to en­joy an ad­vant­age. One Chica­go polit­ic­al con­sult­ant, who is neut­ral in the race, says that many North Siders voted for Gar­cia in Feb­ru­ary be­cause they “wanted to punch Rahm in the nose.” But now, hav­ing made their point, “they will vote for Rahm in April.” A North Side small-busi­ness own­er and lib­er­al Demo­crat I know told me why. “I voted in the primary be­cause I really like our al­der­man,” she says. “Since I was at the poll, I cast an ‘any­body-but-Rahm’ vote. Rahm is not a likable guy. Sadly, he has no real com­pet­i­tion. Chuy is a nice guy but doesn’t seem to have a clue what he would do if elec­ted. When I go back for the fi­nal vote, I will vote for Rahm. Maybe he has a chance of fix­ing some of the fin­an­cial prob­lems.”

And maybe he does have a chance — par­tic­u­larly if a blis­ter­ing head­wind from the U.S. eco­nomy blows through Chica­go, lift­ing up its rev­en­ues and in­creas­ing the city’s in­vest­ment earn­ings. But with Europe reel­ing, and parts of Asia slow­ing down, Amer­ica doesn’t seem poised to ex­per­i­ence any­thing like the boom of the 1990s. As­sum­ing it does not, Chica­go’s fin­ances will con­tin­ue to be im­periled. The day of reck­on­ing will near, as pen­sion bills in­crease. The city’s so­cial di­vide will likely con­tin­ue to worsen. And who­ever ends up serving as may­or will face a daunt­ing set of chal­lenges, with few clear solu­tions in sight.

This art­icle ap­pears in the March 28, 2015 edi­tion of Na­tion­al Journ­al Magazine as Broken City.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.