It's a crime, in a city where crime is not prosecuted. That Daley was allowed to stay in office, instead of a very small cell, for the remainder of his life is indicative on the state of rule of law in the United States.
But probably not for this particular thing. I am curious, what in particular raises your hackles? He was never even indicted - no one who is purportedly that corrupt with that many scandals is fool proof. I know Illinois is probably the mist corrupt state uh the nation, but with him, lots of smoke, no fire.
Prompted by your comment I put some more thought into this, as I am also someone who was quite offended by the shadiness of Mayor Daley's actions (middle of the night bulldozing).
Up to now, I had been offended by how he deliberately did this as a pet peeve project (wanting this to be done for years, like he had a grudge against the airport) and then under the cover of darkness simply issued an order to the public works department to cripple the airport in such a way to be unrepairable, bypassing any review and opposition. He explicitly says this in the wikipedia link -- to get around the public review and court challenges that would come up.
What kind of mayor does this? It simply piles on my view of Chicago as a corrupt, incompetent city. Just like how they sold off their street parking meter infrastructure for 75 years to a private company, ridiculous.
Also I admit there is an element of my sentimental enjoyment of the idea of Meigs field, where yes, I have no actual local stake in the matter aside from it being an idea of an airport on an island in some distant city that is cool. My enjoying the idea versus someone in Chicago who could use the space in reality.
But now, thinking about whether my reasoning is consistent, would I not also respect this kind of decisiveness if the brazen act were something I supported? Such as, taking action on some needed property development that was for years held up by stupid environmental challenges or obstructionists, and just forcing the hand by making it a forgone / irrecoverable situation? Demolishing some borderline questionable heritage property so it couldn't stand in the way any more? Chopping down a neighborhood tree that you own, just before it grows to the size protected by environmental rules?
I don't know that it's so clear now to me, that I wouldn't support that for something I believed in. But at its heart I guess the deeper issue is, can we create rules to make these things less cumbersome, and have a mayor obey those rules. Rather than have it be a personally-tinged action? That would be more ideal.
I am now less certain of my position than before, but that's ok. You learn something about yourself.
> I am curious, what in particular raises your hackles?
I guess as a non-Chicagoan, this just rose above the treshold for me to take notice. May be related to my early FS days, where Meigs Field was the default airfield.
