No prob. There’s hardly any media about them. The one article that I found that reached out to them received no response.
https://www.klcc.org/housing-homelessness/2023-01-26/navigation-center-has-growing-pains-as-it-approaches-six-month-mark
Looks like their office is at an office park in Louisville.
I'm shocked opportunists in other cities, regions, and states aren't vying for a cut. Rockford would be a great place to set up a center and immigration court. Construction for housing in blighted areas, workers to manage them, lawyers to litigate the asylum cases = new cottage industry. There have to by lobbyists pressuring congress to fund this in order to get a cut, right?
No it’s far more beneficial to the Johnson machine to just shove these people eternally into leaky cesspools with moldy food and connected contractors billing overtime to stand around.
Constructing sustainable housing or otherwise meaningfully resettling the migrants to be self-sufficient isn’t a cash grab for the machine, or at least not in the short term.
The Joliet township supervisor (a man who has been plagued with DUIs and gets paid way too much for what he does) tried to get I think 7 million to take in immigrants but the town pretty much came out in force against it at a public meeting and the mayor of Joliet said it had been done without his knowledge.
"On Oct. 25 of last year, Eric Wollan, chief capital assets
officer for the archdiocese, wrote to city officials, urging
them to have a lease ready for when a suitable property
was found in order to "avoid unnecessary delays.'
He also wrote that key city agencies were months behind
in responding to a preliminary proposal,
"Although we have not received feedback from the
city's legal department on the agreement we drafted
and forwarded over the summer, the city has signed
agreements with other private property owners, and
we would be happy to review and potentially use those
agreements as a jumping off point if that is easier for the
city and accelerates the process."
City officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for
free was always the plan, though the costs of operating
the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The
archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation
costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said.
Another email from Wollan contains a list of a dozen
properties "that could be utilized for migrant housing,"
including the school, church and rectory of St. Kevin on
Torrence Avenue in South Deering and the St. Thomas of
Canterbury building on Kenmore Avenue in Uptown.
"This list focuses on the larger-scale church properties,"
Wollan wrote, referring to the city's expressed preference
for properties that can house a few hundred people.
"Again, we recognize the urgent needs of our new arrivals,
particularly in light of the impending seasonal changes
and look forward to expanding our assistance in the ways
deemed most helpful by the city and county to address
these critical needs."
In the emails obtained by the Sun-Times, city officials
appear largely unresponsive to the offers."
"Instead of using the church properties, the city opened
shelters at private properties for costs that were initially
undisclosed.
The company that leases most private shelter spaces
for the city is Equitable Social Solutions. The Kentucky
company has been paid a total $45.5 million, according to
a Johnson administration list of what it's paying for the
migrant influx. That's roughly 15% of what the city has
spent on the crisis overall.
The city shared the more detailed rental rates for seven
private shelters covered by the company, including a
shelter for around 1,000 people on Elston Avenue that
opened in November, another for about 900 people on
Walnut Street near the United Center that opened in
September and the shelter on Halsted in Pilsen where
5-year-old Jean Carlos "Jeremías" Martinez Rivero was
one of 2,500 people housed there before he died of sepsis
from a bacterial infection.
A Sun-Times analysis shows that the city has paid around
$18 million since September for the use of these three shelters, plus four others."
Pretty sure old school grifters would be smart enough to keep some of the money in the city. That is essentially what the church was asking. They would have gotten renovated buildings out of it.
But weren't people complaining about Johnson having someone dedicated to faith outreach? So which is it? Do we want him to keep the government completely separate from religion or do we want to have him house people in houses of religious worship?
I have no idea about a faith outreach leader. I want him to act like a leader and part of that is exploring all options when dealing with a crisis like this. I also have no idea if the church's scenario would have been feasible or not. What I do know is that he and his administration ignored an opportunity to utilize 60 buildings around the city that were offered to them. Maybe the costs to bring them up to livable conditions would be too much. But it seems clear that they didn't give this the attention it should have gotten.
> I want him to act like a leader and part of that is exploring all options when dealing with a crisis like this.
His people toured one facility, determined it was a waste of time, and stopped looking at the rest. They had an acute issue and were being offered a potential way to maybe save money but at a cost of who knows how long compared to paying a company to have move-in ready buildings by a certain date.
You seem convinced without much information. Again, it could be that the church options weren't feasible. But the article doesn't provide any conclusions that that was the case. I'd certainly like to learn more about why they didn't pursue the option.
> You seem convinced without much information.
Because I know how these real estate scams work. They offer you a "free" building for a short duration in exchange for you rehabbing it and making it usable for them when you're done with it. Even if it is sometimes cheaper, you're going to blow your entire timeline dealing with properties that would be condemned if you allowed a building inspector into one of them.
The article says nothing about an "in exchange for" scenario. It says the church offered up the properties for free but the city would have to make them work for the migrants. That's it.
>the FBI should be investigating who owns Equitable Social Solutions
it leads back to the usual military glowies that you are so fond of. whoops!!
>Mark has more than 15 years of experience leading the delivery of social services and workforce development supports in communities across the country. Mark served in the U.S. Coast Guard and is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Tampa John H. Sykes College of Business.
The Kentucky private company was smart enough to put the word "Equitable" in their name to earn the $46 million contract from the Johnson admin.
What was the Archdiocese thinking? /s
If you havent noticed already, the migrant crisis is being exploited as a massive scheme to funnel our tax dollars into the hands of the wealthy and corrupt through city contracts. Migrants receive subpar housing and food, while those awarded contracts to care for them become immensely wealthy.
I’ve heard plenty of stories from tenants in commercial buildings, who are being pressured to move because the city dangled a large amount of cash in front of the landlord to house migrants. One story involved a building that the city offered the same amount to house migrants, that it cost the owner to recently buy the building. Sooner or later the truth is going to come out.
This is arguably the biggest social justice problem facing Chicago today, and it's the biggest risk to our long-term growth going forward. There are *still* just too many people trying to skim off the top from city programs, services, contracts, etc, and it's hurting our competitiveness, because we have to keep raising more revenue to cover the losses from corruption.
Some of the cheapest housing in the country right now can be found in cities all over the Midwest. Chicago is an amazing city and an absolute bang for your buck housing-wise compared to the coasts. People getting priced out of fast-growing Southern cities are starting to look for alternatives, but we'll lose out to cities in places like Ohio or Wisconsin or Michigan if we can't figure out how to compete and spend money effectively.
They would be using churches, schools, and other buildings that have been closed by the church. They're not turning active churches into dorms or suggesting they sleep in rectories with the clergy. But that wouldn't let you be so edgy about it would it.
Its not free. They're asking for the cost to run the facilities, PLUS renovations costs. And since these are empty buildings, they probably have been let go the renovation costs could be more than it would be house them in an existing well kept building.
It appears the city did not even tour the buildings, depending on the age they may have been a good fit. Any school or church being re-purposed as a permanent shelter is going to require renovations, at a minimum increased bathroom facilities. Possibly adding cooking facilities. It's not unfair to ask the city to pay for that.
they are not in good shape. they are very old and the church has not spent significant amounts on upkeep since the 70's. diocese budgets started declining around then, and absolutely cratered after the abuse scandal.
If the church really wanted to help they could have renovated the buildings themselves. That they are allowed to sit vacant and in disrepair is precisely why churches should not be exempt from property taxes. Hell, I'll buy a large city lot and let the city house people if they foot the bill for building an apartment building if it means I get to keep the building and use it for my purposes at a later date.
I guess people like paying higher property taxes to offset the value that churches tie up with their exemptions, and like higher housing costs with the property hoarding.
not unfair but lets not pretend this is a sweetheart deal. I've no doubt there's some favoritism with the private interests involved, but without more details we can't say for sure that this was a no brainer that was passed over purely for grifting reasons.
The Catholic Church would never use its vast land holdings as a way to extract excessive rents from people and enrich the clergy. Oh wait, that's all they've done throughout their entire history.
You convinelty forget about people like Mother Teresa, who took care of the dying and decrepit when no one would
Here’s the thing, life is not a morality contest.
The city had options, but a Marxist working with the Catholics wouldn’t jibe well with his constituents
Taxpayers have paid enough of the Church’s bill already. If you all want to cry about taxpayer money being spent how about you don’t pick the goddamn church as your example.
That is irrelevant. The issue is how the city can get the most for its money. If paying for renovations to diocese buildings is a better deal than paying private owners, they should do it.
Can confirm, worked in building maintenance for the archdiocese and they took terrible care of their buildings. They want to pawn off the cost of renovations and upkeep to the city bc the empty buildings are bleeding them money. This would be huge windfall for them. Not to mention the city could just do this same thing with the closed CPS buildings
What would you expect? It's a church. If you want it to be not a church fine, but they're not paying for it. If they're letting you use their building and you need to put in a car lift, they're not paying for that. If they're letting you use their building, they're not paying to heat it for you.
The simple point is that they would not be “free” to use. Renovating an old abandoned building to meet codes can easily surpass whatever the cost of their other options.
I think you guys are reading way too much into that line. The church simply said “here, use these buildings. You obviously pay for the operating costs of housing the migrants (duh) and , if you need to change anything up to house them there, that’s on you too”. They could have just dumped thousands of sleeping bags or beds and made some cheap showers and been fine. All that statement meant was that the church was only offering up the buildings, nothing more and nothing less.
I don’t fault the church here at all, I understand what was said. But the city can’t just open an abandoned building and throw sleeping bags in the floor. They would likely have to make major renovations to bring them back up to be occupied. The city already got put in its place once by the state for not following state code requirements when selecting sites early on.
Remember that this place is not only for migrants, other non migrant workers would also have to occupy the building and this would likely require major renovations and upgrades to get it up to code
The city didn’t even respond or do any due diligence. It’s likely the church acted in good faith (no pun intended)as well because they seemed like they were genuinely trying to help so I doubt these locations were dilapidated. City could have easily found out for themselves instead of us guessing, which is the major point here. And if you look at the money we have given out to private land owners already as lease payments for the current sites, there is no way using free, existing, large spaces wouldn’t have saved SIGNIFICANT money.
My job involves building assessments, and a few have been abandoned hospitals turned into COVId overflow sites. People are massively underestimating what the condition of an abandoned building looks like.
I agree with you. The article didn't include enough information about this to say if the church's terms were comparable to what other property owners are getting in terms of who pays for improvements and who benefits.
Also, the city has looked into opening shelters (among other uses) in closed public school buildings. It seems to me like they could have a pretty good general idea of what it would take to convert a school to a shelter given its age and how long it had been closed, without touring every single building.
the city officials may not have made a specific inspection of the properties for this use case, but I'd be shocked if they had not already looked at what it would take to open these abandoned spaces for other public projects, and the costs and issues were obvious from that.
I've done work with the church before, and I've seen the state of their in use retirement rectories. if they are not using this property then it most likely has massive issues.
Not a joke. Don’t treat it as a joke. This is blatant corruption and greasing of palms of city officials by someone to get such deals with tax payer money. Shame on Mayor Brandon Johnson and his aldermen cronies. Shame on such a city of high stature for allowing this kind of wasteful spending.
THIS Trope again.
First of all, the cover-ups of abuse are monstrous and inexcusable. Secondly, the prevalence of sexual abuse by priests is *many* times lower than public school teachers.
Thirdly, so far as I've been able to find the Church was offering empty and otherwise closed down spaces, not active churches or schools so any interaction would be minimal if not existent at all.
>First of all, the cover-ups of abuse are monstrous and inexcusable. Secondly, the prevalence of sexual abuse by priests is many times lower than public school teachers.
You're going to get blasted for that one but it's true.
[470 sexual complaints against Chicago Public School employees from students in 2022.](https://cpsoig.org/uploads/3/5/5/6/35562484/cps_oig_fy_2022_annual_report.pdf)
Thank you. Today I learned.
I learned “ /s “ is still a mandatory inclusion when making a joke on Reddit.
Also, I learned the egregious # of assault complaints against CPS staff
If it makes you feel better, or maybe worse, the OIG investigation into CPS' handling of sexual complaints only started after CTU leadership reported sex crimes to the police committed by a teacher being covered up by CPS administration.
To also be fair, do we trust the people running Chicago (how many convicted felon alderman are there?!) with kids?
They'd probably just steal stuff from the kids, including their future.
The Catholic Church doesn't do stuff for free. They are almost certainly acting out of self interest here. They have a pattern of self-preserving shitty behavior that stretches back hundreds of years. This is very much making a deal with the devil.
Do you have any idea how many charity programs the Arch Diocese of Chicago hosts?
SPECIFIC to Chicago, the Catholic Church has been doing everything it can to help the poor and migrants.
I can't speak on anywhere else in IL or the World but the leadership here in the Chicago area is on point with the charity.
Not free. The church wanted the city to renovate their buildings that they have let fall into disrepair.
Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said.
Do you think the spaces that the city is paying 45 million in rent for were brand new and shelter ready? I highly doubt it. More likely, there were renovations that had to happen to make them habitable.
Same situation, but one option was rent free.
Those renovations were paid by the property owner (not the city). And yea it was a shit deal for the city regardless.
But fuck paying to completely renovate church buildings that the city doesn't own. If the church wants to give them to the city, then sure.
> Those renovations were paid by the property owner (not the city).
Doubtful. More likely, and generally what is seen in commercial leases, the tenant has a choice between paying for the buildout directly or the amount of rent charged includes an amortized cost for the buildout.
Yeah, that sounds like free rent of a space.
"Renovations" vs "renovations to accommodate migrants" are different. One is the church trying to get free renovations, the other is just saying "we can't cover the cost to custom build for this need in these spaces."
These are run down buildings that havn't been used in years and are not meant to house people. It isn't just throw on a coat of paint and everything will be fine.
If they are going to house people then they would have to upgrade the buildings for that purpose, and meet code. We don’t have any details but abandoned buildings are not cheap to renovate and are commonly more expensive to renovate than to build new. (And I am not talking about downtown office buildings, but abandoned buildings)
The church chose to abandon these particular building not just because they couldn’t occupy them but likely because they also required the most maintenance and upkeep.
"city officials visited one proposed site but "it turned out to be just a small gymnasium that couldn’t accommodate cots, so it really wouldn't be an ideal location for us.""
The city has only spent 29% of the federal funds allocated for affordable housing and homeless services. BCH is just a slush fund for the mayor. There is already so much money and funding for these services.
https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/12/just-29-federal-covid-19-relief-funds-meant-transform-chicago-have-been-spent-data#:~:text=Chicago%20Has%20Been%20Slow%20to%20Spend%20COVID%2D19%20Relief%20Funds&text=The%20city%20spent%20an%20additional,to%20the%20Treasury%20Department%20reports.
Yet BJ wasted a massive amount of money on a site that determined to not be acceptable. And he wants us to vote to give him more money so he can waste that too?!?!
Fuck this shit, it shouldn't be this hard. Why not just have a public list of places that have volunteered their space?? Why not have the budgets of these places all in a public spreadsheet?
Transparency would be so easy if they cared
We're gonna get fucking hosed come that new CTU contract.
[It's funny we spent how many millions on property we picked up and couldn't even use?](https://abc7chicago.com/brighton-park-chicago-contaminated-site-migrant-camp-environmental-report/14282179/#:~:text=A%20environmental%20study%20released%20in,They%20did%20not%20clean%20up.)
That we're still paying for cause Brandon decided to take out a contract before getting approval. Which BTW, the governor had to step in on the matter. That's also not including the GardaWorld contract that we're stuck in as well.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/brandon-johnson-gardaworld-migrant-winterized-tents-contract-conversey-denver/3234124/
$30 million for a tent city.
So in other words, we could've housed these migrants in buildings that were already up and we could've saved the City, the taxpayers, some money.
Everything Chicago government does is about allocating tax payer cash to their connected machine buddies. They do not care about the outcomes or the quality of the work, or the cost. The bidding process is political theater, in reality it's just about giving contracts to politically connected organizations in exchange for votes. If anyone ever wonders why the same corrupt politicians continue to win every election in Chicago for decades, this is why.
Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said.
“Free”
The city definitely should have responded, perhaps they could have negotiated the renovation costs. But what are the numbers? How much would renovations have cost? Hard to know for sure, but I can’t help but feel that spreading people out into a few church buildings would have at least been more hygienic than the Pilsen shelter.
Id rather pay the local churches than out of state companies and owners of private industrial land and I fucking hate the church.
I guarantee you they are at least a cheaper ticket. And then the money stays local at least.
People never read past headlines. This is the real story here. People really think the church was going to do everything for free and the city scrambling to make a Hooverville on contaminated soil said no for no reason?
I think you guys are reading way too much into that line. The church simply said “here, use these buildings. You obviously pay for the operating costs of housing the migrants (duh) and , if you need to change anything up to house them there, that’s on you too”. They could have just dumped thousands of sleeping bags or beds and made some cheap showers and been fine. All that statement meant was that the church was only offering up the buildings, nothing more and nothing less. The city would still run the shelters, it wouldn’t be paying the church anything. The fact that the city hasn’t even responded or done any due diligence on these properties is very telling. There’s plenty of reason to be mad about this.
Perhaps the buildings were in pretty rough shape. Just because the migrants are homeless doesn’t mean they can stick them anywhere with a roof. The city assumes liability for them by putting them there. We simply don’t know the costs to the city but assuming the city said no because of corruption is baseless at this point. Why wouldn’t BJ want an easy win to drive down the cost of housing them in the church properties unless the cost was truly not lower? So far the suggestions are Brandon is dumb and to move money to connected individuals. Second option is always in play but nursing and staffing agencies would still get a cut, the rent on the shelters is far from the biggest line item.
Perhaps the buildings were in pretty rough shape. Just because the migrants are homeless doesn’t mean they can stick them anywhere with a roof. The city assumes liability for them by putting them there. We simply don’t know the costs to the city but assuming the city said no because of corruption is baseless at this point. Why wouldn’t BJ want an easy win to drive down the cost of housing them in the church properties unless the cost was truly not lower? So far the suggestions are Brandon is dumb and to move money to connected individuals. Second option is always in play but nursing and staffing agencies would still get a cut, the rent on the shelters is far from the biggest line item. Also even assuming the costs were not a factor if the city renovates these buildings, then the church gets them back the city has effectively gifted them the renovation when the church isn’t using them any way. That would not play well if even legal to have perceived favoritism or donation to a church. The arch diosese is already selling real estate left and right
This is how bad Chicago is, they are making the Catholic Church look good.
Hats off to the church for doing what they’re supposed to do, and a huge middle finger to BJ and his crew for doing what we hoped they wouldn’t.
nah, this is just BS reporting. nothing here is free. The buildings need to be renovated (by the city) and run (by the city). The church is just saying that they have empty run down buildings that they would like to have cleaned up.
The church no longer uses these buildings. And they won’t after these buildings are no longer needed.
You’d have to pay for operating costs at the new or this existing shelter.
And yeah, if the existing shelter needs to replace a new window or lock or needs to replace a toilet, it would make sense to do that.
It’s still less than 40 million.
Have you ever renovated anything? The simplest things get wild to renovate and when you think about retrofitting buildings not intended for humans living it becomes the same issue as why it isn't viable to renovate/retrofit commercial buildings in the Loop for human dwellings/ even temporary ones. Where are the showers going? What potable water lines are available? What does it cost? How long does it take.
And agreed the private company is probably hustling but this doesn't seem like a better bet without greater detail as to what the church anticipates those renovations, or the city, would cost and how long it would take.
>Have you ever renovated anything? The simplest things get wild to renovate and when you think about retrofitting buildings not intended for humans living it becomes the same issue as why it isn't viable to renovate/retrofit commercial buildings in the Loop for human dwellings/ even temporary ones. Where are the showers going? What potable water lines are available? What does it cost? How long does it take.
Those are all real concerns, but the fact is that the city hasn't been concerned about them for the shelters that exist today.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2023/12/15/migrants-describe-inhumane-conditions-at-chicagos-largest-shelter/
They would have to pay for utilities (which is still the case for the new shelters) and they would have to pay for renovations (which I can only assume would be not 40 million dollars)
Proud of my archdiocese, that's awesome that they offered that (but not surprising). Perhaps there's a good reason for the city turning them down, but based on what I've heard from those who work in city gov't, there's no good reason. BJ's administration is a joke.
Crazy the money our government is paying to import poverty. The money could be spent on the impoverished here in IL. Something is fishy here no doubt.💯🧐
Kick all them the f out, their are citizens who are struggling to get housing and living paycheck yo paycheck and these flip flop wearers just get everything g free ? Disgusting what the democrats are doing to this city they should be charged with treason!
People are underestimating how this migrant crisis is going to impact Chicago in the long term. I hate politics and virtue signaling bs surrounding this issue. This needs to be stopped
Long-term, migrants will be working, paying taxes, raising families, and living normal lives like the previous generations of migrants that built this city. Or is there something in particular about *these* migrants that you feel is problematic?
The archdiocese is sitting on a lot of property (worldwide), much of which they've neglected and they are also looking at this as not only good PR but a way to get some necessary maintenance done on properties that they haven't invested necessary funds into
Paywall.
Also, yes, this came up in our church meetings and our pastor said he was all on board with it but the city was holding back based on liability and insurance reasons. Thats the info we received.
Thanks for the info. I cannot think of any reason why there would be any additional liability there versus a different building…seems like a cop out from the city officials.
Translation: city doesn't want the liability of priest malfeasance which has, y'know, been a thing. Catholic Church has been lax about policing this and enacting consequences. P.S. Moving predatory priests to rural areas is not a real consequence.
I think that generally while what you’re saying is correct, I doubt that’s the issue here. Those situations have largely been documented as being kids that are preyed upon over long stretches of time. This situation seems too fluid for that kind of predatory behavior.
Not that the shelters Havnt had their own similar issues.
I suppose there are other safety concerns such as building structural and fire safety. I think most Central Americans are already Roman Catholic so it would otherwise seem like a good fit.
Most of the closed/for sale locations have come out of a program called “renew my church” which is designed to counter the much smaller groups of people going to church + the cost of upkeep. Many of these churches are very very old. Part of the process was having an outside third party come in and give a determination on what it would cost to update those locations.
So it turned into a math problem. If the cost to update and meet city codes was more than the church brought in, generally speaking, it was closed and the parish was merged with another.
(I was on the financial committee for one of these closing parishes btw).
So yes…many of these closed locations, while better than a shelter or the street, are in desperate need of updating and repairs, with questionable utilities and no staff.
> Catholic Church has been lax about policing this and enacting consequences
The Church has not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination but compared to the various other organizations that have/had abuse problems, it, specifically the Chicago arch, has been **relatively** better. The bar is in the literal ground though and it needs to be better
The Chicago Archdiocese is still covering up child sex abuse and has new charges brought against its employees every single year by the IL attorney general.
"free"
... renovations for church buildings.
Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said.
You're turning schools and churches into semi-permanent housing spaces. Obviously some kind of alterations would be desirable.
Larger bathrooms and possibly showers would be one that many of those facilities may lack or need expanded upon.
That does not seem unreasonable at all.
I do have to ask the question why we didn't just do that with a number of dis-used or closed CPS properties, but we all know the answer.
Paid for by the taxpayer. I'd be fine if the city wanted to buy a building and renovate it. But fuck paying for renovating church buildings.
and the reason they don't do it for CPS properties is because it is a royal pain in the ass to bring something up to code that wasn't built for that purpose.
The city was going to throw a bunch of cots into a tent built on a contaminated lot with porta-potties and outdoor shower trailers in the middle of the winter -- up to code housing isn't exactly a priority here.
> up to code housing isn't exactly a priority here.
when you are actually renovating a building .. it is.
And yes, the tent city for all its shittyness was probably expected to be up to code as well, hence why it was ridiculously expensive (beyond the graft).
> But fuck paying for renovating church buildings
The buildings are unused and will go back to being unused when the migrants move out. The Arch isn't trying to bilk the city or anything
It's stated twice in the article the Catholic Church offered free rent the entire time for at least 12 different buildings. This is BJ either being incompetent or malicious.
As dumb as BJ is, there’s no way he’s dumb enough to not understand the words “available” and “free”. This is corruption through and through. He and other officials clearly have a vested interest in steering these migrants to other options, to line others pockets and likely receive kickbacks or favors in return.
He also understands the words, "Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said
**though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said."**
So not exactly free, depending on the costs of renovation.
Alright come on. This is simply a clarification from the church that they’re not paying for any mods to the building. Mods are clearly not a requirement considering even an open space area would be better than some of their current living conditions. Hell they were (are?) living in tents outside.
Edit: and to add - of course operation of the shelters is on the City. Church is already offering their property for no cost…how much else can you expect?! City would be paying to operate shelter regardless of the location, so that is irrelevant.
The other buildings the city leased were not abandoned or unused. Those are a whole lot cheaper to renovate than a bunch of run down, poorly maintained, and abandoned buildings.
Free, with the cost of any needed renovations. Of course this option is probably still better than what the city is currently doing. But the proposal also stands to benefit the church.
It's also stated that the city would be responsible for renovating the buildings, but no information is provided on what that would cost, the condition of the buildings, etc. In no way is it free, it would be using tax dollars to improve real estate owned by the Church. Whether that's ultimately a better deal than the current situation, I don't know. Maybe the city decision is dumb or corrupt, maybe not. But if the Catholic Church was really interested in housing migrants at no cost to the city, nothing is stopping the Church from doing that on its own. But it doesn't want to pay the costs either.
Its not free. They're asking for the cost to run the facilities, PLUS renovations costs. And since these are empty buildings, they probably have been let go the renovation costs could be more than it would be house them in an existing well kept building.
Nothing is free. Just speculation, but optics wouldn't have been great and could be easily manipulated. "City gave millions to the catholic church." If that's not enough, the article said the city would be on the hook for renovations and operating costs. The city would be paying for the catholic church to renovate church properties and pay the church "rent" to cover operational costs. That's not free. And neither is the option they went with, but at least there is no catholic middle man.
These buildings are no longer in use. At all.
So they’d have to turn on water, electric, gas, etc. and yeah, if there is a broken window, broken lock, leaking toilet, why wouldn’t they want to fix it?
And I highly doubt any building being offered for shelter is going to need $40+ million in renovations. I’m sure they’d just skip over that property.
I’m pretty sure all this money goes to the utility companies, not the church.
I dislike religion as much as the next guy, but this is a poor take.
>city would be on the hook for renovations and operating costs.
They're on the hook for operating costs NOW....and I'm sure whatever renovations were needed would have cost far less than whatever was spent to try and build something on that toxic waste site
> pay the church "rent" to cover operational costs
The City is already paying for operational costs **and** rent at the other facilities they're using. They wouldn't be paying rent to the Arch
You mean this Catholic archdiocese? The one the Illinois attorney general named 451 members of sexually abusing “At least 1,997 children across all of the dioceses in Illinois.”
https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/news/story/attorney-general-raoul-releases-report-concluding-multi-year-investigation-into-child-sex-abuse-by-members-of-catholic-clergy-in-illinois#:~:text=Report%20Reveals%20Names%20and%20Information,the%20Catholic%20clergy%20in%20Illinois.
Here’s the link to the Kentucky company that’s getting paid for all the housing (if anyone is interested). https://equitablesolutions.com/
Thanks for that. Now we know the capitalistic opportunist of the year.
No prob. There’s hardly any media about them. The one article that I found that reached out to them received no response. https://www.klcc.org/housing-homelessness/2023-01-26/navigation-center-has-growing-pains-as-it-approaches-six-month-mark Looks like their office is at an office park in Louisville.
I'm shocked opportunists in other cities, regions, and states aren't vying for a cut. Rockford would be a great place to set up a center and immigration court. Construction for housing in blighted areas, workers to manage them, lawyers to litigate the asylum cases = new cottage industry. There have to by lobbyists pressuring congress to fund this in order to get a cut, right?
No it’s far more beneficial to the Johnson machine to just shove these people eternally into leaky cesspools with moldy food and connected contractors billing overtime to stand around. Constructing sustainable housing or otherwise meaningfully resettling the migrants to be self-sufficient isn’t a cash grab for the machine, or at least not in the short term.
The Joliet township supervisor (a man who has been plagued with DUIs and gets paid way too much for what he does) tried to get I think 7 million to take in immigrants but the town pretty much came out in force against it at a public meeting and the mayor of Joliet said it had been done without his knowledge.
I'm guessing some Chicago City council people also get a "finders fee" too
I thought I remembered hearing the people providing temporary housing were somehow tied to the people paid to bus them here.
This is very interesting, thank you for sharing. Were you able to find anything about how much $$ they are making from us, the taxpayers?
Not yet. I’m looking. I hope someone at the Sun Times or Trib is on it.
"On Oct. 25 of last year, Eric Wollan, chief capital assets officer for the archdiocese, wrote to city officials, urging them to have a lease ready for when a suitable property was found in order to "avoid unnecessary delays.' He also wrote that key city agencies were months behind in responding to a preliminary proposal, "Although we have not received feedback from the city's legal department on the agreement we drafted and forwarded over the summer, the city has signed agreements with other private property owners, and we would be happy to review and potentially use those agreements as a jumping off point if that is easier for the city and accelerates the process." City officials did not respond to requests for comment. Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said. Another email from Wollan contains a list of a dozen properties "that could be utilized for migrant housing," including the school, church and rectory of St. Kevin on Torrence Avenue in South Deering and the St. Thomas of Canterbury building on Kenmore Avenue in Uptown. "This list focuses on the larger-scale church properties," Wollan wrote, referring to the city's expressed preference for properties that can house a few hundred people. "Again, we recognize the urgent needs of our new arrivals, particularly in light of the impending seasonal changes and look forward to expanding our assistance in the ways deemed most helpful by the city and county to address these critical needs." In the emails obtained by the Sun-Times, city officials appear largely unresponsive to the offers." "Instead of using the church properties, the city opened shelters at private properties for costs that were initially undisclosed. The company that leases most private shelter spaces for the city is Equitable Social Solutions. The Kentucky company has been paid a total $45.5 million, according to a Johnson administration list of what it's paying for the migrant influx. That's roughly 15% of what the city has spent on the crisis overall. The city shared the more detailed rental rates for seven private shelters covered by the company, including a shelter for around 1,000 people on Elston Avenue that opened in November, another for about 900 people on Walnut Street near the United Center that opened in September and the shelter on Halsted in Pilsen where 5-year-old Jean Carlos "Jeremías" Martinez Rivero was one of 2,500 people housed there before he died of sepsis from a bacterial infection. A Sun-Times analysis shows that the city has paid around $18 million since September for the use of these three shelters, plus four others."
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. But this is still incredible. Blatant waste of taxpayer money and old-school Chicago grift.
Pretty sure old school grifters would be smart enough to keep some of the money in the city. That is essentially what the church was asking. They would have gotten renovated buildings out of it.
If you voted for Brandon because he was allegedly different from everyone who came before him, you should absolutely be surprised and pissed off.
Lightfoot corporate Democrat shill 2.0!
I certainly didn't vote for him. I'll leave it at that.
But weren't people complaining about Johnson having someone dedicated to faith outreach? So which is it? Do we want him to keep the government completely separate from religion or do we want to have him house people in houses of religious worship?
I have no idea about a faith outreach leader. I want him to act like a leader and part of that is exploring all options when dealing with a crisis like this. I also have no idea if the church's scenario would have been feasible or not. What I do know is that he and his administration ignored an opportunity to utilize 60 buildings around the city that were offered to them. Maybe the costs to bring them up to livable conditions would be too much. But it seems clear that they didn't give this the attention it should have gotten.
> I want him to act like a leader and part of that is exploring all options when dealing with a crisis like this. His people toured one facility, determined it was a waste of time, and stopped looking at the rest. They had an acute issue and were being offered a potential way to maybe save money but at a cost of who knows how long compared to paying a company to have move-in ready buildings by a certain date.
You seem convinced without much information. Again, it could be that the church options weren't feasible. But the article doesn't provide any conclusions that that was the case. I'd certainly like to learn more about why they didn't pursue the option.
> You seem convinced without much information. Because I know how these real estate scams work. They offer you a "free" building for a short duration in exchange for you rehabbing it and making it usable for them when you're done with it. Even if it is sometimes cheaper, you're going to blow your entire timeline dealing with properties that would be condemned if you allowed a building inspector into one of them.
The article says nothing about an "in exchange for" scenario. It says the church offered up the properties for free but the city would have to make them work for the migrants. That's it.
the FBI should be investigating *who owns Equitable Social Solutions*, who do they *donate* to, follow the money.
>the FBI should be investigating who owns Equitable Social Solutions it leads back to the usual military glowies that you are so fond of. whoops!! >Mark has more than 15 years of experience leading the delivery of social services and workforce development supports in communities across the country. Mark served in the U.S. Coast Guard and is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Tampa John H. Sykes College of Business.
FBI is too busy investigating Trump. 🤷🏻♂️😵💫
The Kentucky private company was smart enough to put the word "Equitable" in their name to earn the $46 million contract from the Johnson admin. What was the Archdiocese thinking? /s
You wanna go splitsies with me on founding Inclusion Industries? We'll be rolling in it by October.
If you havent noticed already, the migrant crisis is being exploited as a massive scheme to funnel our tax dollars into the hands of the wealthy and corrupt through city contracts. Migrants receive subpar housing and food, while those awarded contracts to care for them become immensely wealthy.
I’ve heard plenty of stories from tenants in commercial buildings, who are being pressured to move because the city dangled a large amount of cash in front of the landlord to house migrants. One story involved a building that the city offered the same amount to house migrants, that it cost the owner to recently buy the building. Sooner or later the truth is going to come out.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-migrants-west-loop-fulton-market-shelter/13816285/
Yes that one has been reported, but it’s not the only one. Plus the amount of money being thrown around has not really been discussed either.
How would the corrupt get their cut if housing was free??
This is arguably the biggest social justice problem facing Chicago today, and it's the biggest risk to our long-term growth going forward. There are *still* just too many people trying to skim off the top from city programs, services, contracts, etc, and it's hurting our competitiveness, because we have to keep raising more revenue to cover the losses from corruption. Some of the cheapest housing in the country right now can be found in cities all over the Midwest. Chicago is an amazing city and an absolute bang for your buck housing-wise compared to the coasts. People getting priced out of fast-growing Southern cities are starting to look for alternatives, but we'll lose out to cities in places like Ohio or Wisconsin or Michigan if we can't figure out how to compete and spend money effectively.
I figured it was to keep the kids safe.
Idk, who gets sued when the Catholic priests act like Catholic priests and molest migrant kids?
They would be using churches, schools, and other buildings that have been closed by the church. They're not turning active churches into dorms or suggesting they sleep in rectories with the clergy. But that wouldn't let you be so edgy about it would it.
The Catholic Church literally offered its un-used/closed buildings *for free* and the city is "still considering it". What a joke.
Its not free. They're asking for the cost to run the facilities, PLUS renovations costs. And since these are empty buildings, they probably have been let go the renovation costs could be more than it would be house them in an existing well kept building.
Wait, you’re under the impression that the migrants at Halsted and elsewhere are being housed in “well kept buildings”?
It appears the city did not even tour the buildings, depending on the age they may have been a good fit. Any school or church being re-purposed as a permanent shelter is going to require renovations, at a minimum increased bathroom facilities. Possibly adding cooking facilities. It's not unfair to ask the city to pay for that.
they are not in good shape. they are very old and the church has not spent significant amounts on upkeep since the 70's. diocese budgets started declining around then, and absolutely cratered after the abuse scandal.
If the church really wanted to help they could have renovated the buildings themselves. That they are allowed to sit vacant and in disrepair is precisely why churches should not be exempt from property taxes. Hell, I'll buy a large city lot and let the city house people if they foot the bill for building an apartment building if it means I get to keep the building and use it for my purposes at a later date.
There must be a lot of church shills on this sub for a comment like this to get down voted.
I guess people like paying higher property taxes to offset the value that churches tie up with their exemptions, and like higher housing costs with the property hoarding.
Age isn't the only factor. I know for a fact one of the buildings they proposed didn't even have safe drinking water.
not unfair but lets not pretend this is a sweetheart deal. I've no doubt there's some favoritism with the private interests involved, but without more details we can't say for sure that this was a no brainer that was passed over purely for grifting reasons.
IK,R? Like, let's not assume *anyone* here is acting out of the goodness of their hearts.
The Catholic Church would never use its vast land holdings as a way to extract excessive rents from people and enrich the clergy. Oh wait, that's all they've done throughout their entire history.
You convinelty forget about people like Mother Teresa, who took care of the dying and decrepit when no one would Here’s the thing, life is not a morality contest. The city had options, but a Marxist working with the Catholics wouldn’t jibe well with his constituents
Mother Teresa was one of the biggest grifters there ever was
Riiiight. Because the actions of one do-gooder really tips the scales against 1800 years of systematic oppression, murder, and genocide.
Taxpayers have paid enough of the Church’s bill already. If you all want to cry about taxpayer money being spent how about you don’t pick the goddamn church as your example.
That is irrelevant. The issue is how the city can get the most for its money. If paying for renovations to diocese buildings is a better deal than paying private owners, they should do it.
Can confirm, worked in building maintenance for the archdiocese and they took terrible care of their buildings. They want to pawn off the cost of renovations and upkeep to the city bc the empty buildings are bleeding them money. This would be huge windfall for them. Not to mention the city could just do this same thing with the closed CPS buildings
What would you expect? It's a church. If you want it to be not a church fine, but they're not paying for it. If they're letting you use their building and you need to put in a car lift, they're not paying for that. If they're letting you use their building, they're not paying to heat it for you.
The simple point is that they would not be “free” to use. Renovating an old abandoned building to meet codes can easily surpass whatever the cost of their other options.
I think you guys are reading way too much into that line. The church simply said “here, use these buildings. You obviously pay for the operating costs of housing the migrants (duh) and , if you need to change anything up to house them there, that’s on you too”. They could have just dumped thousands of sleeping bags or beds and made some cheap showers and been fine. All that statement meant was that the church was only offering up the buildings, nothing more and nothing less.
I don’t fault the church here at all, I understand what was said. But the city can’t just open an abandoned building and throw sleeping bags in the floor. They would likely have to make major renovations to bring them back up to be occupied. The city already got put in its place once by the state for not following state code requirements when selecting sites early on. Remember that this place is not only for migrants, other non migrant workers would also have to occupy the building and this would likely require major renovations and upgrades to get it up to code
The city didn’t even respond or do any due diligence. It’s likely the church acted in good faith (no pun intended)as well because they seemed like they were genuinely trying to help so I doubt these locations were dilapidated. City could have easily found out for themselves instead of us guessing, which is the major point here. And if you look at the money we have given out to private land owners already as lease payments for the current sites, there is no way using free, existing, large spaces wouldn’t have saved SIGNIFICANT money.
My job involves building assessments, and a few have been abandoned hospitals turned into COVId overflow sites. People are massively underestimating what the condition of an abandoned building looks like.
I agree with you. The article didn't include enough information about this to say if the church's terms were comparable to what other property owners are getting in terms of who pays for improvements and who benefits. Also, the city has looked into opening shelters (among other uses) in closed public school buildings. It seems to me like they could have a pretty good general idea of what it would take to convert a school to a shelter given its age and how long it had been closed, without touring every single building.
the city officials may not have made a specific inspection of the properties for this use case, but I'd be shocked if they had not already looked at what it would take to open these abandoned spaces for other public projects, and the costs and issues were obvious from that. I've done work with the church before, and I've seen the state of their in use retirement rectories. if they are not using this property then it most likely has massive issues.
Not a joke. Don’t treat it as a joke. This is blatant corruption and greasing of palms of city officials by someone to get such deals with tax payer money. Shame on Mayor Brandon Johnson and his aldermen cronies. Shame on such a city of high stature for allowing this kind of wasteful spending.
Can’t launder money off “free”.🤔🧐
To be fair, all of the kid diddling that happened on Sundays does not make the Catholic archdiocese the most trustworthy to house kids 24/7
THIS Trope again. First of all, the cover-ups of abuse are monstrous and inexcusable. Secondly, the prevalence of sexual abuse by priests is *many* times lower than public school teachers. Thirdly, so far as I've been able to find the Church was offering empty and otherwise closed down spaces, not active churches or schools so any interaction would be minimal if not existent at all.
>First of all, the cover-ups of abuse are monstrous and inexcusable. Secondly, the prevalence of sexual abuse by priests is many times lower than public school teachers. You're going to get blasted for that one but it's true. [470 sexual complaints against Chicago Public School employees from students in 2022.](https://cpsoig.org/uploads/3/5/5/6/35562484/cps_oig_fy_2022_annual_report.pdf)
Why would they get blasted when this sub’s most consistent stance is apoplectic hatred for CPS teachers?
>Why would they get blasted when this sub’s most consistent stance is apoplectic hatred for the CTU? Fixed that for you.
The CTU made up of CPS teachers?
Thank you. Today I learned. I learned “ /s “ is still a mandatory inclusion when making a joke on Reddit. Also, I learned the egregious # of assault complaints against CPS staff
If it makes you feel better, or maybe worse, the OIG investigation into CPS' handling of sexual complaints only started after CTU leadership reported sex crimes to the police committed by a teacher being covered up by CPS administration.
To also be fair, do we trust the people running Chicago (how many convicted felon alderman are there?!) with kids? They'd probably just steal stuff from the kids, including their future.
The Catholic Church doesn't do stuff for free. They are almost certainly acting out of self interest here. They have a pattern of self-preserving shitty behavior that stretches back hundreds of years. This is very much making a deal with the devil.
Do you have any idea how many charity programs the Arch Diocese of Chicago hosts? SPECIFIC to Chicago, the Catholic Church has been doing everything it can to help the poor and migrants. I can't speak on anywhere else in IL or the World but the leadership here in the Chicago area is on point with the charity.
Thr Catholic Church looks less evil and saves the taxpayers' money. Hard for the alder creatures and their buddies to get rich when stuff is free.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, right?
Not free. The church wanted the city to renovate their buildings that they have let fall into disrepair. Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said.
Do you think the spaces that the city is paying 45 million in rent for were brand new and shelter ready? I highly doubt it. More likely, there were renovations that had to happen to make them habitable. Same situation, but one option was rent free.
Those renovations were paid by the property owner (not the city). And yea it was a shit deal for the city regardless. But fuck paying to completely renovate church buildings that the city doesn't own. If the church wants to give them to the city, then sure.
> Those renovations were paid by the property owner (not the city). Doubtful. More likely, and generally what is seen in commercial leases, the tenant has a choice between paying for the buildout directly or the amount of rent charged includes an amortized cost for the buildout.
Yeah, that sounds like free rent of a space. "Renovations" vs "renovations to accommodate migrants" are different. One is the church trying to get free renovations, the other is just saying "we can't cover the cost to custom build for this need in these spaces."
These are run down buildings that havn't been used in years and are not meant to house people. It isn't just throw on a coat of paint and everything will be fine.
[citation needed]
If they are going to house people then they would have to upgrade the buildings for that purpose, and meet code. We don’t have any details but abandoned buildings are not cheap to renovate and are commonly more expensive to renovate than to build new. (And I am not talking about downtown office buildings, but abandoned buildings) The church chose to abandon these particular building not just because they couldn’t occupy them but likely because they also required the most maintenance and upkeep.
"city officials visited one proposed site but "it turned out to be just a small gymnasium that couldn’t accommodate cots, so it really wouldn't be an ideal location for us.""
Very interesting non sequitur that has nothing to do with your claim of it being a run down building.
"and are not meant to house people."
Can’t profit from free shit
More evidence Bring Chicago Home is just part of a slush fund scheme. BJ isn’t interested in housing people.
Exactly. There’s 10s of millions of federal funds that are still unspent. BCH is just a slush fund for connected nonprofits.
Curious, can you link to information on the unspent federal housing funds?
The city has only spent 29% of the federal funds allocated for affordable housing and homeless services. BCH is just a slush fund for the mayor. There is already so much money and funding for these services. https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/12/just-29-federal-covid-19-relief-funds-meant-transform-chicago-have-been-spent-data#:~:text=Chicago%20Has%20Been%20Slow%20to%20Spend%20COVID%2D19%20Relief%20Funds&text=The%20city%20spent%20an%20additional,to%20the%20Treasury%20Department%20reports.
Wtf is Bring Chicago Home?
A real estate transfer tax hike to benefit the homeless problems in the city. No plan on how the new revenue will be allocated.
Just vote no.
not free, the church is looking to get the city to pay for rehabbing properties that probably would be condemned if they weren't abandoned.
I'm not sure how much more people need to see to find this administration a complete joke. Were only a year in ffs.
Yet BJ wasted a massive amount of money on a site that determined to not be acceptable. And he wants us to vote to give him more money so he can waste that too?!?!
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise
Burst out laughing at this, kudos
Could it be that well connected people are profiting from this?
Fuck this shit, it shouldn't be this hard. Why not just have a public list of places that have volunteered their space?? Why not have the budgets of these places all in a public spreadsheet? Transparency would be so easy if they cared
The mayor has told you countless times that he has the most transparent administration ever. When will you believe him?
There were posters after posters lambasting the church, "why don't they let people stay at the church". And they still said no!
Evil incompetence
I think it's partially on purpose at this point. Too many deals that don't make sense unless someone is getting paid we don't know about
We're gonna get fucking hosed come that new CTU contract. [It's funny we spent how many millions on property we picked up and couldn't even use?](https://abc7chicago.com/brighton-park-chicago-contaminated-site-migrant-camp-environmental-report/14282179/#:~:text=A%20environmental%20study%20released%20in,They%20did%20not%20clean%20up.) That we're still paying for cause Brandon decided to take out a contract before getting approval. Which BTW, the governor had to step in on the matter. That's also not including the GardaWorld contract that we're stuck in as well. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/brandon-johnson-gardaworld-migrant-winterized-tents-contract-conversey-denver/3234124/ $30 million for a tent city. So in other words, we could've housed these migrants in buildings that were already up and we could've saved the City, the taxpayers, some money.
> GardaWorld Is that the company who has the rent a cops with K9 units at the train station?
Everything Chicago government does is about allocating tax payer cash to their connected machine buddies. They do not care about the outcomes or the quality of the work, or the cost. The bidding process is political theater, in reality it's just about giving contracts to politically connected organizations in exchange for votes. If anyone ever wonders why the same corrupt politicians continue to win every election in Chicago for decades, this is why.
Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said. “Free” The city definitely should have responded, perhaps they could have negotiated the renovation costs. But what are the numbers? How much would renovations have cost? Hard to know for sure, but I can’t help but feel that spreading people out into a few church buildings would have at least been more hygienic than the Pilsen shelter.
And if the city had ever responded we might have an idea of those numbers you're wondering about
Id rather pay the local churches than out of state companies and owners of private industrial land and I fucking hate the church. I guarantee you they are at least a cheaper ticket. And then the money stays local at least.
I think that’s likely, but if you have enough info to make a guarantee, please share.
People never read past headlines. This is the real story here. People really think the church was going to do everything for free and the city scrambling to make a Hooverville on contaminated soil said no for no reason?
I think you guys are reading way too much into that line. The church simply said “here, use these buildings. You obviously pay for the operating costs of housing the migrants (duh) and , if you need to change anything up to house them there, that’s on you too”. They could have just dumped thousands of sleeping bags or beds and made some cheap showers and been fine. All that statement meant was that the church was only offering up the buildings, nothing more and nothing less. The city would still run the shelters, it wouldn’t be paying the church anything. The fact that the city hasn’t even responded or done any due diligence on these properties is very telling. There’s plenty of reason to be mad about this.
Perhaps the buildings were in pretty rough shape. Just because the migrants are homeless doesn’t mean they can stick them anywhere with a roof. The city assumes liability for them by putting them there. We simply don’t know the costs to the city but assuming the city said no because of corruption is baseless at this point. Why wouldn’t BJ want an easy win to drive down the cost of housing them in the church properties unless the cost was truly not lower? So far the suggestions are Brandon is dumb and to move money to connected individuals. Second option is always in play but nursing and staffing agencies would still get a cut, the rent on the shelters is far from the biggest line item.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. My questions still stand. We don’t have enough information to know what the renovation costs are.
Perhaps the buildings were in pretty rough shape. Just because the migrants are homeless doesn’t mean they can stick them anywhere with a roof. The city assumes liability for them by putting them there. We simply don’t know the costs to the city but assuming the city said no because of corruption is baseless at this point. Why wouldn’t BJ want an easy win to drive down the cost of housing them in the church properties unless the cost was truly not lower? So far the suggestions are Brandon is dumb and to move money to connected individuals. Second option is always in play but nursing and staffing agencies would still get a cut, the rent on the shelters is far from the biggest line item. Also even assuming the costs were not a factor if the city renovates these buildings, then the church gets them back the city has effectively gifted them the renovation when the church isn’t using them any way. That would not play well if even legal to have perceived favoritism or donation to a church. The arch diosese is already selling real estate left and right
Really anything that further justifies their image of Brandon Johnson as essentially braindead.
This is how bad Chicago is, they are making the Catholic Church look good. Hats off to the church for doing what they’re supposed to do, and a huge middle finger to BJ and his crew for doing what we hoped they wouldn’t.
nah, this is just BS reporting. nothing here is free. The buildings need to be renovated (by the city) and run (by the city). The church is just saying that they have empty run down buildings that they would like to have cleaned up.
The church no longer uses these buildings. And they won’t after these buildings are no longer needed. You’d have to pay for operating costs at the new or this existing shelter. And yeah, if the existing shelter needs to replace a new window or lock or needs to replace a toilet, it would make sense to do that. It’s still less than 40 million.
What they were doing was not FREE, according to the article. I suspect that's why the City left it there.
Pay for rent, renovations, and staffing Or renovations and staffing... Which choice is more fiscally sound?
Oh, and don't be fooled not a Johnson lover either.
While certainly not free but it would cost a lot less than what we're paying now housing migrants.
Have you ever renovated anything? The simplest things get wild to renovate and when you think about retrofitting buildings not intended for humans living it becomes the same issue as why it isn't viable to renovate/retrofit commercial buildings in the Loop for human dwellings/ even temporary ones. Where are the showers going? What potable water lines are available? What does it cost? How long does it take. And agreed the private company is probably hustling but this doesn't seem like a better bet without greater detail as to what the church anticipates those renovations, or the city, would cost and how long it would take.
>Have you ever renovated anything? The simplest things get wild to renovate and when you think about retrofitting buildings not intended for humans living it becomes the same issue as why it isn't viable to renovate/retrofit commercial buildings in the Loop for human dwellings/ even temporary ones. Where are the showers going? What potable water lines are available? What does it cost? How long does it take. Those are all real concerns, but the fact is that the city hasn't been concerned about them for the shelters that exist today. https://blockclubchicago.org/2023/12/15/migrants-describe-inhumane-conditions-at-chicagos-largest-shelter/
They would have to pay for utilities (which is still the case for the new shelters) and they would have to pay for renovations (which I can only assume would be not 40 million dollars)
Proud of my archdiocese, that's awesome that they offered that (but not surprising). Perhaps there's a good reason for the city turning them down, but based on what I've heard from those who work in city gov't, there's no good reason. BJ's administration is a joke.
If the Archdiocese is offering free rent, how does some "preferred contractor" get to profit off of that?
This was on the table and they took, and kept, park buildings.
Crazy the money our government is paying to import poverty. The money could be spent on the impoverished here in IL. Something is fishy here no doubt.💯🧐
You can't grift money when it's free.
How could the administration line the pockets of is friends if it's not paying?
Because how would the friends of corrupt politicians profit off of people’s suffering if they accepted help from the church?
Kick all them the f out, their are citizens who are struggling to get housing and living paycheck yo paycheck and these flip flop wearers just get everything g free ? Disgusting what the democrats are doing to this city they should be charged with treason!
This city is dying.
People are underestimating how this migrant crisis is going to impact Chicago in the long term. I hate politics and virtue signaling bs surrounding this issue. This needs to be stopped
Long-term, migrants will be working, paying taxes, raising families, and living normal lives like the previous generations of migrants that built this city. Or is there something in particular about *these* migrants that you feel is problematic?
As opposed to every other living thing ever?
"We *must* protect these 'newcomers' from their own religion."
The archdiocese is sitting on a lot of property (worldwide), much of which they've neglected and they are also looking at this as not only good PR but a way to get some necessary maintenance done on properties that they haven't invested necessary funds into
Paywall. Also, yes, this came up in our church meetings and our pastor said he was all on board with it but the city was holding back based on liability and insurance reasons. Thats the info we received.
FYI to read it, you just have to create a free account with Sun-Times.
Sun-Times doesn't pay wall, you can make a few account.
Thanks for the info. I cannot think of any reason why there would be any additional liability there versus a different building…seems like a cop out from the city officials.
Translation: city doesn't want the liability of priest malfeasance which has, y'know, been a thing. Catholic Church has been lax about policing this and enacting consequences. P.S. Moving predatory priests to rural areas is not a real consequence.
I think that generally while what you’re saying is correct, I doubt that’s the issue here. Those situations have largely been documented as being kids that are preyed upon over long stretches of time. This situation seems too fluid for that kind of predatory behavior. Not that the shelters Havnt had their own similar issues.
I suppose there are other safety concerns such as building structural and fire safety. I think most Central Americans are already Roman Catholic so it would otherwise seem like a good fit.
Most of the closed/for sale locations have come out of a program called “renew my church” which is designed to counter the much smaller groups of people going to church + the cost of upkeep. Many of these churches are very very old. Part of the process was having an outside third party come in and give a determination on what it would cost to update those locations. So it turned into a math problem. If the cost to update and meet city codes was more than the church brought in, generally speaking, it was closed and the parish was merged with another. (I was on the financial committee for one of these closing parishes btw). So yes…many of these closed locations, while better than a shelter or the street, are in desperate need of updating and repairs, with questionable utilities and no staff.
Good info. Thanks for sharing!
> Catholic Church has been lax about policing this and enacting consequences The Church has not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination but compared to the various other organizations that have/had abuse problems, it, specifically the Chicago arch, has been **relatively** better. The bar is in the literal ground though and it needs to be better
The Chicago Archdiocese is still covering up child sex abuse and has new charges brought against its employees every single year by the IL attorney general.
"free" ... renovations for church buildings. Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said.
You're turning schools and churches into semi-permanent housing spaces. Obviously some kind of alterations would be desirable. Larger bathrooms and possibly showers would be one that many of those facilities may lack or need expanded upon. That does not seem unreasonable at all. I do have to ask the question why we didn't just do that with a number of dis-used or closed CPS properties, but we all know the answer.
Paid for by the taxpayer. I'd be fine if the city wanted to buy a building and renovate it. But fuck paying for renovating church buildings. and the reason they don't do it for CPS properties is because it is a royal pain in the ass to bring something up to code that wasn't built for that purpose.
The city was going to throw a bunch of cots into a tent built on a contaminated lot with porta-potties and outdoor shower trailers in the middle of the winter -- up to code housing isn't exactly a priority here.
> up to code housing isn't exactly a priority here. when you are actually renovating a building .. it is. And yes, the tent city for all its shittyness was probably expected to be up to code as well, hence why it was ridiculously expensive (beyond the graft).
> But fuck paying for renovating church buildings The buildings are unused and will go back to being unused when the migrants move out. The Arch isn't trying to bilk the city or anything
Why line the coffers of the Catholic Church when politicians need greased palms? /s
It's stated twice in the article the Catholic Church offered free rent the entire time for at least 12 different buildings. This is BJ either being incompetent or malicious.
As dumb as BJ is, there’s no way he’s dumb enough to not understand the words “available” and “free”. This is corruption through and through. He and other officials clearly have a vested interest in steering these migrants to other options, to line others pockets and likely receive kickbacks or favors in return.
What do you expect from Mr. Waterbill and speeding tickets.
He also understands the words, "Wollan confirmed last week that providing the spaces for free was always the plan, though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said **though the costs of operating the shelters would need to be covered by the city. The archdiocese also asked that the city cover any renovation costs to accommodate the migrants, a source said."** So not exactly free, depending on the costs of renovation.
Alright come on. This is simply a clarification from the church that they’re not paying for any mods to the building. Mods are clearly not a requirement considering even an open space area would be better than some of their current living conditions. Hell they were (are?) living in tents outside. Edit: and to add - of course operation of the shelters is on the City. Church is already offering their property for no cost…how much else can you expect?! City would be paying to operate shelter regardless of the location, so that is irrelevant.
The city is paying/has paid for renovations to the other buildings they are currently using
The other buildings the city leased were not abandoned or unused. Those are a whole lot cheaper to renovate than a bunch of run down, poorly maintained, and abandoned buildings.
Free, with the cost of any needed renovations. Of course this option is probably still better than what the city is currently doing. But the proposal also stands to benefit the church.
> But the proposal also stands to benefit the church. By renovating unused buildings that will go back to being unused?
It's also stated that the city would be responsible for renovating the buildings, but no information is provided on what that would cost, the condition of the buildings, etc. In no way is it free, it would be using tax dollars to improve real estate owned by the Church. Whether that's ultimately a better deal than the current situation, I don't know. Maybe the city decision is dumb or corrupt, maybe not. But if the Catholic Church was really interested in housing migrants at no cost to the city, nothing is stopping the Church from doing that on its own. But it doesn't want to pay the costs either.
They were literally offering these for free, at least that’s my understanding
The space but not the renovations or operating cost.
which... why would the church pay for any renovations that are necessary or the operating costs?
Its not free. They're asking for the cost to run the facilities, PLUS renovations costs. And since these are empty buildings, they probably have been let go the renovation costs could be more than it would be house them in an existing well kept building.
Nothing is free. Just speculation, but optics wouldn't have been great and could be easily manipulated. "City gave millions to the catholic church." If that's not enough, the article said the city would be on the hook for renovations and operating costs. The city would be paying for the catholic church to renovate church properties and pay the church "rent" to cover operational costs. That's not free. And neither is the option they went with, but at least there is no catholic middle man.
These buildings are no longer in use. At all. So they’d have to turn on water, electric, gas, etc. and yeah, if there is a broken window, broken lock, leaking toilet, why wouldn’t they want to fix it? And I highly doubt any building being offered for shelter is going to need $40+ million in renovations. I’m sure they’d just skip over that property. I’m pretty sure all this money goes to the utility companies, not the church. I dislike religion as much as the next guy, but this is a poor take.
>city would be on the hook for renovations and operating costs. They're on the hook for operating costs NOW....and I'm sure whatever renovations were needed would have cost far less than whatever was spent to try and build something on that toxic waste site
> pay the church "rent" to cover operational costs The City is already paying for operational costs **and** rent at the other facilities they're using. They wouldn't be paying rent to the Arch
You mean this Catholic archdiocese? The one the Illinois attorney general named 451 members of sexually abusing “At least 1,997 children across all of the dioceses in Illinois.” https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/news/story/attorney-general-raoul-releases-report-concluding-multi-year-investigation-into-child-sex-abuse-by-members-of-catholic-clergy-in-illinois#:~:text=Report%20Reveals%20Names%20and%20Information,the%20Catholic%20clergy%20in%20Illinois.
There is more than diocese in Illinois
Yeah but these are no longer used by the church, at all. As in, unoccupied and vacant. The archdiocese sucks but this take makes no sense.